Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Tracked or Wheeled?

Tracked or Wheeled?

Posted by: Andy Hill - Sat May 28, 2005 8:46 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 81 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Tracked or Wheeled? 
Author Message
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:40 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Birmingham, UK
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:45 pm
Just remembered some thing from 2001 A Space Odyssey - the story mentions sprung flex-tracks where each track is sprung:

"one tanker rolled on the peculiar flex-wheels which ahd proved one of the best all-purpose ways of getting around on the Moon. A series of flat plates arranged in a circle, each plate indepently mounted and sprung, the flex-wheel had many of the advantages of the caterpillar track from which it had evolved. It would adapt its shape and diameter to the terrain over which it was moving, and, unlike a caterpillar track, would continue to function even if a few sections were missing." (Arthur C Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Ch 10)

Is this even remotely feasible (considering it's science fiction written in the last century, etc)?

_________________
~Dan


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Back To Basics   Posted on: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:07 am
What, nobody likes my robotic amoeba? A tough polyurethane body with hydraulic systems to extend and flex the pseudopods? It isn’t the strangest idea on this board!

It probably won't need the "air bag" system to land.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:19 am
Posts: 67
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:04 am
The amoeba idea works well for amoebas b/c they don't have to worry about scraping their knees. A snake-like concept would be better, w/ SiC scales and maybe memory metal muscles, or something like that.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:16 am
Hello, rpspeck,

I am playing with your idea and think about it. To me it seems to be an application of nanotechnology. But up to now I don't have no thought ready to post it here.

The carrier-rover would carry the robotc amoeba too.



Hello, LukeSkywalker,

there is thread about robots as scouts and pioneers in this section - may be it contains a post about the robotic snake I have a printed article about I still have to look for at home.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:35 pm
LukeSkywalker wrote:
A snake-like concept would be better, w/ SiC scales and maybe memory metal muscles, or something like that.


Unfortunately for you, NASA already beat you to the idea: check out this website for more information.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:55 pm
That's good shootin Tex (uh, cowboy).

rpspeck the only problem I can think of with an ameoba-bot would be that it has a relatively large amount of surface area in contact and so ... so ... um (delete stupid objection) ... actually, it's not a bad idea ... particularly if the internal components aren't rigidly fixed in their spatial relationship to each other ...

but even just conceptualizing a beastie like that ... how do you associate the motility mechanism with a continuous surface? The way amoeba move around is basically by constantly building and rebuilding their internal "skeleton" ... molecular struts sort of setup ... break it down at the back + extend it at the front = go forwards ... tough to visualize as a man made mechanism though ...

more thoughts?

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:35 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Michigan
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:33 pm
How about putting your wheeled rover inside a limp seamless (tough) plastic bag. Adding a teflon bumper around the edges to push the bag in the direction you are driving solves the skeleton problem.

Actually the biggest issue I see with an amobea rover is that you are isolated from taking direct measurements of the environment. Unless you put a hatch of some sort in the 'skin'.
.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:56 pm
What about a mars-rover design based on the sea-urchin? I say to Hell with wheels/tracks!

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Dr_Keith_H wrote:
What about a mars-rover design based on the sea-urchin? I say to Hell with wheels/tracks!


I think that NASA developed a rover that moved by inflating and deflating a series of airbags effectively making the rover fall towards the deflating bag and away from the inflating bag. The rover itself was position in the centre of the airbag cluster on a gimbled support to keep it upright.

The trouble with this design is that the rover moves relatively slowly and its not easy to deploy a solar panel around all those bags. Also the bags would have to be fairly large to overcome obsticles and precision steering is not something that would really be possible. Scaling this up so that the airbags supported a heavy rover would be difficult and require a lot of pumping gas around. I guess that is why NASA hasn't used this type of locamotion.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:38 pm
Actually I think this thread is tilting at windmills a bit. Two wheeled rovers have been driving around Mars for almost 2 years and one of them got stuck once and got out OK within a few days. Pathfinder's rover never got stuck. Wheels are just so light, simple and effective.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:16 am
Of course, you are pretty much right ... still, it's nice to daydream about all this stuff.

DKH

(my sea-urchin idea has now climbed out of the bag)

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:57 pm
:!: I just remembered that the rovers have to be folded up to fit in the aeroshell. They would be nearly impossible to fold if they were tracked.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:18 pm
This could be an outstanding reason that tracked rovers haven't been used.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:25 pm
spacecowboy wrote:
This could be an outstanding reason that tracked rovers haven't been used.


Why? The wheels that the tracks revolve on can be just as easily retracted and the track could fold fairly easily. If they do send a tracked vehicle to Mars the tracks will be reasonably pliable not heavy and inflexible, I would not expect NASA to use tank tracks made of heavy caste metal and steel link pins.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:57 am
Today I read an article under www.wissenschaft.de reporting that a nano-robot has been developed that moves like a canker or a worm. They refer to a press release of Dartmouth Colleges, Hanover ( www.dartmouth.edu/ ).

So what about a normal-scale robot moving like a huge canker or worm? If it is possible at nano-scale is that possible normal-scale too?

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use