pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.20529 · v3 · pith:SZEZGUCWnew · submitted 2026-01-28 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.MA

A Practical Framework of Key Performance Indicators for Multi-Robot Lunar and Planetary Field Tests

Julia Richter , David Oberacker , Gabriela Ligeza , Valentin T. Bickel , Philip Arm , William Talbot , Marvin Grosse Besselmann , Florian Kehl
show 5 more authors
Tristan Schnell Hendrik Kolvenbach R\"udiger Dillmann Arne Roennau Marco Hutter
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.MA
keywords key performance indicatorsmulti-robot systemslunar explorationplanetary field testsanalog missionsrobotic prospectingperformance evaluationresource exploration
0
0 comments X

The pith

A KPI framework derived from three realistic multi-robot lunar scenarios links robot performance to science objectives and enables consistent trial comparisons.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Multi-robot field trials for lunar resource prospecting are hard to compare because teams use different robots, setups, and custom engineering metrics that do not clearly tie results to scientific goals. The paper derives a structured set of key performance indicators from three realistic multi-robot lunar scenarios that reflect actual prospecting objectives and operational limits such as terrain and environment. The framework organizes these indicators around scenario-specific priorities in efficiency, robustness, and precision and is built for direct use in outdoor deployments. Field validation showed the indicators work readily for efficiency and robustness measures, while precision ones depend on ground-truth data that is often unavailable in analog settings. If adopted, the framework would let different teams evaluate and improve their systems against the same science-linked yardsticks.

Core claim

The authors establish a practical framework of key performance indicators by starting from three realistic multi-robot lunar scenarios that incorporate scientific objectives like resource prospecting and operational constraints such as harsh terrain. This framework organizes KPIs around scenario-dependent emphases on efficiency, robustness, and precision, making it directly applicable to field tests. Validation in an actual multi-robot deployment showed that efficiency and robustness indicators are straightforward to measure, while precision ones depend on reliable ground-truth information not always available in analog environments. The result is presented as a common standard to make cross

What carries the argument

The KPI framework structured around scenario-dependent priorities in efficiency, robustness, and precision and derived from three realistic multi-robot lunar prospecting scenarios.

If this is right

  • Enables consistent, goal-oriented comparison of multi-robot field trials across different teams and platforms.
  • Supports systematic development of robotic systems for future planetary exploration by tying metrics to science objectives.
  • Shows that efficiency- and robustness-related KPIs can be measured practically in outdoor analog environments.
  • Indicates that precision-oriented KPIs require reliable ground-truth data that is not always feasible to obtain in field settings.
  • Provides a ready-to-use evaluation tool explicitly designed for practical applicability in deployments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If widely adopted, the framework could reduce redundant metric design across research groups and speed up creation of shared benchmarks for lunar robotics.
  • Extending the underlying scenarios to cover additional terrains or resource types could increase the framework's coverage for varied mission profiles.
  • Pairing the KPIs with onboard sensor logging might lessen reliance on external ground-truth collection for precision measures.
  • Comparable KPI structures could be developed for single-robot operations or mixed human-robot teams in similar exploration contexts.

Load-bearing premise

The three realistic multi-robot lunar scenarios used to derive the KPIs accurately capture the scientific objectives and operational constraints of actual planetary prospecting missions.

What would settle it

Apply the framework and the original custom metrics to the same set of independent multi-robot field tests on lunar analogs and check whether the framework produces more consistent, science-aligned comparisons across trials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20529 by Arne Roennau, David Oberacker, Florian Kehl, Gabriela Ligeza, Hendrik Kolvenbach, Julia Richter, Marco Hutter, Marvin Grosse Besselmann, Philip Arm, R\"udiger Dillmann, Tristan Schnell, Valentin T. Bickel, William Talbot.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scenario 1 (Ilmenite). (a) LROC (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) low-incidence image mosaic with landing zone (LZ), preliminary prospect￾ing grid (white), and elevation transect (orange, red, blue, purple). (b) Elevation profile along the transect. (c–f) Selected orbital maps showcasing thermophysical, topographic, and compositional properties, with the LZ indicated by a white circle. plains to steep crater … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: General timeline of the mission concept, indicating relevant KPI focus for each phase. mission scenarios based on the ESA Space Resource Strategy [1]. The selection of instruments for the missions proposed in this chapter is based on the work of Ligeza et al. [33]. A. Lunar Mission Design We base all scenarios on a three-phase exploration strategy inspired by prior work, including the ARCHES campaign [10] … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scenario 2 (KREEP). (a) LROC low-incidence image mosaic with landing zone (LZ), preliminary prospecting grid (white), and elevation transect (blue, red, orange). (b) Elevation profile along the transect. (c–f) Selected orbital maps showcasing thermophysical, topographic, and compo￾sitional properties, with the LZ indicated by a white circle. where boulders and topographic undulations obstruct the signal. T… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Robotic prospecting for critical resources on the Moon, such as ilmenite, rare earth elements, and water ice, requires robust exploration methods given the diverse terrain and harsh environmental conditions. Although numerous analog field trials address these goals, comparing their results remains challenging because of differences in robot platforms and experimental setups. These missions typically assess performance using selected, scenario-specific engineering metrics that fail to establish a clear link between field performance and science-driven objectives. In this paper, we address this gap by deriving a structured framework of KPI from three realistic multi-robot lunar scenarios reflecting scientific objectives and operational constraints. Our framework emphasizes scenario-dependent priorities in efficiency, robustness, and precision, and is explicitly designed for practical applicability in field deployments. We validated the framework in a multi-robot field test and found it practical and easy to apply for efficiency- and robustness-related KPI, whereas precision-oriented KPI require reliable ground-truth data that is not always feasible to obtain in outdoor analog environments. Overall, we propose this framework as a common evaluation standard enabling consistent, goal-oriented comparison of multi-robot field trials and supporting systematic development of robotic systems for future planetary exploration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper derives a structured KPI framework for multi-robot lunar and planetary field tests from three realistic scenarios, emphasizing scenario-dependent priorities among efficiency, robustness, and precision. The framework is validated in one outdoor multi-robot field test, with explicit discussion that efficiency and robustness KPIs are practical to apply while precision KPIs require ground-truth data that is often unavailable in analog environments. The authors propose the framework as a common evaluation standard to enable consistent, goal-oriented comparisons across trials and support systematic robotic system development.

Significance. If the framework transfers beyond the source scenarios, it would provide a valuable bridge between engineering metrics and science-driven objectives in planetary robotics, addressing a real gap in comparing heterogeneous multi-robot analog missions. The explicit acknowledgment of practical limitations (e.g., ground-truth requirements) and the derivation from stated operational constraints are strengths that increase the work's utility for field deployments.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and concluding section] Abstract and concluding section: The central claim that the framework 'enables consistent, goal-oriented comparison of multi-robot field trials' as a common evaluation standard is load-bearing but only partially supported. The derivation is from three scenarios and validation occurs in a single author-conducted test; no retrospective application to independent published multi-robot analog trials (e.g., prior NASA or ESA efforts) is shown to confirm that the same KPI definitions yield comparable results across differing platforms and setups.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Framework description] The manuscript would benefit from a table summarizing the full KPI set with explicit formulas or measurement procedures for each category to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and for recognizing the framework's potential to bridge engineering metrics with science objectives. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the framework 'enables consistent, goal-oriented comparison of multi-robot field trials' as a common evaluation standard is load-bearing but only partially supported. The derivation is from three scenarios and validation occurs in a single author-conducted test; no retrospective application to independent published multi-robot analog trials (e.g., prior NASA or ESA efforts) is shown to confirm that the same KPI definitions yield comparable results across differing platforms and setups.

    Authors: We agree that the claim of serving as a common evaluation standard is only partially supported by the current evidence and merits qualification. The KPIs were derived directly from three scenarios that reflect documented lunar prospecting objectives and operational constraints (e.g., limited communication windows, heterogeneous robot teams, and science return requirements). The outdoor multi-robot validation then demonstrated that efficiency and robustness KPIs can be computed from readily available field data, while precision KPIs require ground truth that is often unavailable. We acknowledge that a retrospective application to independent prior trials would provide stronger confirmation of transferability. However, such an analysis would require access to raw logs, exact robot trajectories, and environmental metadata from those experiments, which are frequently not published at the necessary granularity. To address this concern without overstating the current results, we will revise the abstract and concluding section to state that the framework supplies a structured, scenario-derived basis for consistent comparisons in analogous settings, while explicitly noting the need for future cross-trial validation. We will also add a short discussion paragraph outlining how the KPI definitions could be mapped onto existing published datasets where sufficient information is available. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: KPI framework derived from external scenarios without reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper derives its KPI framework directly from three realistic multi-robot lunar scenarios that reflect stated scientific objectives and operational constraints, as described in the abstract. This process begins from external scenario descriptions and field-test observations rather than from fitted parameters, self-referential equations, or self-citations that would force the outputs to match the inputs by definition. Validation occurs in a separate multi-robot field test as an application step, with no load-bearing claims that reduce the central proposal of a common evaluation standard to a renaming or tautological fit. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about lunar scenarios and practical field applicability rather than new mathematical axioms or invented physical entities.

free parameters (1)
  • scenario-dependent priorities for efficiency, robustness, and precision
    The framework assigns different weights or emphasis to these three categories depending on the scenario; these choices are not derived from first principles but selected to match operational needs.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Three realistic multi-robot lunar scenarios reflect scientific objectives and operational constraints.
    Invoked when the authors state that the KPI framework is derived from these scenarios reflecting science-driven objectives.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5779 in / 1290 out tokens · 38216 ms · 2026-05-21T15:10:25.966669+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Esa space resources strategy,

    European Space Agency, “Esa space resources strategy,” European Space Agency, Paris, France, Technical Report, May 2019, covers period up to 2030; last updated September 1,

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Available: https://exploration.esa.int/web/moon/-/ 61369-esa-space-resources-strategy

    [Online]. Available: https://exploration.esa.int/web/moon/-/ 61369-esa-space-resources-strategy

    work page

  3. [3]

    L. David. (2005) Opportunity mars rover stuck in sand. Accessed: 2025-07-18. [Online]. Available: https://www.space.com/ 1019-opportunity-mars-rover-stuck-sand.html

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Robotic tra- verse and sample return strategies for a lunar farside mission to the schr¨odinger basin,

    N. J. Potts, A. L. Gullikson, N. M. Curran, J. K. Dhaliwal, M. K. Leader, R. N. Rege, K. K. Klaus, and D. A. Kring, “Robotic tra- verse and sample return strategies for a lunar farside mission to the schr¨odinger basin,”Advances in Space Research, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1241–1254, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Scientific exploration of challenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,

    P. Arm, G. Waibel, J. Preisig, T. Tuna, R. Zhou, V . Bickel, G. Ligeza, T. Miki, F. Kehl, H. Kolvenbachet al., “Scientific exploration of challenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,”Science robotics, vol. 8, no. 80, p. eade9548, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Traversing steep and granular martian analog slopes with a dynamic quadrupedal robot,

    H. Kolvenbach, P. Arm, E. Hampp, A. Dietsche, V . Bickel, B. Sun, C. Meyer, and M. Hutter, “Traversing steep and granular martian analog slopes with a dynamic quadrupedal robot,”Field robotics, vol. 2, pp. 910–939, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Subterranean challenge,

    U.S. Department of Defense, “Subterranean challenge,” https: //www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Subterranean-Challenge/, 2021, accessed: 2025-07-18

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    The challenge 2021–2022,

    European Space Agency, “The challenge 2021–2022,” https://src.esa. int/the-challenge-2021-2022/, 2023, accessed: 2025-07-18

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    An effi- cient scalable autonomy approach for teams of heterogeneous mobile robots,

    T. Schnell, D. Oberacker, F. Exner, L. Puck, M. G. Besselmann, N. Spielbauer, C. Plasberg, A. Roennau, and R. Dillmann, “An effi- cient scalable autonomy approach for teams of heterogeneous mobile robots,” in2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    (2022) LUVMI-XR Team Passes First Field Trial of the Space Resources Challenge

    Space Applications Services. (2022) LUVMI-XR Team Passes First Field Trial of the Space Resources Challenge. Accessed: 2025- 07-18. [Online]. Available: https://www.spaceapplications.com/news/ luvmi-xr-team-passes-first-field-trial-of-the-space-resources-challenge

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    The arches space-analogue demonstration mission: Towards heterogeneous teams of autonomous robots for collaborative scientific sampling in planetary exploration,

    M. J. Schuster, M. G. M ¨uller, S. G. Brunner, H. Lehner, P. Lehner, R. Sakagami, A. D ¨omel, L. Meyer, B. V odermayer, R. Giubilato et al., “The arches space-analogue demonstration mission: Towards heterogeneous teams of autonomous robots for collaborative scientific sampling in planetary exploration,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, ...

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Robotic exploration of martian caves: Evaluating operational concepts through analog experiments in lava tubes,

    B. J. Morrell, M. S. da Silva, M. Kaufmann, S. Moon, T. Kim, X. Lei, C. Patterson, J. Uribe, T. S. Vaquero, G. J. Correaet al., “Robotic exploration of martian caves: Evaluating operational concepts through analog experiments in lava tubes,”Acta Astronautica, vol. 223, pp. 741–758, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Multi- robot exploration for the cadre mission,

    S. Nayak, G. Lim, F. Rossi, M. Otte, and J.-P. de la Croix, “Multi- robot exploration for the cadre mission,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 49, no. 2, p. 17, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Collaborative multi- rover crater exploration: Concept and results from the arches analog mission,

    L. Burkhard, R. Sakagami, K. Lakatos, H. Gmeiner, P. Lehner, J. Reill, M. G. M ¨uller, M. Durner, and A. Wedler, “Collaborative multi- rover crater exploration: Concept and results from the arches analog mission,” in2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–14

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Field testing of a cooperative multi-robot sample return mission in mars analogue environment,

    R. Sonsalla, F. Cordes, L. Christensen, T. M. Roehr, T. Stark, S. Plan- thaber, M. Maurus, M. Mallwitz, and E. A. Kirchner, “Field testing of a cooperative multi-robot sample return mission in mars analogue environment,” inProceedings of the 14th symposium on advanced space technologies in robotics and automation (ASTRA), 2017

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Development strategies for multi-robot teams in context of planetary exploration,

    W. Brinkmann, L. Danter, A. Suresh, M. Y ¨uksel, M. Meder, and F. Kirchner, “Development strategies for multi-robot teams in context of planetary exploration,” in2024 International Conference on Space Robotics (iSpaRo). IEEE, 2024, pp. 64–69

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    (2025) Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

    NASA Science. (2025) Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Page last updated 1 July 2025. Accessed 21 July 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //science.nasa.gov/mission/lro/

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    A brief review of chemical and mineralogical resources on the moon and likely initial in situ resource utilization (isru) applications,

    M. Anand, I. A. Crawford, M. Balat-Pichelin, S. Abanades, W. Van Westrenen, G. P ´eraudeau, R. Jaumann, and W. Seboldt, “A brief review of chemical and mineralogical resources on the moon and likely initial in situ resource utilization (isru) applications,”Planetary and Space Science, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 42–48, 2012

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Evidence for exposed water ice in the moon’s south polar regions from lunar reconnaissance orbiter ultraviolet albedo and temperature measurements,

    P. O. Hayne, A. Hendrix, E. Sefton-Nash, M. A. Siegler, P. G. Lucey, K. D. Retherford, J.-P. Williams, B. T. Greenhagen, and D. A. Paige, “Evidence for exposed water ice in the moon’s south polar regions from lunar reconnaissance orbiter ultraviolet albedo and temperature measurements,”Icarus, vol. 255, pp. 58–69, 2015

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Quantitative estimation of helium-3 spatial distribution in the lunar regolith layer,

    W. Fa and Y .-Q. Jin, “Quantitative estimation of helium-3 spatial distribution in the lunar regolith layer,”Icarus, vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Lunar mare tio2 abundances estimated from uv/vis reflectance,

    H. Sato, M. S. Robinson, S. J. Lawrence, B. W. Denevi, B. Hapke, B. L. Jolliff, and H. Hiesinger, “Lunar mare tio2 abundances estimated from uv/vis reflectance,”Icarus, vol. 296, pp. 216–238, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Landing site selection and overview of china’s lunar landing missions,

    J. Liu, X. Zeng, C. Li, X. Ren, W. Yan, X. Tan, X. Zhang, W. Chen, W. Zuo, Y . Liuet al., “Landing site selection and overview of china’s lunar landing missions,”Space science reviews, vol. 217, no. 1, p. 6, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Investigation on lunar landing candidate sites for a future lunar exploration mission,

    S. Kim, K. J. Kim, and Y . Yi, “Investigation on lunar landing candidate sites for a future lunar exploration mission,”International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 221–232, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Nebula: Quest for robotic autonomy in challenging environments; team costar at the darpa subterranean challenge,

    A. Agha, K. Otsu, B. Morrell, D. D. Fan, R. Thakker, A. Santamaria- Navarro, S.-K. Kim, A. Bouman, X. Lei, J. Edlundet al., “Nebula: Quest for robotic autonomy in challenging environments; team costar at the darpa subterranean challenge,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11470, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Rosmc: A high-level mission operation framework for heterogeneous robotic teams,

    R. Sakagami, S. G. Brunner, A. D ¨omel, A. Wedler, and F. Stulp, “Rosmc: A high-level mission operation framework for heterogeneous robotic teams,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 5473–5479

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Heterogeneous ground and air platforms, homogeneous sensing: Team csiro data61’s approach to the darpa subterranean challenge,

    N. Hudson, F. Talbot, M. Cox, J. Williams, T. Hines, A. Pitt, B. Wood, D. Frousheger, K. L. Surdo, T. Molnaret al., “Heterogeneous ground and air platforms, homogeneous sensing: Team csiro data61’s approach to the darpa subterranean challenge,”Field Robotics, vol. 2, pp. 595– 636, 2022

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Metrics for perfor- mance benchmarking of multi-robot exploration,

    Z. Yan, L. Fabresse, J. Laval, and N. Bouraqadi, “Metrics for perfor- mance benchmarking of multi-robot exploration,” in2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2015, pp. 3407–3414

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Evaluating maps produced by urban search and rescue robots: lessons learned from robocup,

    B. Balaguer, S. Balakirsky, S. Carpin, and A. Visser, “Evaluating maps produced by urban search and rescue robots: lessons learned from robocup,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 449–464, 2009

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Comparison of legged single- robot and multi-robot planetary analog exploration systems,

    P. Arm, H. Kolvenbach, and M. Hutter, “Comparison of legged single- robot and multi-robot planetary analog exploration systems,” inIAC 2023 Conference Proceedings. International Astronautical Federation, 2023, p. 78381

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Explore-bench: Data sets, metrics and evaluations for frontier-based and deep-reinforcement-learning-based autonomous exploration,

    Y . Xu, J. Yu, J. Tang, J. Qiu, J. Wang, Y . Shen, Y . Wang, and H. Yang, “Explore-bench: Data sets, metrics and evaluations for frontier-based and deep-reinforcement-learning-based autonomous exploration,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 6225–6231

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Survey of metrics for human- robot interaction,

    R. R. Murphy and D. Schreckenghost, “Survey of metrics for human- robot interaction,” in2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2013, pp. 197–198

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” inAdvances in psychology. Elsevier, 1988, vol. 52, pp. 139–183

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    Evaluation metrics regarding human well-being and system performance in human-robot interaction–a literature review,

    J. Nelles, S. T. Kwee-Meier, and A. Mertens, “Evaluation metrics regarding human well-being and system performance in human-robot interaction–a literature review,” inCongress of the International Er- gonomics Association. Springer, 2019, pp. 124–135

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Exploring the lunar surface: A review of technologies for resource prospection and their complementarity,

    G. Ligeza, V . T. Bickel, I. Drozdovskiy, T. Bontognali, N. Kuhn, and F. Kehl, “Exploring the lunar surface: A review of technologies for resource prospection and their complementarity,”Acta Astronautica, 2025, under review

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    (2025) ACT–REACT QuickMap — Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera

    LROC Science Operations Center. (2025) ACT–REACT QuickMap — Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera. NASA/GSFC & Arizona State University. Accessed 21 July 2025. [Online]. Available: https://quickmap.lroc.im-ldi.com

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Lunar resources: A review,

    I. A. Crawford, “Lunar resources: A review,”Progress in Physical Geography, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 137–167, 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    V olcanic processes in the gassendi region of the moon,

    T. A. Giguere, B. R. Hawke, J. J. Gillis-Davis, M. Lemelin, J. M. Boyce, D. Trang, S. J. Lawrence, J. D. Stopar, B. A. Campbell, L. R. Gaddiset al., “V olcanic processes in the gassendi region of the moon,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 125, no. 9, p. e2019JE006034, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Compositional analyses of lunar pyroclastic deposits,

    L. R. Gaddis, M. I. Staid, J. A. Tyburczy, B. R. Hawke, and N. E. Petro, “Compositional analyses of lunar pyroclastic deposits,”Icarus, vol. 161, no. 2, pp. 262–280, 2003

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    High- resolution nighttime temperature and rock abundance mapping of the moon using the diviner lunar radiometer experiment with a model for topographic removal,

    T. Powell, T. Horvath, V . L. Robles, J.-P. Williams, P. Hayne, C. Gallinger, B. Greenhagen, D. McDougall, and D. Paige, “High- resolution nighttime temperature and rock abundance mapping of the moon using the diviner lunar radiometer experiment with a model for topographic removal,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 128, no. 2, p. e2022JE007532, 2023

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Relative depths of simple craters and the nature of the lunar regolith,

    J. D. Stopar, M. S. Robinson, O. S. Barnouin, A. S. McEwen, E. J. Speyerer, M. R. Henriksen, and S. S. Sutton, “Relative depths of simple craters and the nature of the lunar regolith,”Icarus, vol. 298, pp. 34–48, 2017

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    V olatiles investigating polar exploration rover (viper) proposal information package,

    A. Colaprete, “V olatiles investigating polar exploration rover (viper) proposal information package,” NASA, Tech. Rep.,

    work page

  42. [42]

    Available: https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2024/08/viper-pip-final.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2024/08/viper-pip-final.pdf

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations,

    P. J. Clark and F. C. Evans, “Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations,”Ecology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 445–453, 1954

    work page 1954

  44. [44]

    MOSAIC: Modular scalable autonomy for intelligent coordination of heterogeneous robotic teams,

    D. Oberacker, J. Richter, P. Arm, M. Grosse Besselmann, L. Puck, W. Talbot, M. Schik, S. Bellmann, T. Schnell, H. Kolvenbach, R. Dill- mann, M. Hutter, and A. Roennau, “MOSAIC: Modular scalable autonomy for intelligent coordination of heterogeneous robotic teams,” 2026, manuscript under review

    work page 2026