NASA's lunar truck concept looks interesting

[willpittenger]

<p>It has six sets of paired wheels that can be rotated independently.&nbsp; Astronauts have turrets that can spin them around to let them see what is around them better.&nbsp; My only problem is that they have to stand.&nbsp; Seats would be better.&nbsp; You can only stand for so long.&nbsp; If something, like a stiff suit, is supporting your weight (or even 1/6 of it), you get pressure points that could be very uncomfortable.</p><p>It might be a good idea to have various modules the crews can drop into space with minimal connnections for various tools.&nbsp; These could include digging and coring tools. </p> <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>

 

[JonClarke]

<p>Will:</p><p>I assume you are referring to CHARIOT -http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/lunar_truck.html</p><p>It certainly looks&nbsp; very ingenious.&nbsp; ExoMarsmobility prototypes are similar, albeit with only 6 wheels.</p><p>I do wonder though if it is not too ingenious, I am a great believer in the KISS principle</p><p>Jon</p> <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>

 

[gawin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am a great believer in the KISS principleJon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have to agree with Jon on this one for sure. They need to keep this in the realm of KISS. When they get away from that they get into preventing SPOF. (single point of failure) to do this they build in redundancy that leads to double the cost and double the weight. Much like the new shocks for Aries 1. Rather then keeping it simple they are reinventing the wheel and coming up with a more expensive wheel that dosnt really do anything the old wheel did not do. It is just more complicated and costs more. But like all things govt funded more complicated and more cost = more jobs for congressional voting districts with lots of voters </p>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I have to agree with Jon on this one for sure. They need to keep this in the realm of KISS. When they get away from that they get into preventing SPOF. (single point of failure) to do this they build in redundancy that leads to double the cost and double the weight. Much like the new shocks for Aries 1. Rather then keeping it simple they are reinventing the wheel and coming up with a more expensive wheel that dosnt really do anything the old wheel did not do. It is just more complicated and costs more. But like all things govt funded more complicated and more cost = more jobs for congressional voting districts with lots of voters <br />Posted by gawin</DIV></p><p>Governments can and do do things simply and efficiently.</p><p>Complex approaches like CHARIOT are fine, when the mission requires it.&nbsp; I am not sure whether the unique capabilities of CHARIOT- like being able to turn in its own length, move sideways and diagonally in any direction, and being able to kneel, are what is needed for a most lunar vehicles.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not sure whether the unique capabilities of CHARIOT- like being able to turn in its own length, move sideways and diagonally in any direction, and being able to kneel, are what is needed for a most lunar vehicles.</p><p>Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I agree with Jon there.&nbsp; It might take a mission to show whether CHARIOT's unique capabilities are required.&nbsp; As such, perhaps we should also create a simplier Apollo-style rover for the earlier missions.&nbsp; Which would fly for Mission X would depend on where we are going and what the goals are.&nbsp; CHARIOT would have huge advantages in canyons and other similar terrain.&nbsp; However, it would also be heavier and bulkier.&nbsp; Hence, when CHARIOT isn't required, it might be advantagous to send the smaller, lighter Apollo-style rover instead.</p> <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>