A Review of Different Aspects of Off-Earth Drilling
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Collation: in this stage, a comprehensive investigation was performed to realize the past and present advancements in the area of space drilling. To this end, a large number of previous and recent documents related to space drilling were collected to build the preliminary information. Such sources of information might be in the form of journal papers, conference papers, scientific reports, online videos, websites of different space agencies, catalogs of companies manufacturing space equipment, universities offering space drilling programs, etc.
- Classification: once adequate, preliminary information was collected, it was found that the documents can be sorted into four principal categories: drilling challenges, drilling applications, drilling mechanisms, and drilling tools. For instance, if a document, e.g., a journal paper, described the technical challenges of the drilling operations on the planetary bodies, it was classified in the “drilling challenges” category. Or, if a video on NASA’s website presented the versatility of a special rover, e.g., Perseverance, it was inserted in the “drilling applications” category.
- Expansion: after classification of each document in the four aforesaid categories, it was carefully studied to trace the history, background, previous applications, similar documents, citations, references, etc. In this way, a number of secondary, complementary documents (or publications) were gathered again to enlarge the initial extent of the preliminary information. The new documents were then studied, and similarly, if they were recognized useful, their background, references, and similar topics were traced to expand the number and domain of the related literature. This process was pursued until inclusive information related to each document was recorded.
- Concentration: once the four different categories were supported by sufficient documents and information, the key findings of each document were extracted, and mentioned in the paper. Consequently, the main body of this paper was written during this stage. From the acquired information, it was deduced that some research areas have been neglected or underestimated in the area of space drilling. An example was the hydraulic power systems which were not adopted for drilling purposes on the planetary bodies. Therefore, the utilization of drilling tools based on the hydraulic power systems was assessed and elaborated in this article. Development of the hydraulic power systems absolutely creates a paradigm shift in the off-Earth drilling operations.
2.1. Space Drilling Challenges
2.1.1. Environmental Challenges
- Atmosphere: due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, no fluid is applicable for cooling the bit, or providing the borehole stability during the drilling process. This is why that the bit hydraulics (bottom-hole cleaning) is not easy to implement on the lunar surface. Although the Martian atmosphere is slightly accessible, it is not adequate to positively address such issues related to the application of fluids.
- Gravity: the very low gravity on the Moon leads to the complexity of the drilling-related evaluations both on the surface and down-hole. On the Earth, such evaluations have been consolidated through decades of observations and investigations. More than this, the lack of gravity even exacerbates the situations on asteroids and comets.
- Temperature: surface temperature on the Moon can vary considerably during the nights and days. Such temperature shifts may intensely impair the key parts of the drilling tools. This is more problematic in the case of liquids or fluids.
- Magnetic field: to control the direction of drilling, only the gravitational measurements can be applied. The reason is that the magnetic field on the Moon is remarkably weaker compared to the Earth. Any change in the direction of drilling can affect the drilling, and the borehole stability [27].
- Borehole instability: on the Moon and Mars, the intensely fractured layers were formed as an outcome of the early meteorite impacts. This pattern continues probably below the target depth of 100 m [28,29,30], thereby leading to the challenges for exploratory missions in which the seismic waves and ground-penetrating radar signals are incorporated [31]. Another problem that arises from the extensive fracturing of the layers is uneven cooling of the lunar particles that may have influence on the internal stresses within the rock. As a result, this can impact all stages of the drilling process [32,33,34].
- Regolith abrasiveness: the lunar regolith particles are considerably sharper and more abrasive than their terrestrial counterparts. Thus, they can impose serious impacts, e.g., premature bit wear, on the drilling equipment.
- Regolith variable drill-ability: during drilling, the density of the lunar or Martian regolith increases gradually with the depth; in this condition, the drilling operation becomes more problematic as it encounters potential issues such as interlocking particles and cohesion build-up.
- Boulders: drilling bits are designed to drill a borehole with a distinctively small, limited diameter. However, during the drilling, the bit may encounter a piece of large rock (or boulder), leading to the failure of drilling equipment, or even, deviation from the preplanned trajectory. It is also worth mentioning that any deviation in the borehole path affects the borehole stability [35].
2.1.2. Technological Challenges
- Transportation: the drill design should satisfy the mass and volume restrictions which are intensely prohibitive. As a consequence, some applications cannot be deployed on planetary bodies. For instance, the chance of utilization of any drilling fluid for the seminal tasks such as bit cooling and cuttings removal dramatically reduces.
- Casing: common steel casings used in the oil and gas industry are not feasible to be transported to the planetary bodies since they are very heavy and bulky [36]. Thus, the type of material for any future casings should be considered as a crucial issue.
- Drilling power: as the fluid utilization is deadly limited on the space, the rover should supply its power from the solar resource; this puts a formidable constraint on the power budget of space drilling tools. To solve this issue, nuclear power sources are suggested to be applied. The reason is that they offer longer life and can be operated in harsh environments as well as their independence from location.
- Weight on the bit (WOB): the maximum force transmitted to the bit cannot exceed the weight of the whole drilling system. To maximize this force, the drill should be emplaced directly under the center of the rover; however, the drill is typically inserted on the side of the lander, hereby causing reduction of weight on the bit.
- Rotational speed: the optimum rotational speed should be evaluated with regard to the rock type and the bit material. The higher values of drilling speed increase the heat and bit wear while the lower ones bring about the bit fracture (because of the excessive vibration) [37].
2.2. Space Drilling Applications
2.2.1. Subsurface Sampling
2.2.2. Water Extraction
2.3. Extraterrestrial Structures
2.3.1. Surface Structures
2.3.2. Subsurface Structures
2.4. Hydraulic Power Systems
2.5. Drilling Machines
2.5.1. Surface Drills
- Low-Force Sample Acquisition System (LSAS): LSAS was a percussive drill machine capable to capture integral samples. This system was applicable for a wide variety of planetary rocks and frozen soils. Its main objective was to effectively reduce the mass, volume, and power needed for the drilling operation [93]. The drilling process was driven by a hammer which let the system collect a sample with the lowest amount of force.
- Mini-Corer: Mini-Corer or MC was designed and made by Honeybee Robotics to be a part of the Athena Science Payload. The MC system was made of a set of hardware which was able to be integrated on a rover or lander. The hardware included an MC drill mechanism with a number of actuators and sensors, MC drill bits and MC drill bit storage module.
- Coring and Abrading Tool (CAT): Honeybee Robotics designed and developed the CAT. To build CAT, the technology used for Rock Abrasive Tool (RAT) and MC were applied, and consequently, the CAT became a versatile instrument capable to brush, grind, drill, and collect cores from the planetary rocks.
- SENER Touch-and-Go Sampler: this was an instrument for collecting and storing granular regolith on the Martian moons including Deimos and Phobos. In 2008, the instrument was designed by SENER engineering company in Spain. To collect a sample, the instrument carried out a touch-and-go contact with the planet surface with an average speed of 0.5 m/s. hence, the sampling process was done by kinetic energy with repeating contacts and impulsive rebounds repeated up to four times [38].
- Honeybee Robotics Touch-and-Go Sampler: this sampling machine was designed to drill and collect poorly consolidated materials or regolith. It could also provide borehole stability when the cutter was penetrating into the planetary subsurface.
- Near-Earth Asteroid Sample Return: this machine had no biological danger and could take samples in one landing during only a few minutes. This tool was designed to collect samples and return them to the near-Earth satellites.
2.5.2. Shallow-Depth Drills
- CNSR Sample Acquisition System: this machine was designed to manufacture a simpler and stronger drilling system. Based on the drilling tests, a coring drill bit with polycrystalline diamond cutters was selected for this instrument. The core samples were 10 cm in diameter [94].
- Sample Acquisition and Preprocessing System (EBRC): EBRC was a good example of a core drilling and sampling system capable to drill with low power, low reaction forces, and with no lubricants or flushing fluids. This system included a 1 m class dry drill, 1 m sample capture system, a sample transfer system, and also a sample crusher.
- ATKs Segmented Coring Auger Drill (SCAD): ATK Space Systems Inc. developed the SCAD to support the future space missions on Mars and potentially comets. In such a drill tool, a pure auger technique was employed for cuttings removal.
- Sample Acquisition and Transfer Mechanism (SATM) Drill: this was a drilling tool with four axes that had sample preparation and handling systems as well as sample return containers. It was assembled to take rock samples from depths limited to 1.2 m.
- Rover-Based Deep Drill MicroRoSA: MicroRoSA was a well-set and movable automated drilling device which could drill the rock and take a sample down to 2 m.
- Construction and Resource Utilization Explorer Drill: this drilling machine was designed for investigations on the penetration mechanisms, bit geometry, and control algorithms in a variety of environmental conditions. Actually, the CRUX drill was designed to let pure rotary, rotary–percussive, or percussive drilling increase the drilling efficiency in a variety of materials such as regolith, rock, and ice.
- Subsurface Corer Sampling System: SCSS was a drilling tool to take samples from different depths. It was strongly applicable in exploratory works on the planetary bodies, comets, and asteroids. This low-power, rotary coring drill was capable to penetrate and take samples from the various rocks up to a depth of 1 m at different temperatures.
- Subsurface Telescoping Sampling System: STSS was capable to stow itself into a small adequate box fitted on an MER-class rover. The major parts of the drilling tool consisted of two telescoping stages.
2.5.3. Medium-Depth Drills
- Mars Astrobiology Research and Technology Experiment (MARTE): in 2005, the MARTE drill rig was designed by a group of engineers from NASA, Honeybee Robotics and Centro de Astrobiologia in Spain [95]. It was a rotary coring rig capable of autonomously capturing and delivering core samples from the depth up to 1 m. Moreover, for drilling in lower depths, it was capable to add drilling strings with a length of 1 m to reach the depth of 10 m. In other words, there was a need for nine additional drilling strings for drilling towards the depth of 10 m. The installment of additional drilling tubes was conducted automatically by the rig. There was also a special software designed to control the WOB and reduce the stalling of the drill axis [95].
- Drilling Automation for Mars Exploration (DAME): comparing to the MARTE system, the DAME machine was much more mobile, although the mechanical dimensions and the amount of needed power were similar for both systems. In DAME, a number of below- and above-ground sensors together with an intelligent control method were inserted to enable the system to find and resolve potential drilling problems.
- Subsurface Planetary Exploration Core Extracting System (SPECES) Drill: the SPECES machine was designed to provide an efficient approach providing a dry cuttings removal mechanism (without fluids), hole stabilization approach, single deeper hole method, and ongoing sample recovery. Cuttings-related issues were effectively tackled, and friction problems were reduced by applying a BHA and an independent coaxial sample container mechanism. Moreover, clogging problems at the rock-bit interface were addressed, and power consumption was also reduced via special dry drilling coring bits with thinner walls [96]. The novel system also considerably reduced the operational time and the risk of borehole instability.
- Ultrasonic/Sonic Gopher: the USDC system was applied to develop a gopher (wireline drill) that could collect coring samples using a bit whose diameter was larger than the USDC actuator [97].
2.5.4. Large-Depth Drills
- Subsurface Explorer (SUBEX): SUBEX was a robotic mole which was able to penetrate hundreds of meters below the surface despite its small volume, mass, and low power consumption. The first SUBEX prototype which was named a Ground Mole Demonstrator (GMD) could drill a hole up to a depth of 100 m [98,99].
- Deep Drill of Mars/Arctic: this was a low-mass and low-power planetary drilling system based on the dry rotary coring wireline. It was capable to successfully penetrate into the formations with low power, mass and volume.
- Autonomous Tethered Corer: The Autonomous Tethered Corer (ATC) was a drilling system to collect different samples from depths below 200 m [100]. ATC operated via an inch-worm type of motion in which the anchoring module extended to clamp against the borehole wall.
- Inchworm Deep Drilling System (IDDS): the IDDS enjoyed the novel technology to access the subsurface layers deeper than 100 m on the various planetary bodies. It was a low-mass, compact system to perform cuttings removal and in-situ analysis.
- Modular Planetary Drill System (MPDS): the MPDS project was designed to develop a dry drilling system with the capability to reach a depth of at least 20 m. MPDS used an advanced BHA, sample capture system, and rotational and vertical drive mechanisms that are able to operate in tough planetary situations. This BHA was able to drill ice, frozen soil, and basalt with a minor degree of wear.
3. Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Magnani, P.G.; Re, E.; Senese, S.; Cherubini, G.; Olivieri, A. Different drill tool concepts. Acta Astronaut. 2006, 59, 1014–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zacny, K.; Bar-Cohen, Y.; Brennan, M.; Briggs, G.; Cooper, G.; Davis, K.; Dolgin, B.; Glaser, D.; Glass, B.; Gorevan, G.; et al. Drilling systems for extraterrestrial subsurface exploration. Astrobiology 2008, 8, 665–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Francesconi, P.; Di Lizia, P.; Malnati, F.; Bernelli-Zazzera, F.; Ercoli-Finzi, A. Sampler, drill and distribution system for cometary soil analysis. In Proceedings of the European Planetary Science Congress, Rome, Italy, 19–24 September 2010; pp. 101–102. [Google Scholar]
- Ercoli, A.; Bernelli Zazzera, F.; Dainese, C.; Malnati, F.U.; Magnani, P.G.; Re, E.; Bologna, P.; Espinasse, S.; Olivieri, A. SD2–How to sample a comet. Space Sci. Rev. 2007, 128, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boehnhardt, B.; Bibring, J.P.; Apathy, I.; Auster, H.U.; Finzi, A.E.; Goesmann, F.; Klingelhöfer, G.; Knapmeyer, M.; Kofman, W.; Krüger, H.; et al. The Philae lander mission and science overview. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. 2017, 375, 20160248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Armellin, R.; Di Lizia, P.; Crepaldi, M.; Bernelli-Zazzera, F.; Finzi, A.E. Scientific use of the sampler, drill and distribution subsystem (SD2). JBIS 2014, 67, 426–433. [Google Scholar]
- Di Lizia, P.; Bernelli Zazzera, F.; Ercoli Finzi, A. Rosetta Philae sampling drilling and distribution subsystem: Operation and results from the first on-comet phase. In Proceedings of the 66th International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, 12–16 October 2015; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Beegle, L.W.; Anderson, R.C.; Hurowitz, J.A.; Jandura, L.; Limonadi, D. An overview of the mars science laboratory sample acquisition, sample processing and handling system. In Proceedings of the 12th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments and Fourth NASA/ARO/ASCE Workshop on Granular Materials in Lunar and Martian Exploratio, Honolulu, HI, USA, 14–17 March 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Grotzinger, J.P.; Crisp, J.; Vasavada, A.R.; Anderson, R.C.; Baker, C.J.; Barry, R.; Blake, D.F.; Conrad, P.; Edgett, K.S.; Ferdowski, B. Mars Science Laboratory mission and science investigation. Space Sci. Rev. 2012, 170, 5–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, R.C.; Jandura, L.; Okon, A.; Sunshine, D.; Roumeliotis, C.; Beegle, L.; Hurowitz, J.; Kennedy, B.; Limonadi, D.; McCloskey, S. Collecting samples in Gale Crater, Mars; an overview of the Mars Science Laboratory sample acquisition, sample processing and handling system. Space Sci. Rev. 2012, 17, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zacny, K.; Chu, P.; Davis, K.; Paulsen, G.; Craft, J. Mars2020 sample acquisition and caching technologies and architectures. In Proceedings of the Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 19 March 2014; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pla-García, J.; Rafkin, S.C.R.; Martinez, G.M.; Vicente-Retortillo, Á.; Newman, C.E.; Savijärvi, H.; de la Torre, M.; Rodriguez-Manfredi, J.A.; Gómez, F.; Molina, A.; et al. Meteorological Predictions for Mars2020 Perseverance Rover Landing Site at Jezero Crater. Space Sci. Rev. 2020, 216, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maki, J.N.; Gruel, D.; McKinney, C.; Ravine, M.A.; Morales, M.; Lee, D.; Willson, R.; Copley-Woods, D.; Valvo, M.; Goodsall, T.; et al. The Mars2020 engineering cameras and microphone on the perseverance rover: A next-generation imaging system for Mars exploration. Space Sci. Rev. 2020, 216, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnani, P.; Fumagalli, A.; Senese, S.; Ori, G.G.; Gily, A.; Baglioni, P. Testing of ExoMars EM drill tool in Mars analogous materials. In Proceedings of the ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherland, 12–14 April 2011; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Bost, N.; Ramboz, C.; Lebreton, N.; Foucher, F.; Lopez-Reyes, G.; De Angelis, S.; Josset, M.; Venegas, G.; Sanz-Arranz, A.; Rull, F.; et al. Testing the ability of the ExoMars 2018 payload to document geological context and potential habitability on Mars, Planet. Space Sci. 2015, 108, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Space Agency (ESA). Exomars Rover Rosalind Franklin. Available online: https://exploration.esa.int/web/mars/-/45084-exomars-rover (accessed on 12 March 2020).
- Ding, X.; Li, K.; Yin, Z. Multi-rod deep driller for lunar subsurface sampling. J. Astronaut. 2009, 30, 190–195. [Google Scholar]
- Pang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Li, X. Design and analysis of automatic drilling sampling mechanism for lunar exploration. CASC 2012, 6, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Ding, X.; Zhang, W.; Chu, C.; Wang, K. Design of a multi-function minor planet soil sampler. J. Mech. Eng. 2015, 51, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawaguchi, J.; Fujiwara, A.; Uesugi, T. Hayabusa–Its technology and science accomplishment summary and Hayabusa-2. Acta Astronaut. 2008, 62, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yada, T.; Fujimura, A.; Abe, M.; Nakamura, T.; Noguchi, T.; Okazaki, R.; Nagao, K.; Ishibashi, Y.; Shirai, K.; Zolensky, M.E.; et al. Hayabusa-returned sample curation in the planetary material sample curation facility of JAXA. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2014, 49, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Zhang, W.; Wang, K.; Gao, S.; Hou, L.; Ji, J.; Ding, X. Drilling, sampling, and sample-handling system for China’s asteroid exploration mission. Acta Astronaut. 2017, 137, 192–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bar-Cohen, Y.; Sherrit, S.; Dolgin, B.P.; Bao, X.; Chang, Z.; Pal, D.S.; Krahe, R.; Kroh, J.; Du, S.; Peterson, T. Ultrasonic/sonic drilling/coring (USDC) for planetary applications. In Proceedings of the SPIE’s 8th Annual International Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, Newport Beach, CA, USA, 4 March 2001; pp. 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korepanov, A. Hydraulics and Pneumatic in Space. Available online: https://prezi.com/e_cpfcxmk4v5/hydraulics-and-pneumatic-in-space/ (accessed on 21 February 2013).
- Parikh, D. Hydraulics in Space. Available online: https://www.engineeringclicks.com/hydraulics-in-space/ (accessed on 13 May 2017).
- Indian National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL). Syllabus of Mechanical Engineering: Lecture 1: Introduction to Hydraulics and Pneumatics. Available online: https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/courses/112106175/Module%201/Lecture%201.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2011).
- Zamani, M.A.M.; Knez, D. A new mechanical-hydrodynamic safety factor index for sand production prediction. Energies 2021, 14, 3130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, W.K. Ancient Lunar Mega-Regolith and Subsurface Structure. Icarus 1973, 18, 634–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcox, B.B.; Robinson, M.S.; Thomas, P.C.; Hawke, B.R. Constraints on the Depth and Variability of the Lunar Regolith. Met. Plan. Sci. 2005, 40, 695–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, W.B. Failure of Inclined Boreholes. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1979, 101, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fa, W. Simulation for Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Study of the Subsurface Structure of the Moon. Appl. Geophys. 2013, 99, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knez, D.; Mazur, S. Simulation of Fracture Conductivity Changes due to Proppant Composition and Stress Cycles. J. Pol. Miner. Eng. Soc. 2019, 2, 231–234. [Google Scholar]
- Lore, J.; Gao, H.; Aydin, A. Viscoelastic Thermal Stress in Cooling Basalt Flows. JGR 2000, 105, 23695–23709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajaoalison, H.; Knez, D.; Zlotkowski, A. Changes of Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Brine-Saturated Istebna Sandstone under Action of Temperature and Stress. Przemysł Chem. 2019, 98, 801–804. Available online: https://sigma-not.pl/publikacja-120236-2019-5.html (accessed on 22 May 2019).
- Knez, D. Stress State Analysis in Aspect of Wellbore Drilling Direction. J. Arch. Min. Sci. 2014, 59, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rahmann, S.S.; Chilingarian, G.V. Casing Design: Theory and Practice, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; ISBN 9780080528601. [Google Scholar]
- Zacny, K.; Cooper, G. Investigation of the performance of a coring bit in frozen mud under Martian conditions of low temperature and pressure. JGR 2005, 110, 1–8. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JE002341/ful (accessed on 7 April 2005). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bar-Cohen, Y.; Zacny, K. Drilling in Extreme Environments: Penetration and Sampling on Earth and Other Planets; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; ISBN 9783527626632/3527626638. [Google Scholar]
- Seweryn, K.; Skocki, K.; Banaszkiewicz, M.; Grygorczuk, J.; Kolano, M.; Kuciński, T.; Mazurek, J.; Morawski, M.; Białek, A.; Rickman, H.; et al. Determining the geotechnical properties of planetary regolith using Low Velocity Penetrometers. Planet. Space Sci. 2014, 99, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffe, L.D. Surface structure and mechanical properties of the Lunar maria. JGR 1967, 72, 1727–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordmeyer, E.F. Lunar Surface Mechanical Properties Derived from Track Left by Nine Meter Boulder; MSC Internal Note No. 67–TH; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, H.J. Estimates of the Mechanical Properties of Lunar Surface Using Tracks and Secondary Impact Craters Produced by Blocks and Boulders; US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey: Herndon, VA, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, R.F.; Roberson, F.I. Soil Mechanics Surface Sampler: Lunar surface tests, results, and analyses. JGR 1968, 73, 4045–4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costes, N.C.; Cohron, G.T.; Moss, D.C. Cone penetration resistance test-an approach to evaluating the in-place strength and packing characteristics of lunar soils. In Proceedings of the 2nd Lunar Science Conference, Montgomery, AL, USA, 31 March 1971; pp. 1973–1987. [Google Scholar]
- Costes, N.C.; Carrier, W.D.; Mitchell, J.K.; Scott, R.F. Apollo 11: Soil mechanics results. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1970, 96, 2045–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonovich, A.K.; Gromov, V.V. Physical and mechanical properties of lunar soil sample in nitrogen medium: Research results. Lunnyi Grunt iz Morya Izobiliya 1974, 5, 563–570. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, J.K.; Bromwell, L.G.; Carrier, W.D., III; Costes, N.C.; Scott, R.F. Soil Mechanics Experiment, Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1971; pp. 87–108. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, J.K.; Carrier, W.D.; Houston, W.N.; Scott, R.F.; Bromwell, L.G.; Durgunoglu, H.T.; Hovland, H.J.; Treadwell, D.D.; Costes, N.C. Soil Mechanics, Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report; NASA SP-315; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1972; Volume 8, pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, H.J.; Clow, G.D.; Hutton, R.E. A summary of Viking sample-trench analyses for angles of internal friction and cohesions. J. Geophys. Res. 1982, 87, 10043–10050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, H.J.; Jakosky, B.M. Viking landing sites, remote-sensing observations, and physical properties of Martian surface materials. Icarus 1989, 81, 164–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, H.J.; Bickler, D.B.; Crisp, J.A.; Eisen, H.J.; Gensler, J.A.; Haldemann, A.F.; Matijevic, J.R.; Reid, L.K.; Pavlics, F. Soil-like deposits observed by Sojourner, the Pathfinder rover. J. Geophys. Res. 1999, 104, 8729–8746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khalilidermani, M.; Knez, D.; Zamani, M.A.M. Empirical Correlations between the Hydraulic Properties Obtained from the Geoelectrical Methods and Water Well Data of Arak Aquifer. Energies 2021, 14, 5415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colaprete, A.; Schultz, P.; Heldmann, J.; Wooden, D.; Shirley, M.; Ennico, K.; Hermalyn, B.; Marshall, W.; Ricco, A.; Elphic, R.C.; et al. Detection of water in the LCROSS ejecta plume. Science 2010, 330, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gladstone, G.R.; Hurley, D.M.; Retherford, K.D.; Feldman, P.D.; Pryor, W.R.; Chaufray, J.Y.; Versteeg, M.; Greathouse, T.K.; Steffl, A.J.; Throop, H.; et al. LRO-LAMP observations of the LCROSS impact plume. Science 2010, 330, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spudis, P.D.; Bussey, D.B.J.; Baloga, S.M.; Cahill, J.T.S.; Glaze, L.S.; Patterson, G.W.; Raney, R.K.; Thompson, T.W.; Thomson, B.J.; Ustinov, E.A. Evidence of water ice on the moon: Results for anomalous polar craters from the LRO mini-RF imaging radar. JGR Planets 2013, 118, 2016–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornuta, D.; Abbud-Madrid, A.; Atkinson, J.; Barr, J.; Barnhard, G.; Bienhoff, D.; Blair, B.; Clark, V.; Cyrus, J.; DeWitt, B.; et al. Commercial lunar propellant architecture: A collaborative study of lunar propellant production. Reach 2019, 13, 100026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bannova, O.; Bell, L. Radiation shielding design strategies for lunar minimal functionality habitability element. Acta Astronaut. 2010, 67, 1103–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boynton, W.V.; Feldman, W.C.; Squyres, S.W.; Prettyman, T.H.; Brückner, J.; Evans, L.G.; Reedy, R.C.; Starr, R.; Arnold, J.R.; Drake, D.M.; et al. Distribution of Hydrogen in the Near Surface of Mars: Evidence for Subsurface Ice Deposits. Science 2002, 297, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitrofanov, I.; Anfimov, D. Maps of Subsurface Hydrogen from the High Energy Neutron Detector, Mars Odyssey. Science 2002, 297, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herkenhoff, K.E.; Squyres, S.W.; Arvidson, R.; Bass, D.S.; Bell, J.F.; Bertelsen, P.; Ehlmann, B.L.; Farrand, W.; Gaddis, L.; Greeley, R.; et al. Evidence from Opportunity’s Microscopic Imager for Water on Meridiani Planum. Science 2004, 306, 1727–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Squyres, S.W.; Knoll, A.H.; Arvidson, R.E.; Clark, B.C.; Grotzinger, J.P.; Jolliff, B.L.; McLennan, S.M.; Tosca, N.; Bell, J.F.; Calvin, W.M.; et al. Two Years at Meridiani Planum: Results from the Opportunity Rover. Science 2006, 313, 1403–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, P.H.; Tamppari, L.K.; Arvidson, R.E.; Bass, D.; Blaney, D.; Boynton, W.V.; Carswell, A.; Catling, D.C.; Clark, B.C.; Duck, T.; et al. H2O at the Phoenix Landing Site. Science 2009, 325, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ettouney, M.M.; Benaroya, H. Regolith Mechanics, Dynamics, and Foundations. J. Aerosp. Eng. 1992, 5, 214–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalapodis, K.; Kampas, G.; Ktenidou, O.J. A review towards the design of extraterrestrial structures: From regolith to human outposts. Acta Astronaut. 2020, 175, 540–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klosky, J.L.; Sture, S.; Barnes, F. Helical Anchors for Combined Anchoring and Soil Testing in Lunar Operations. In Proceedings of the Sixth ASCE Specialty Conference and Exposition on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 26–30 April 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halperin, A.H.; Sedwick, R. Anchoring thermal drills for icy moon stability and mobility. Planet. Space Sci. 2020, 189, 104967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garry, J.; Wright, I. Coring experiments with cryogenic water and carbon dioxide ices-toward planetary surface operations. Planet. Space Sci. 2004, 52, 823–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, K.; Eldar, N.; Zuniga, A.; Rios Romero, D.; Kor, C.; Kelkar, N. Anchoring Device for Regolith Design and Development. Available online: https://commons.erau.edu/discovery-day/db-discovery-day-2016/Poster-Session-One/1/ (accessed on 25 April 2016).
- Sheshpari, M.; Fujii, Y.; Tani, Y. Underground structures in Mars excavated by tunneling methods for sheltering humans. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2017, 64, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knez, D.; Zamani, M.A.M. Empirical Formula for Dynamic Biot Coefficient of Sandstone Samples from South-West of Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 5514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knez, D.; Rajaoalison, H. Discrepancy between Measured Dynamic Poroelastic Parameters and Predicted Values from Wyllie’s Equation for Water-Saturated Istebna Sandstone. Acta Geophys. 2021, 69, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quosay, A.A.; Knez, D.; Ziaja, J. Hydraulic Fracturing: New Uncertainty Based Modelling Approach for Process Design Using Monte Carlo Simulation Technique. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0236726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quosay, A.A.; Knez, D. Sensitivity Analysis on Fracturing Pressure using Monte Carlo Simulation Technique. Oil Gas Eur. Mag. 2016, 42, 140–144. [Google Scholar]
- Carr, M.H.; Baum, W.A.; Blasius, K.R.; Briggs, G.A.; Cutts, J.A.; Duxbury, T.C.; Greeley, R.; Guest, J.; Masursky, H.; Smith, B.A.; et al. Viking Orbiter Views of Mars, Volcanic Features. Available online: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-441/ch5.htm (accessed on 9 May 1980).
- Schubert, G.; Lingenfelter, R.E.; Peale, S.J. The morphology, distribution, and origin of lunar sinuous rilles. Rev. Geophys. 1970, 8, 199–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cushing, G.; Titus, T.; Wynne, J.J.; Christensen, P.R. THEMIS observes possible cave skylights on Mars. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fogg, M.J. The utility of geothermal energy on Mars. J. Br. Int. Soc. 1997, 50, 34–35. [Google Scholar]
- Fuller, E.R.; Head, J.W. Amazonis Planitia: The role of geologically recent volcanism and sedimentation in the formation of the smoothest plains on Mars. JGR Planets 2002, 107, 11-1–11-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knez, D.; Calicki, A. Looking for a New Source of Natural Proppants in Poland. J. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2018, 66, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knez, D.; Wiśniowski, R.; Owusu, W.A. Turning Filling Material into Proppant for Coalbed Methane in Poland-Crush test results. Energies 2019, 12, 1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kozicka, J. Low-cost solutions for Martian base. Adv Space Res. 2008, 41, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bieniawski, Z.T. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civ. Eng. 1973, 12, 335–344. [Google Scholar]
- Podnieks, E.R.; Siekmeier, J.A. Lunar surface mining equipment study. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space III, Denver, CO, USA, 31 May–4 June 1992; pp. 1104–1115. [Google Scholar]
- Nakayama, Y. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-0-08-102437-9. [Google Scholar]
- Hydraulics & Pneumatics. The Saturn 5 Fueldraulic Gimbal System. Available online: https://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/technologies/hydraulic-fluids/article/21887406/the-saturn-v-fueldraulic-gimbal-system (accessed on 14 July 2017).
- Bal Seal Engineering Company. Sealing for Improved Aviation, Space, and Defense Equipment Performance. Available online: https://www.balseal.com/slideshare-sealing-for-improved-aviation-space-and-defense-equipment-performance/ (accessed on 4 March 2016).
- Delgado, I.R.; Handschuh, M.J. Preliminary assessment of seals for dust mitigation of mechanical components for lunar surface systems. In Proceedings of the 40th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, NASA Kennedy Space Center, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–14 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Satish, H.; Radziszewski, P.; Ouellet, J. Design issues and challenges in lunar/Martian mining applications. Min. Technol. 2005, 114, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutrick, M. Eaton Hydraulic Pump Powers Historic Space Flight. Available online: https://www.eaton.com/Eaton/OurCompany/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/PCT_1629320 (accessed on 14 February 2016).
- Zacny, K.; Mueller, R.; Galloway, G.; Craft, J.; Mungas, G.; Hedlund, M.; Chu, P.; Wilson, J.; Fink, P. Novel Approaches to Drilling and Excavation on the Moon. In Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, CA, USA, 14–17 September 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, K.N.; Tummala Prudhvi, P.; Sai, V.G.V.; Chakarvarthi, K.K. Design of a Hydraulic Rover for Different Planet Terrains. IJPAM 2018, 119, 123–149. [Google Scholar]
- Manoharrao, S.A.; Jamgekar, R.S. Analysis and Optimization of Hydraulic Scissor Lift. IJEDR 2016, 4, 329–347. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, S.; Dougherty, S.; Laramee, J. The Low-force Sample Acquisition System. In Proceedings of the NASA Science Technology Conference, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 15 June 2007; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Coste, P.A.; Fenzi, M.; Eiden, M. A system for the challenging task of collecting samples from a comet surface. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized by the European Space Agency (5th ESMATS), Noordwijk, The Netherland, 28–30 October 1992; pp. 137–142. [Google Scholar]
- Paulsen, G.; Zacny, K.; Chu, P.; Mumm, E.; Davis, K.; Frader, S.T.; Petrich, K.; Glaser, D.; Bartlett, P.; Cannon, H.; et al. Robotic drill systems for planetary exploration. In Proceedings of the AIAA Space, San Jose, CA, USA, 19–21 September 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerrero, J.L.; Reiter, J.W.; Rumann, A.; Wu, D.; Wang, G.Y.; Meyers, M.; Craig, J.; Abbey, W.; Beegle, L.W. Robotic drilling technology and applications to future space missions. In Proceedings of the 2006 American Geophysical Union Conference, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA, 11–15 December 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Badescu, M.; Sherrit, S.; Olorunsola, A.; Aldrich, J.; Bao, X.; Bar-Cohen, Y.; Chang, Z.; Doran, P.T.; Fritsen, C.H.; Kenig, F.; et al. Ultrasonic/sonic gopher for subsurface ice and brine sampling: Analysis and fabrication challenges, and testing results. In Proceedings of the SPIE Smart Structures and Materials Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA, 27 February–2 March 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campaci, R.; Debei, S.; Finotello, R.; Parzianello, G.; Bettanini, C.; Giacometti, M.; Rossi, G.; Visentin, G.; Zaccariotto, M. Design and optimization of a terrestrial guided mole for deep subsoil exploration-boring performance experimental analyses. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation in Space, Munich, Germany, 5–8 September 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Zaccariotto, M.; Debei, S.; Bettanini, C.; Parzianello, G.; Giacometti, M.; Finotello, R.; Campaci, R.; Rossi, G.; Visentin, G. Autonomous robot for subsoil exploration: GMD system development and integration. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Exploring Mars and its Earth Analogues, Trento, Italy, 18–22 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Brennan, M.; Cotten, S.; Dolgin, B.; Goldstein, B.; Hill, J.; Roberts, D.; Shenhar, J. Mars lander based 1000m class drill. In Proceedings of the European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
Year | Mission | C (Pa) | φ (°) | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
1966 | Surveyor 1 | 150–15,000 | 55 | [40] |
1966 | Lunar Orbiter | 350 | 33 | [41] |
1966 | Lunar Orbiter | 100 | 10–30 | [42] |
1967 | Surveyor 3 and 6 | 350–700 | 35–37 | [43] |
1969 | Apollo 11 | 800–2100 | 37–45 | [44] |
1969 | Apollo 11 | 300–1400 | 35–45 | [45] |
1969 | Apollo 12 | 600–800 | 38–44 | [44] |
1970 | Luna 16 | 5100 | 25 | [46] |
1971 | Apollo 14 | Less than 30–300 | 35–45 | [47] |
1971 | Apollo 15 | - | 49 | [48] |
Year | Mission | C (Pa) | φ (°) | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
1975 | Viking 1 | 1600 ± 1200 0–3700 | 18 ± 2.4 | [49,50] |
1975 | Viking 1 | 5100 ± 2700 2200–10,600 | 30.8 ± 2.4 | [49,50] |
1975 | Viking 1 and 2 | 1000–10,000 | 40–60 | [49,50] |
1975 | Viking 2 | 1100 ± 800 0–3200 | 34.5 ± 4.7 | [49,50] |
1997 | Mars Pathfinder | 3400–5700 1800–5300 | 31.4–42.2 15.1–33.1 | [51] |
Planet | Flow Rate (m3/s) × 10−3 | Pressure (kPa) | Hydraulic Power (kW) |
---|---|---|---|
Earth | 2.381 | 33.54 | 79.85 |
Moon | 2.381 | 5.54 | 13.2 |
Mars | 2.381 | 12.69 | 30.21 |
Venus | 2.381 | 30.19 | 71.86 |
Jupiter | 2.381 | 79.16 | 188.45 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Knez, D.; Khalilidermani, M. A Review of Different Aspects of Off-Earth Drilling. Energies 2021, 14, 7351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217351
Knez D, Khalilidermani M. A Review of Different Aspects of Off-Earth Drilling. Energies. 2021; 14(21):7351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217351
Chicago/Turabian StyleKnez, Dariusz, and Mitra Khalilidermani. 2021. "A Review of Different Aspects of Off-Earth Drilling" Energies 14, no. 21: 7351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217351
APA StyleKnez, D., & Khalilidermani, M. (2021). A Review of Different Aspects of Off-Earth Drilling. Energies, 14(21), 7351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217351