NASA's New Lunar Rover in Action 96
holy_calamity writes "New Scientist has video of Nasa's new Chariot lunar rover in action on simulated moon surface in Houston. As the associated story explains, the two-ton "truck" has a top speed of 20km/hour and is currently fitted with a plough, with additional back hoe and drill attachments to come. Sure it's not glamorous — more of a lunar tractor — but sure looks handy for establishing that permanent moon base NASA wants."
Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:-1, Troll)
Now, why don't you You NASA fans wait and mod me troll when they can actually DELIVER, instead of just making yet another promise in a 35-year history of bullshit failed promises?
I have more faith in Duke Nuke'em Forever at this point.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:0, Troll)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:1)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:1)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:2)
I know I didn't go to the moon. Did you?
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:1)
JFK had it summed up (Score:1)
When he made that speech we'd not even got close to the moon. You've got to aim high if you plan to achieve anything worthwhile.
Re:JFK had it summed up (Score:2)
Re:JFK had it summed up (Score:2)
Re:JFK had it summed up (Score:2)
Re:JFK had it summed up (Score:0)
If Oswald had aimed high, Congress would have managed to budget-cut the program to death over the years. Only the fact that Kennedy had been sainted saved NASA.
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:0)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:1)
Now what the "troll" mods send me to oblivion for saying the unsayable.
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:1)
ok bad mod me -5 old joke used too often
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:2)
Re:Moonbases, men on Mars, and flying cars (Score:0)
Much better to spend 30% of the federal budget on bombs and guns, amirite? No dreaming allowed, and that'll definelty show up some commies.
NASA's new Forsty Poophole in Action (Score:-1, Offtopic)
Simulated surface (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simulated surface (Score:5, Funny)
It's easy to see through NASA's lies. Why are there no clouds in the sky in this footage? Answer: it's because they're on the moon, and they added in the blue sky using Adobe Aftereffects, but they couldn't make realistic clouds so they left those out.
Why didn't the rover kick up little clouds of dust? Answer: because there's no air on the moon.
Re:Simulated surface (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Simulated surface (Score:2)
Original Fake Moon Landing Sound Stage [wikipedia.org]... it's the truth.
Re:Simulated surface (Score:1)
But does it have a gun rack? (Score:5, Funny)
*Gun Rack
*Redneck Bumper stickers
*Shiney nude girl mudflaps
*A Wooden Back bumper (Usually 4x8)
*Empty Bud cans on the floor
*A Nascar Sticker on the Back window. #3 or #8) or both !
*Marlboro boxes everywhere.
Re:But does it have a gun rack? (Score:2)
Technically speaking that's a pair of 4x8's held together with deck screws. One 4x8 ain't gonna do shit in an accident.
Re:But does it have a gun rack? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But does it have a gun rack? (Score:0)
You're missing one crucial component... (Score:1)
Re:But does it have a gun rack? (Score:1)
Re:But does it have a gun rack? (Score:3, Funny)
"If you can read this, I've lost my trailer."
"I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe."
"Honk If Parts Fall Off"
"Chrome don't get ya home"
"If you can read this - you're too damn close!"
Missing items if in texas (Score:2)
Lunar base (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lunar base (Score:-1)
I somehow have the feeling that there's an L missing somewhere in this sentence, but I can't figure out where
Advertise on the moon (Score:0)
Multi-Orientation? (Score:2)
Re:Multi-Orientation? (Score:2)
Re:Multi-Orientation? (Score:2)
If this was New Jersey (Score:0, Troll)
NOT in action (Score:0, Offtopic)
If it's not on the moon roving, it's not "in action."
Advertise on the moon (Score:-1, Redundant)
Vital component (Score:4, Funny)
and is currently fitted with a plough...
Vital for those sudden lunar snow storms.
While My Rover Gently Sleeps (Score:2)
Re:While My Rover Gently Sleeps (Score:0)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5649567.html [chron.com]
Re:While My Rover Gently Sleeps (Score:1)
Energy Shields Activate! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Energy Shields Activate! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Energy Shields Activate! (Score:1, Insightful)
Additionally, the moon and Mars lack a strong magnetic shield like that of the Earth, allowing more solar and cosmic radiation to hit surface dwellers.
But before we start planning on building moon/mars dozers to build any underground bunkers or surface buildings, shouldn't we first learn how to create a working biosphere that doesn't require resupply of air from outside such as the biosphere projects up to date have? Delivering fresh air to the moon and Mars will be much more difficult than sending it to the relatively much closer space station.
Re:Energy Shields Activate! (Score:5, Informative)
Probability on an impact is fairly low. Still would be a consideration which probably results in building (initial) permanent settlements underground. Radiation is a bigger concern, since lethal doses are possible every time energy from an x class solar flare hits the lunar surface.
Build your shelter then cover it with lunar regolith.
Burrow tunnel and build shelter underground
Dig into side of crater and build shelter into crater wall.
your choice. Simply Choose one
There's always risk. Every 100 years or so a rock big enough to do considerable damage gets through Earth's atmosphere. Every few years a storm big enough to do considerable damage hits a major population center. Hell, we live on a molten ball of rock with a crust that's only 30 or so miles thick. Tomorrow the east coast of the U.S. (where I live) could be wiped out by a tsunami.
Re:Energy Shields Activate! (Score:1)
Re:Energy Shields Activate! (Score:1)
Re:Energy Shields Activate! (Score:0)
If I were given the job, I'd sent up robots to dig an artificial cave. The robots could be radio-controlled -- the Moon is close enough to the Earth for that to work. Dig a hole, cover it with beams brought from Earth, they layer 4.5 tonnes per square meter [nasa.gov] of regolith on top for protection from solar radiation events and galactic cosmic rays.
Then deploy one of Bigelow's inflatable habitats [bigelowaerospace.com] in the cave. Then send up the humans...after the robots have set everything up for them.
Without an atmosphere to burn up or dismantle most of what comes at it, is there really a plausible way to shield your structures from essentially anything at any speed?
I don't think meteors would be a big problem, but an underground shelter would protect against those too.
Heh -- the CAPTCHA is 'reactor'. Which reminds me -- I would also power the base with nuclear power. Why saddle yourself with solar power and restrict humanity to the lunar poles?
Back ho? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Back ho? (Score:1)
Re:Back ho? (Score:2)
Legitimate Question. (Score:5, Insightful)
I refuse to believe I'm the first person to suggest this, but I have yet to see it mentioned anywhere else.
My suggestion, since that's what your thinking at this point, is some type of ceramic.
Re:Legitimate Question. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Legitimate Question. (Score:2, Informative)
here's the NS article:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8320-lunar-lawnmower-to-deal-with-moon-dust-menace-.html/ [newscientist.com]
Re:Legitimate Question. (Score:2)
'...Currently fitted with a plough' (Score:1)
Re:'...Currently fitted with a plough' (Score:0)
Re:'...Currently fitted with a plough' (Score:5, Informative)
More interesting (for me, at least) is for excavation. The plow is used to strip the top layer of loose regolith so that a mining attachment can dig up the compacted stuff. There is evidence of water ice near the poles as well as He-3, so an effective cutterhead and muck retriever could collect resource-laden material. I just so happen to be lead mechanical engineer on such a Chariot-attachable mining module.
Re:'...Currently fitted with a plough' (Score:1)
Re:'...Currently fitted with a plough' (Score:2)
With a 65,000 kg payload capacity on the Ares V [wikipedia.org] it is likely that they won't depend on farming to sustain a lunar base. Especially since the Earth-Moon voyage takes less than a week. However, I speculate that the 6 month Earth-Mars trip would be a compelling reason to push for farming capability so that future visitors don't have to rely so heavily on Earth supplied resources to survive.
As far as having a plough... well that is just necessary for clearing the lunar landscape so that any long-term platform doesn't sink and settle into the loose Moon soil. I wouldn't go so far as to speculate whether they intend to pour a foundation, but "Earth-moving" tools like a bulldozer are as helpful on the Moon as they are on Earth for construction projects....
moon base? (Score:1)
Re:moon base? (Score:2)
Like me.
Re:moon base? (Score:1)
Robotics (Score:2)
Re:Robotics (Score:3, Insightful)
We could have been doing THAT for the past 30 years or so using tele-operated robots. By now we'd have a substantial robotic base, likely mining lunar water to make rocket fuel and lunar soil to make fuel tanks. But all that would've done is cut the cost of space missions about in half, while greatly advancing the state of robotics.
Who'd want any of that?!
Re:Robotics (Score:2)
Looks fairly stable, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Looks fairly stable, but... (Score:2)
Sweet, then you'd have something to mount the KC lights and flag on. (So glad it wasn't being tested up north where I'm sure there's not as much to make fun of)
Seriously though, when I saw the video I was wondering what goes into determining dynamic stability of a vehicle when you're tooling around in less gravity. I thought it seemed like the outer set of wheels could be raised/lowered, but maybe that was just an illusion caused by it running across uneven ground.
I'd be willing to be there's been no shortage of simulations in moon gravity to make sure the thing isn't horribly unstable, though.
Re:Looks fairly stable, but... (Score:2)
Robo-Dozer (Score:1)
Runways? (Score:0, Troll)
Re:Runways? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
Something like this? (Score:1)
Why? Sounds like ISS, only worse. (Score:2)
What is the enormous science potential for an as far reaching project like that? At least on Mars, we haven't set foot there before and it's still a curious planet with lots of unknowns, but our Moon has already been studied -- from the surface itself as well as from above.
Is it mostly just a stepping stone to Mars? Do we really have to have a Moon station there first? Because building stations on moons are probably not cheap, neither in time nor other costs.
Re:Why? Sounds like ISS, only worse. (Score:2)
Well three things:
1. As you probably know, bone loss is quite rapid in zero-G. Astronauts who stay in orbit for six months or more have to be pulled out of the capsule and put into a wheelchair when the return to Earth. So far, even after all the time spent on ISS, nobody has come up with an exercise regimen that really helps. There's real concern that we may not be able to go to Mars *ever* (for sufficiently small values of ever) because astronauts are going to be weak and useless when they arrive.
One possible solution is, hang a weight off the space ship and spin it to provide gravity. You would *not* be able to provide full 1G acceleration, but you might be able to do 1/10 or so. Question: will that slow or stop bone loss? Answer: nobody knows. It's not possible to simulate 1/10G. You could build a space ship to do it, but you could also do this test on the moon. You would basically throw away the space ship, but the moon base would last longer.
So it makes sense to go to the moon in order to learn how to live in low G environments without your bones turning to jello.
2. Remember Apollo 13? Stuff like that is going to happen. If it happens between here and the moon, you might be able to make it back alive. If that happened on the way to Mars you're fucked. So it makes sense to develop the technology for interplanetary space travel by taking shorter trips. Actually, a lot of that technology can be (is) developed by going to LEO too.
3. I think it'd be great if we'd go to Mars or to the Moon, but what's better than going is staying. If we can get to the moon in a way that sustainable, vs. a big Apollo-like program that gets us to Mars and then gets canceled, I'm all in favor of the moon.
Re:Why? Sounds like ISS, only worse. (Score:0)
I've actually laid hands on this thing, (Score:4, Informative)
Lunar rovers? (Score:1)
Youve got to be all mine, all mine
Ooh, foxy lady
Here we go again (Score:3, Funny)
1982 wants its video game back! (Score:4, Interesting)
Independent steering on each of its six pairs of wheels... give the vehicle the ability to raise or lower each individual wheel to keep its chassis level on uneven ground.
I've remotely driven that *exact* sort of vehicle! Well, in simulation [klov.com], at least. I just can't believe it took from 1982 to now to go from simulator to prototype.
And they still didn't get the forward and vertical blasters! Hokey plows and an ancient drill bit are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
Slowly but surely... (Score:1)
Re:Slowly but surely... (Score:1)
What's its towing capacity? (Score:2)
Re:What's its towing capacity? (Score:2)
Re:What's its towing capacity? (Score:2)
Re:What's its towing capacity? (Score:2)
Not Robotic? (Score:0)
Russia had impressive Rovers in 1970s (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Russia had impressive Rovers in 1970s (Score:3, Informative)
Disappointed by name rationale (Score:0)
And here I was hoping it had been named after the vehicle in "Lost in Space."
"Where's Dr. Smith?"
"He took the Chariot to go look for diamonds."
"That son of a..."
Bigelow? (Score:2)