How can we deal with Lunar fines?

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Part of the problem is the weight requirement."</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"We may be talking about bulldozers and excavators."</font><br /><br />I hear what you're saying...er...writing..., and though I'm no expert on such matters, it seems to me that somewhere along the line, weight is going to have to be less of an issue. Delicate equipment is going to have to give way to stuff that can handle the heavier demands of moving regolith for excavating and ISRU research, not to mention maintainability in a harsh environment.<br /><br />The Apollo Project equipment was designed and built under a different set of mission criteria. A lunar Bobcat will be anything but delicate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

<br />“Many of the new excavators they make are already fly by wire so making them tele-operational would be relatively easy. About the only major modification would be the power source and again replacing the diesel engine with an electric to power the hydraulic pump would also not take a lot of engineering. A mini excavator and a bobcat modified for lunar work rather then creating a whole new system makes one hell of a lot of sense.”<br /><br />Maybe, not an expert but I suspect the modifications might be a bit more than just making it electric. The electronics will have to be radiation hardened. The whole machine will have to deal with the moon’s temperature swings and the cooling system will need to be modified to work in a vacuum. Anyway the case for modification vs. building a new system might not be as slam dunk as you think. <br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">A lot of the angst over dust comes from the fact that spacecraft are assembled by astronautical engineers in clean rooms and then can't accept their nice sterile spacecraft will get dirty.</font><br /><br />Considering how statically charged and abrasive the lunar dust is, I suspect you could assemble your rover outdoors in Dubai during a northerly shamal and it wouldn't make any difference on its operational life.

 

[j05h]

Artificial "skin" would be one solution, but as we discussed last week, it works best on walkers not rovers. For regolith-movers, Catepilar already makes all-electric excavators. There is a drop-in Japanese replacement robot that fits into a standard excavator cab to tele-op them in hazardous (earthquake) zones. For tele-ops, check out the HRP series of robots. Many of the pieces exist, they just need to be put together. <br /><br />For human suits, I think the best Lunar suit will be an AX5/Newtsuit-derived hardsuit. It would use rolling convolute joints and a polymer "jumpsuit" over the suit. I also think the solutions for the Moon are going to subtly fail to solve Mars-suit issues - they are radically different environments. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

My company (Ingersoll Rand) makes remote controlled compactors.... <br /><br />We also own Bobcat, but I don't know much about that brands products since they are made in Fargo. ND

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>willpittinger said;<br /><br />Telepresence requires a presence. The closer the better. Even Earth to LEO is too far for pratical use.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was thinking something much more local; operator in the habitat, rover remotely operated whenever practical. This way you minimize 'outside time' and the risks thereof and don't need to pressurize the machine. <br /><br />Add a stereo camera here and there for the operators goggles and he might as well be there. Good enough for telepresence surgery between Europe and the US, good enough for a hi-lo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Considering how statically charged and abrasive the lunar dust is, I suspect you could assemble your rover outdoors in Dubai during a northerly shamal and it wouldn't make any difference on its operational life."<br /><br />Lunar fines are not magic, they are just crushed silicates and oxides with a minor metallic nickle-iron component. Not too different overall to many terrestrial dusts. Metallic and oxide dusts are common in metallurgical plants, silicate dusts are ubiquitous. The high glass content and extreme angularity of lunar fines is very similar to volcanic ash.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Maybe, not an expert but I suspect the modifications might be a bit more than just making it electric. The electronics will have to be radiation hardened. The whole machine will have to deal with the moon’s temperature swings and the cooling system will need to be modified to work in a vacuum. Anyway the case for modification vs. building a new system might not be as slam dunk as you think."<br /><br />The control system need not be very complex, no more complex and a remote controlled toy. No need for microchips. Such simple electronics don't need radiation hardening.<br /><br />Modifications to power and cooling systems will be needed, but these are hardly major issues. Effective space power and cooling systems have been designed for 40 years, and there is a heritage of Surveyor, Apollo, and Lunakhod to draw on for the Moon.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Add a stereo camera here and there for the operators goggles and he might as well be there. Good enough for telepresence surgery between Europe and the US, good enough for a hi-lo. "<br /><br />Nothing so sophisticated as googles in deeded. Most excavtion could be supervised from either a pressurised rover or a hab, so nothing more complex than a human eyeball is needed. This is what is done with the robot arms on the Shuttle and ISS, as well as remotely controlled excavators on Earth.<br /><br />You only need a TV camera is you are working out of site, as with at ROV underwater. Even them a simple screen is all that is needed. No goggles.<br /><br />KIS as much as possible.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Actually, one of the problems with relying on just the Human eye is visibility. You mentioned the Shuttle and ISS. However, both arms commonly work with a CGI program that simulates the view you would see from various angles. Shuttle crews started using it on the very first ISS mission. Parts of the station were already out of direct sight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">You only need a TV camera is you are working out of site, as with at ROV underwater. Even them a simple screen is all that is needed. No goggles.</font>/i><br /><br />I am not aware of any studies demonstrating the efficacy of a binocular vision system over a monocular one for operating devices remotely. I do know that there are instances where depth information is desirable, but instead of using binocular vision they have used two lasers at a given angle -- as you move closer the laser points of light on the target move closer together.<br /><br />However, if binocular vision does prove to be more effective, prices and weight for goggles are coming down. I recently saw some lightweight goggles for the iPod, and I am curious if it can be easily adopted for 3D viewing.<br />http://www.myvu.com/Images-myvu/l2/MFiPodsystem.jpg</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">nothing more complex than a human eyeball is needed.</font>/i><br /><br />Another advantage of a camera is that the sensors could be tuned to different wave lengths of light. People complain about false color images, but if they help someone better understand the environment in which they are working (and thus making them more effective), I am all for it.<br /><br />Still, I am unaware of any studies demonstrating an improved performance of people using suh a system.</i>

 

[JonClarke]

A television camera system is clearly useful, but not essential. Since providing one would be relatively stratight forwqard affair and it adds capability that would be useful, I suspect that any teleoperated excavator would have one. But it is not strictly neccessary.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

If stereovision is neccessary then it can be provided quite easily. The Lunokhods had stereo TV in the early 70's.<br /><br />The question is whether it is worth the trouble. It's all very sexy to have virtual reality and 3D, but why bother when its not needed? You don't even need two lasers to provide distance, a single laser rangefinder will surfice for simple distance, and a scanning laser can rapidly determine the distance to complex surfaces.<br /><br />As for multispectral capability, remember we are talking about running an excavator, not a science rover. B&W would be sufficient, although colour would make operation easier.<br /><br />KIS at all times. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Considering where camera technology is headed...in 10-15 years, it should be just about as inexpensive to mount a color camera on an excavator which would then be easier to operate as you mentioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You maybe right, but remember that you don't need a camera on board the excavator to work it. In fact, the a remoted view point is actually preferred. Remotely controlled excavators have been used in mine sites for at least 30 years. they are simple, robust, and highly reliable off the shelf items.<br /><br />KIS!<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats true. But I guess for excavation on mars, the only real reason for a camera is for the public to be able to kind of look in on whats going on via internet feeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

"I recall that the descent stage of the Apollo lander was covered in mylar. However, I have to wonder if the film would affect the optic clarity or not. All it would take is a slight wrinkle."<br /><br />Obviously this is more of a concern for lenses than it is for helmet visors, but since it would be applied to the equipment by the same engineers on Earth who assemble the rest of the stuff, I suspect theey can apply it without wrinkles. The real issue is how even a perfectly smooth application impacts optical quality.<br /><br />I read that the Army also used the mylar film to cover helecopter whindwhields operating in the Persian Gulf. And if the military used it, then statistics exist on its characteristics and performance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[docm]

Speaking as a former race driver; back when the Tear-N-Wear style goggles/face plates first came out there was a bit of distortion, particularly at the edges, but now they're much, much better. <br /><br />The limitation is that in most applications there are only 7 layers of mylar plus you need a mechanism for tearing them off, a means of permanent disposal, transportation & storage of the replacements etc. etc.. <br /><br />My preference would be research into the electrical charge of the suspended fines (probably positive but...), if any. If there is a charge a conductive lens filter coating (gold?) with an electrostatic charge of the same polarity should minimize things considerably. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

"The limitation is that in most applications there are only 7 layers of mylar plus you need a mechanism for tearing them off, a means of permanent disposal, transportation & storage of the replacements etc. etc.."<br /><br />Docm, it's nice to have someone around who has opreational experience with something we're discussing. I would suspect that astronauts would remove layers of mylar in the habitat between EVA's. I doubt they'll need an emergence field cleaning. That didn't appear to be the kind of trouble the Apollo astronauts faced. Rather, it's an accumulation of scratches over time that I think the mylar could help with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[docm]

"I would suspect that astronauts would remove layers of mylar in the habitat between EVA's. I doubt they'll need an emergence field cleaning."<br /><br />You can bet that as soon as they try using that protocol it would fall on its backside just as it would if drivers only tried stripping tabs at pit stops. <br /><br />Real work in dirty places gets them coated a lot easier than you'd think. In some races I didn't just go through one goggle/shields 7 sheets but several <i><b>sets</b></i> of goggle/shields often changing at every pit stop. <br /><br />Once I had to come in just for new goggles because of track conditions.<br /><br />Gripping those tabs is tricky enough using Nomex driving gloves, I can only imagine doing it with spacesuit gloves <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[1cooldaddyo]

"Gripping those tabs is tricky enough using Nomex driving gloves, I can only imagine doing it with spacesuit gloves "<br /><br />Isn't there some sort of automatic system that they use for the in-car cameras?

 

[JonClarke]

They won't be wearing gloves between EVAs. And, given Apollo experience, they should be able to go at least three EVAs without accumulating enough scratches to be annoying. Even with a single feel off fielm, that's six EVAs, more than enough fore the early Orion missions.<br /><br />However, I suspect this is all panic over nothing. Unless people rub their helmets in the dirt and don't take care in cleaning I can't see why hemets should not last for years. <br /><br />To my knowledge the some of simulated hemets of the Mars Society suits at the desert research station in Utah are still original. After 7 years of hard daily use in a desert environment with blowing sand and dust by more than 50 crews they are a bit scratched but usable. An they are only cheap plastic.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Unless people rub their helmets in the dirt and don't take care in cleaning I can't see why hemets should not last for years.</font>/i><br /><br />I wonder when someone will try to make the first "dust angel" on the Moon?</i>

 

[brellis]

Scientists Make Fake Lunar Soil - we're making tons of the stuff here on earth for "in situ resource ultilization"(ISRU) tests. Interesting Science at NASA article. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>