pedal power on Moon or mars

[quasar2]

is anyone familiar w/ this concept? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

You mean a bicycle? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

indeed i do. the reason i didn`t say bicycle is because it would probably be more than 2 wheels. for several yrs now @ the huntsville facilities there has been a "Great MoonBuggy Race". of course the designs could be used on either Moon or Mars bcuz they`re flimsy, not enough for a suited rider(s), but it does get one thinking. google human powered lunar rover. the artemis site has a great article on a more practical design than TGMR: http://www.asi.org/adb/04/02/05/04/pedal-trike-concept.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

On Earth, pedal power is remarkably efficient. However, when you have to carry all your calories and oxygen with you, to fuel the "motor" for your vehicle, it's a lot less ideal of an engineering solution.

 

[quasar2]

that`s one of the issues in the design of this. sweating & using too much oxygen. too, the terrain would possibly be unknown. however, the crew would need exercise. would this be too much exercise? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Grok]

bobvanx,<br /><br />Does that take into account all the costs of getting the fuel to the moon in the first place, and of creating the overhead to keep it on board; storage space, weight, and insulation? Oxygen should be fairly light, and with reduced gravity, I would think that a solid meal containing a couple thousand calories would be enough to pedal for a few hours. The only problem I can see is with freedom of motion in a spacesuit. Just how fast can you get a vehicle going when encumbered so?

 

[quasar2]

that`s another issue. would the feet be enclosed or not? i think enclosed feet would be better. imagine a modular suit, just the torso, you could attach "legs" to it or a rover. there was an idea for just such a suit yrs ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

i believe the idea is called the "TRUTH" The Rigid upper Torso, Helmet suit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

i`m not sure everyone read the artemis atricle, so i`ll go out on a limb. there is a type of pedal drive known as treadle drive. this allows the "engine" as power output, yet less movement. the more familiar pedal drive is cyclic. also, don`t see why a pedaled rover couldn`t become a power center of a larger habitat, a kinda stationary exercise bike, it could store energy, work pumps, mow algae, etc., when the wheels or traction device weren`t in motion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

??????<br /><br />How much power do you think it takes to run a human-rated <i>anything</i>, in a hostile environment?<br /><br />A human being can generate about 100 watts. The caloric output of just staying alive is enough that a spacesuit will overheat. But to operate all the stuff that goes into a transport, or a habitat... you really need the power source to generate at least 30kw.<br /><br />If your were building with an eye towards super-integrated systems engineering, you might have a human's "waste" heat run a Stirling engine. That'd be a pretty efficient method to convert an egg salad sandwich into work.

 

[quasar2]

a human on earth can generate 1/3 hp. naturally an excercise bike wouldn`t be able to completely power a habitat. & of course wouldn`t be able to to pedal all the time. what i`m pointing out is, if a human-powered rover were possible, then it could be applicable to other uses as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

quasar2,<br /><br />Hopefully, the explorers of the Moon or Mars will have so much to do that spending their time pedaling or otherwise expending muscle power will be impractical. Surface transport on the Moon is likely to consist of a vehicle the size of a motor home, which supports a crew of at least 5, and probably 7 or more people. It will be completely self-contained, and able to support its crew for at least a month.<br /><br />Using people power to move something like that around would require the crew to be much larger, and to do nothing but work to get from one place to another. After settlements have been built, transport could easily include people powered vehicles, but our motivation to develop off-planet resources is at least in part the promise of large amounts of cheap solar power.<br /><br />Just because a human powered aircraft has flown across the English Channel does not mean that everyone should plan on pedaling their way to the other side of the water. Engineering has made fantastic advances in efficiency, which has made human powered vehicles incredibly fast and vesitile. But it is primarily for sport and research, not to supplant mass transportation, generating plants, or photovoltaic cells. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[Grok]

How 'bout if you get millions of mice and let them run on little exercise wheels hooked up to a storage device? Do mice generate more work than their caloric intake? For that matter does any animal generate more work than their caloric intake?

 

[Leovinus]

The only way I see having pedal-vehicles on the moon is if you have an underground city build that is connected by tunnels and you bike through the tunnels. A bike would be polution-free and faster than walking. You just have to remember that braking and cornering would be totally different than on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>For that matter does any animal generate more work than their caloric intake?</i><p>Methinks you know the answer to this already...nope. Animals are net energy sinks (with the possible exception of photosynthetic bateria).</p>

 

[quasar2]

I`ve recently learned to copy & paste, so here goes for better or worse: <br /> While walking home recently one night I remembered some thoughts I had on lunar rovers a number of years back. There will be a need for different sorts of vehicles, and undoubtedly large hauling vehicles, whenever they are required, will need a good power source. Whether that be fuel cell, battery, solar power, beamed power or some mix I won't go into here. But the type of vehicle needed for a small, relatively self-sufficient group should have a number of characteristics that few of the designs in the literature ever consider.<br /><br />The motive source should be 100% field repairable preferably with only a few tools and simple spare parts.<br /><br />Spare parts should be such that they can be manufactured locally from small amounts of raw materials.<br /><br />The vehicle should have a fail safe criteria that it can bring the driver home under almost any circumstances in which the driver is still capable of driving.<br /><br />It must use indigenous energy supplies.<br /><br /> Now if you look at these requirements through the old-fashioned NASA eyes, you will come up with a billion dollar project. If you look at it with the eyes of an engineer, you immediately come to the conclusion that a human powered vehicle is just the ticket.<br /><br /> Research backs this up. In a Scientific American issue on Human Powered Vehicles a number of years ago, an article on bicycles had an extra data point for the performance of a vehicle on the moon. A racing biker, with no air resistance and 1/6 g could break 1000km/h in sprints. A normal, healthy person could cruise at over 100km/h all day, and could easily pull a trailer load at the equivalent of typical Earth-bound auto driving speeds.<br /><br /> The form of the vehicle is the recumbent bicycle like that used by Stephen K. Roberts (Computing Across Ameri <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

It sounds like a wonderful idea, although it'd be interesting to see how well people would handle biking in 1/6 G for the first time; it might take a little practise before they can really tear up the regolith. I bet it'd be a blast, though.<br /><br />I like the idea of a trike too. It's less maneuverable, but more stable, and will stay upright when you walk away from it (which is handy if you've got your saddlebags full of precious rock samples). It also should be easy to build it light enough for an astronaut to heft it if it gets stuck on something, especially considering the low gravity.<br /><br />One random thought I just had. I wonder if the Apollo EMUs would provide enough flexibility to pedal? Movement does seem to be somewhat restricted in a spacesuit. It might be neccesary to build a new suit as well. There are efforts to do so anyway, though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

my thoughts exactly calli. & didn`t they have some sorta cart too?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Yep. They had a hand-cart that they pushed around on the earlier missions. It made it easier to move around large amounts of tools or rock samples, same as handcarts on Earth. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

bump <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

Revolutionary mars transportation method: spring boots.

 

[quasar2]

www.springwalker.com<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...I might be completely wrong here, but on a low gravity world I think you would require a much higher speed..."</font><br /><br />I'm fairly sure that you are completely wrong here. Essentially the 'stability' of a bicycle is generated by the angular momentum of the rotating wheels. Once the wheels are spinning, it takes a force to change their plane of rotation. What is working *against* that is essentially the Earth's gravity. If you could sit <b>perfectly</b> balanced on the bicycle -- then it would remain upright indefinitely even without the wheels rotating. Since that's unlikely, and you're liable to be either slightly left or right of the centerline of the plane of the bicycle wheels, your mass pulls more to one side or the other -- causing the bike to tip. In the moon's gravity field -- this 'tipping' force would be much reduced, making it easier to balance on the bike at lower speeds (or while motionless for that matter). <br /><br />This at least seems logical to me. If you have an argument why the bike would be <b>less</b> stable at low speeds, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[quasar2]

have you evre seen these wannabee racer guys who try to do this @ stoplights? i`ve seen some almost fall into oncoming traffic trying to balance standing still. . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Its not that hard to balance a bike like that, unclipping your spds when it goes wrong is <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />