14

Moon's synodic day is 2551443 seconds. Its circumference is 10921 km. At sustained 15.4km/hour a rover traveling along its equator would retain full sunlight at all times; at higher latitudes that speed would be even lower. On earth, we have all-terrain vehicles for which this kind of speed is trivial to maintain - and making the speed a little higher, there would be time for stops, detours, sample pickup, data transmission and so on. The 3s radio roundtrip and good maps would allow for fully interactive remote control, so no autonomous drive problems at these speeds. And the rover would be able to analyze many locations and spot "anomalies" which are simply impossible to find with a lander due to its limited area coverage.

Were there ever plans for such a rover? Specific obstacles, or reasons why it would not be viable?

SF.
  • 54,970
  • 12
  • 174
  • 343
  • 1
    this reminds me of the Race the Sun game. – John Dvorak Jan 26 '17 at 12:57
  • 8
    The rover would be at the other side of the moon (in regards to the earth) around 50% of the time. So unless you have a satellite in orbit to relay radio communication, you wouldn't be able to have radio contact 50% of the time. – Gerben Jan 26 '17 at 15:23
  • 3
    Try to imagine yourself running with sustained 15,4 km/h cross country without a road or path and with a delay of vision of 3 seconds. If you are not able to run with such speed biking would be an alternative. Would you really dare to do so? There would be no interaction with other runners, bikers, cars. Just the interaction with a difficult terrain with rocks and boulders. Of course there is no direct view of the surroundings, only over some cameras and monitors mounted to a helmet and an electronic delay of 3 seconds inserted between camera and monitor. Only a small bandwidth for video. – Uwe Jan 26 '17 at 16:08
  • @Uwe: Running like that would really quickly end with twisted ankle. Not really a problem when you have big wheels. The whole idea is that obstacles that could be dangerous to the rover would be visible early enough - thanks to being big enough. It would just run over all the smaller obstacles. There are cross-country vehicles which people drive much faster than 15,4km/h and the higher speed very much corresponds to the transmission lag. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 16:13
  • @Gerben: How hard would it be to place three satellites in lunar orbit such that every spot on the surface would always have a view of at least one that was also visible from Earth? – supercat Jan 26 '17 at 16:40
  • Side note — the thing would have to deviate from a straight line, slow down, or stop sometime. So if it's going to maintain an average of 15.4, it will have to sprint at 20 or more. – hobbs Jan 26 '17 at 16:42
  • 1
    @supercat: Three - quite hard, although coverage of whole equator with a broad latitude range would be easy. Four forming a tetrahedral constellation would provide whole surface coverage. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 17:00
  • @hobbs: And suppose you want to visit some place that's a long way north or south of your current position? – jamesqf Jan 26 '17 at 17:55
  • @jamesqf: then you schedule them for visiting in 29 days. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 18:03
  • 2
    Dealing with the heat of a continuously running motor would present a bit of a challenge, I would think. – John Bode Jan 26 '17 at 18:49
  • I think this would be very possible and possibly at high speeds if the moon was mapped in very great detail by satellite/other and this information was available to the rover. It would know where it could and couldn't go ahead of time and would know what route to take to avoid obstacles. The very great detail is the important part. – Micah Montoya Jan 26 '17 at 19:13
  • 1
    @JohnBode: A good catch. While in other conditions conductive cooling through the wheels might be viable, this one would run in permanent high noon, meaning the Moon surface scorching hot. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 19:34
  • 1
    @MichaelKjörling: I meant to say "Every spot on the surface except near the poles". I would expect that equatorial orbits would be cheaper than polar orbits, given that the Moon's equator is on essentially the same plane as the Moon's orbit about the Earth. – supercat Jan 26 '17 at 21:15
  • @supercat: inclination changes "on arrival from outside" are quite cheap. It's inclination in low orbit that costs an arm and a leg in dv. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 21:35
  • @supercat Adding to what SF. said, you may want to look at Lunar Polar Orbit right here on SXSE. – user Jan 26 '17 at 21:45
  • What's the typical heat dissipation of radiators in space, watt per square meter? – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 21:58
  • Just get a professional electric RC car for $2000 and let it shoot across the craters going 60kmph, see no problems with that. If it finds a deep enough one it may be able to launch itself back into orbit! – Magic Octopus Urn Aug 09 '18 at 19:43

3 Answers3

17

3s radio roundtrip and good maps would allow for fully interactive remote control, so no autonomous drive problems at these speeds.

15.4km/hour is 4.28m/s, so during that 3s round trip the rover travels nearly 13m. It would make an interesting video game to try driving a rover at that speed with that input latency, but I suspect you'd find people crashing a lot.

The good news is that autonomous driving is improving all the time. It's being used on Mars, and in various driver assist technologies for earth cars at highway speeds. I think any such high-speed rover would have similar driver assist to avoid potholes, boulders, and control stability in dustbowls.

Note also that, while CoM stability is the same in static analysis on the moon, it has much less righting ability in dynamic analysis because the gravitational force is lower. If you take the same vehicle on Earth and the Moon to a 45 degree angle then drop it, the Earth one will level out much faster.

Another consideration in continuous driving is power. If you're going for solar rather than nuclear then the amount you get from vehicle-sized panels tends to be disappointing. Especially if you need to divert it to heaters, instruments, LIDAR, computers, etc. This is part of the reason that Spirit and Opportunity are so slow.

pjc50
  • 605
  • 2
  • 8
  • There is more information about Curiosity's autonomous capabilities in this and this answer as well. – uhoh Jan 26 '17 at 15:10
  • 1
    In addition to righting force you can look at just plain traction; a vehicle of a given mass has the same inertia anywhere, but 1/6 the force holding its wheels to the ground on the moon. – hobbs Jan 26 '17 at 16:40
  • 2
    Good point on power. For example, a Nissan Leaf has enough roof area to generate maybe about 300 watts, during the 4 central hours of the day. It uses up to 80 kw during acceleration and will deplete its 24kWh battery pack in about an hour at freeway speeds. – Phil Jan 26 '17 at 18:38
  • 3
    You wouldn't need heaters on the sunny side of the moon. – Burgi Jan 26 '17 at 19:03
  • 11
  • 1400W/m^2 of solar irradiation, 40% efficient solars - 560W out of a square meter of batteries. Say, the frame is 5x5m to keep a good stability, 14KW sustained. It definitely doesn't need a 110hp engine especially that high torque would be lost due to poor friction, and climbing uphill is 6 times easier. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 21:53
  • If you're always in the sun, you might not really need heaters... it might actually be that you need to get rid of some excess heat if you stay continously within sunlight. – Adwaenyth Jan 27 '17 at 07:35
16

The Soviets tried direct remote control in the Lunokhod program. The radio delay was found to be a huge obstacle. They used a driver plus a spotter and a commander. The driver had to continuously integrate looking ahead (predicting the future, with only low-resolution B&W images to guide him) with controlling the rover via a delay. This was exhausting work and could only be done in short stints.

This is shown in a Lunokhod documentary (Tank on the moon?), I'll see if I can find it.

This article has more detail:

Only one member of each crew would drive the rover. Behind him would sit the crew commander, who would oversee the driver’s handling of the rover. Joining them in the control room would be a navigator, a radio antenna operator, and the flight engineer, who would monitor the rover’s systems. Each crew would operate the rover for two hours; then the other crew would take control.

...

Latypov and Dovgan’s [the drivers] only guidance came from a monitor, which displayed images from Lunokhod’s two low-resolution television cameras. To any video game enthusiast it sounds simple—but this was nothing like a video game. The cameras did not send a continuous stream of images, but rather single frames, like a slide show, at intervals that varied from seven to 20 seconds. And because radio signals took three seconds to travel round trip between Earth and the moon, the driver didn’t see the results of his actions for many long moments. For this reason, if crew commanders Nikolai Yeremenko and Igor Fyodorov saw Lunokhod heading toward catastrophe, they could push a button to halt the rover.

Dovgan, now 66, was well prepared by intensive training. “Driving on the moon felt even easier than it was in the lunodrome,” he says, but his comment belies the difficulties of navigating the rover. The low resolution of the slide show made it difficult to spot craters and boulders, especially at high sun angles, and there was a “dead zone”—a three-foot-wide area immediately in front of the rover that Lunokhod’s cameras could not see. The only solution, according to Dogvan, was to memorize the features in this area from the previous image, before the rover reached it. “When we were looking ahead and thinking of the obstacles that we did see, we also had to remember what was just behind,” he says.

(emphasis mine)

Also, like the Apollo crews, they found it difficult to estimate distances due to the lack of landmarks that have a known size.

Now, some of these problems can be alleviated with modern technology. You can get better imaging than 1 frame/10 seconds. You can improve the view around the vehicle. You can add computer analysis, and maybe integration of ground-based images with overhead map data to get a better idea of distances, slopes etc. But the fundamental problems of delay and having to interpret alien terrain remain.

Hobbes
  • 127,529
  • 4
  • 396
  • 565
  • 1
    Lonokhod 2 had two speeds: ~1 km/h and ~2 km/h. It had a really high CoM, as result rather easy to flip over if driven over a slope or obstacle. Definitely not a "speedy rover". – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 11:27
  • 1
    You mean control from Earth? At the time, wouldn't that only work for the line-of-sight hemisphere, or did they have an orbiter to with it? – uhoh Jan 26 '17 at 11:29
  • 3
    @uhoh: Lunokhod landed on the line of sight hemisphere (and Moon is tidally locked), and never traveled far enough to approach the edges of the hemisphere. It hibernated through lunar night though. If the "speedy" was to stay on sunlit side at all times, it would require a relay in orbit. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 11:38
  • @SF. I don't get your reasoning. IMHO if controlling 2km/h rover was difficult and exhausting due to required prediction, then doing over 16km/h is likely to go beyond human capabilities. – Agent_L Jan 26 '17 at 11:54
  • @Agent_L: Driving a tower crane at 0.2mph over rough terrain is harder than controlling a Jeep at 40mph in the same terrain. Lunokhod was tall, narrow and provided very limited visual feedback. Your typical 4x4 can drive over most obstacles Mars rovers must drive around. For Lunokhod, tipping over or digging in would be the end of mission. "Speedy" could be engineered to deal with it: Wide wheels not to dig in, a "cage" to roll it back onto wheels if it rolls over, CMG to stabilize mid-jumps, cold gas thrusters to lift it out of a sandtrap... – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 13:29
  • @Hobbes: It seems like the primary difficulty is coming from the horrible quality of video transmission. 20 seconds of lag on top of the 3 of roundtrip? Low-resolution B&W image? Certainly we can do better nowadays? – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 13:34
  • I've just addressed this in a new paragraph at the end. – Hobbes Jan 26 '17 at 13:36
  • @SF. Now what you're describing sounds more like Moon Patrol than any existing vehicle. I think you're overestimating CoM - the only vehicles with a low one are racetrack cars. Off-roaders have pretty high center of mass, especially trucks. Yet truck trial is a thing. – Agent_L Jan 26 '17 at 13:41
  • @Agent_L: Yet for these trucks, tipping over or digging in is a real risk and something that pretty much ends the race or at least costs them the victory. Personally, I'm picturing the RC "monster cars" models that would flip back onto their wheels if they rolled over, thanks to CoM being below their axis and having a roughly hemispherical shape. The basic idea is not "never allow it to roll over", just accept it as inevitable and deal with it. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 13:47
  • 1
    That's easy enough to do in an RC vehicle that weighs a few hundred grams, much more difficult in a one-ton vehicle. – Hobbes Jan 26 '17 at 13:52
  • But your one-ton vehicle only weighs a sixth of a ton on the moon. Inertia is still a problem. – pjc50 Jan 26 '17 at 13:53
  • 1
    The problem is not weight, but impact resistance (G-forces due to a crash). It's the square-cube law (the bigger something is, the more fragile). – Hobbes Jan 26 '17 at 13:56
  • 1
    @Hobbes: 15-20km/h crash isn't something too bad, especially if you make the outermost parts flexible (a springy cage, soft wheels with decent springy suspension). Rolling down to the bottom of a crater could be an issue and that's where driving would need to be more careful. – SF. Jan 26 '17 at 14:39
5

A rover like this might be technically possible, however it's not viable because there's no benefit in doing it. The science being performed on the surface of bodies in the solar system requires staying in place for quite some time, drilling, taking samples, taking pictures, lasing things, etc. Having a rover which would have to remain almost constantly on the move would make little scientific sense.

GdD
  • 20,226
  • 6
  • 65
  • 85