Are rovers useful on low gravity, low atmosphere bodies?
Are rovers useful for exploring low atmosphere, low gravity objects? Are there more appropriate exploratory vehicles being proposed?
If I am interested in taking geological samples from a region that is many kilometers wide and has rugged terrain, would it be appropriate to use a rover or just to use the probes propulsion to move to new sample locations?
I'm interested in very low g (1-10% of Earth's)
planetary-science rovers sample-return
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
add a comment |
Are rovers useful for exploring low atmosphere, low gravity objects? Are there more appropriate exploratory vehicles being proposed?
If I am interested in taking geological samples from a region that is many kilometers wide and has rugged terrain, would it be appropriate to use a rover or just to use the probes propulsion to move to new sample locations?
I'm interested in very low g (1-10% of Earth's)
planetary-science rovers sample-return
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
add a comment |
Are rovers useful for exploring low atmosphere, low gravity objects? Are there more appropriate exploratory vehicles being proposed?
If I am interested in taking geological samples from a region that is many kilometers wide and has rugged terrain, would it be appropriate to use a rover or just to use the probes propulsion to move to new sample locations?
I'm interested in very low g (1-10% of Earth's)
planetary-science rovers sample-return
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
Are rovers useful for exploring low atmosphere, low gravity objects? Are there more appropriate exploratory vehicles being proposed?
If I am interested in taking geological samples from a region that is many kilometers wide and has rugged terrain, would it be appropriate to use a rover or just to use the probes propulsion to move to new sample locations?
I'm interested in very low g (1-10% of Earth's)
planetary-science rovers sample-return
planetary-science rovers sample-return
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
edited Jan 6 at 20:30
Jasper
1052
1052
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
asked Jan 6 at 10:33
CapeboomCapeboom
834
834
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Both flying and hoping options work, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa2 to 162173 Ryuguto which has deployed hopping/rolling sub probes and is scheduled to hover in to take surface samples later in 2019. As gravity decreases the traction available for wheeled travel falls and the probability of vertical or beyond vertical terrain increases, making hopping/jumping/flying traversal both more useful and more achievable in terms of energy expended.
Gravity at 162173 Ryugu is has around 1/80,000 of a G.
A probably useful data point is the 0.05-0.02G region (bodies in hundreds of kms radius) at which the gravity of a body will start to pull the surface into a sphere with more flatter/firmer surfaces amenable to wheeled roving and escape velocity is no longer something that is achievable by accident.
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
add a comment |
A body with very low gravity has no atmosphere anyway. But rovers did work on the Moon too, not only on Mars.
A rover should be substantially slower than the escape velocity of the small body to be useful. There should be no danger of escaping the body just accidentally.
Lets look at some small bodies for examples.
Pluto's surface gravity is 0.62 m/s^2 and the escape velocity is 1.21 km/s.
Ceres 0,29 m/s^2 and 0.51 km/s, Vesta 0.25 m/s^2 and 0.36 km/s.
For constant density, the escape velocity and the surface gravity of a body scale linearily with its radius and the diameter.
The diameter of Vesta is about 525 km, a similar body with a diameter of about 105 km would have 0.05 m/s^2 and 0.07 km/s. A rover with a peak velocity of 10 m/s would be still much slower than the escape velocity of 70 m/s. No danger for accidental escape at a gravity even less than 1 % of Earth's gravity.
The velocity for a very low orbit is a bit lower, the factor is the square root of 1/2, so if escape velocity is 70 m/s the orbit velocity is about 50 m/s. No danger of an accidental orbit.
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
1
With regards to the rover speed needing to be lower than escape velocity. Would it not also be useful to compare velocities to that of a circular orbit? Because say it is traveling with enough velocity to achieve circular orbit and accidentally hits a ramp, the rover is as useless as if it hits escape velocity?
– Capeboom
Jan 6 at 12:15
The difference between escape velocity 11.2 km/s and orbit velocity of about 8 km/s of Earth is not that big. A factor of the square root of 2, half the kinetic energy, that is the relation between escape velocity and orbit velocity.
– Uwe
Jan 6 at 12:36
I think poor traction will be a major problem for rovers in very low gravity long before accidentally reaching orbit becomes a problem.
– Russell Borogove
Jan 6 at 22:43
@Capeboom for the purposes of that sentence, yes that's correct. But for realistic up/down/bumpy terrain you'll have problems at much lower speed.
– uhoh
Jan 6 at 22:44
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33368%2fare-rovers-useful-on-low-gravity-low-atmosphere-bodies%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Both flying and hoping options work, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa2 to 162173 Ryuguto which has deployed hopping/rolling sub probes and is scheduled to hover in to take surface samples later in 2019. As gravity decreases the traction available for wheeled travel falls and the probability of vertical or beyond vertical terrain increases, making hopping/jumping/flying traversal both more useful and more achievable in terms of energy expended.
Gravity at 162173 Ryugu is has around 1/80,000 of a G.
A probably useful data point is the 0.05-0.02G region (bodies in hundreds of kms radius) at which the gravity of a body will start to pull the surface into a sphere with more flatter/firmer surfaces amenable to wheeled roving and escape velocity is no longer something that is achievable by accident.
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
add a comment |
Both flying and hoping options work, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa2 to 162173 Ryuguto which has deployed hopping/rolling sub probes and is scheduled to hover in to take surface samples later in 2019. As gravity decreases the traction available for wheeled travel falls and the probability of vertical or beyond vertical terrain increases, making hopping/jumping/flying traversal both more useful and more achievable in terms of energy expended.
Gravity at 162173 Ryugu is has around 1/80,000 of a G.
A probably useful data point is the 0.05-0.02G region (bodies in hundreds of kms radius) at which the gravity of a body will start to pull the surface into a sphere with more flatter/firmer surfaces amenable to wheeled roving and escape velocity is no longer something that is achievable by accident.
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
add a comment |
Both flying and hoping options work, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa2 to 162173 Ryuguto which has deployed hopping/rolling sub probes and is scheduled to hover in to take surface samples later in 2019. As gravity decreases the traction available for wheeled travel falls and the probability of vertical or beyond vertical terrain increases, making hopping/jumping/flying traversal both more useful and more achievable in terms of energy expended.
Gravity at 162173 Ryugu is has around 1/80,000 of a G.
A probably useful data point is the 0.05-0.02G region (bodies in hundreds of kms radius) at which the gravity of a body will start to pull the surface into a sphere with more flatter/firmer surfaces amenable to wheeled roving and escape velocity is no longer something that is achievable by accident.
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
Both flying and hoping options work, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa2 to 162173 Ryuguto which has deployed hopping/rolling sub probes and is scheduled to hover in to take surface samples later in 2019. As gravity decreases the traction available for wheeled travel falls and the probability of vertical or beyond vertical terrain increases, making hopping/jumping/flying traversal both more useful and more achievable in terms of energy expended.
Gravity at 162173 Ryugu is has around 1/80,000 of a G.
A probably useful data point is the 0.05-0.02G region (bodies in hundreds of kms radius) at which the gravity of a body will start to pull the surface into a sphere with more flatter/firmer surfaces amenable to wheeled roving and escape velocity is no longer something that is achievable by accident.
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
answered Jan 6 at 11:09
GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger
1,958216
1,958216
add a comment |
add a comment |
A body with very low gravity has no atmosphere anyway. But rovers did work on the Moon too, not only on Mars.
A rover should be substantially slower than the escape velocity of the small body to be useful. There should be no danger of escaping the body just accidentally.
Lets look at some small bodies for examples.
Pluto's surface gravity is 0.62 m/s^2 and the escape velocity is 1.21 km/s.
Ceres 0,29 m/s^2 and 0.51 km/s, Vesta 0.25 m/s^2 and 0.36 km/s.
For constant density, the escape velocity and the surface gravity of a body scale linearily with its radius and the diameter.
The diameter of Vesta is about 525 km, a similar body with a diameter of about 105 km would have 0.05 m/s^2 and 0.07 km/s. A rover with a peak velocity of 10 m/s would be still much slower than the escape velocity of 70 m/s. No danger for accidental escape at a gravity even less than 1 % of Earth's gravity.
The velocity for a very low orbit is a bit lower, the factor is the square root of 1/2, so if escape velocity is 70 m/s the orbit velocity is about 50 m/s. No danger of an accidental orbit.
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
1
With regards to the rover speed needing to be lower than escape velocity. Would it not also be useful to compare velocities to that of a circular orbit? Because say it is traveling with enough velocity to achieve circular orbit and accidentally hits a ramp, the rover is as useless as if it hits escape velocity?
– Capeboom
Jan 6 at 12:15
The difference between escape velocity 11.2 km/s and orbit velocity of about 8 km/s of Earth is not that big. A factor of the square root of 2, half the kinetic energy, that is the relation between escape velocity and orbit velocity.
– Uwe
Jan 6 at 12:36
I think poor traction will be a major problem for rovers in very low gravity long before accidentally reaching orbit becomes a problem.
– Russell Borogove
Jan 6 at 22:43
@Capeboom for the purposes of that sentence, yes that's correct. But for realistic up/down/bumpy terrain you'll have problems at much lower speed.
– uhoh
Jan 6 at 22:44
add a comment |
A body with very low gravity has no atmosphere anyway. But rovers did work on the Moon too, not only on Mars.
A rover should be substantially slower than the escape velocity of the small body to be useful. There should be no danger of escaping the body just accidentally.
Lets look at some small bodies for examples.
Pluto's surface gravity is 0.62 m/s^2 and the escape velocity is 1.21 km/s.
Ceres 0,29 m/s^2 and 0.51 km/s, Vesta 0.25 m/s^2 and 0.36 km/s.
For constant density, the escape velocity and the surface gravity of a body scale linearily with its radius and the diameter.
The diameter of Vesta is about 525 km, a similar body with a diameter of about 105 km would have 0.05 m/s^2 and 0.07 km/s. A rover with a peak velocity of 10 m/s would be still much slower than the escape velocity of 70 m/s. No danger for accidental escape at a gravity even less than 1 % of Earth's gravity.
The velocity for a very low orbit is a bit lower, the factor is the square root of 1/2, so if escape velocity is 70 m/s the orbit velocity is about 50 m/s. No danger of an accidental orbit.
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
1
With regards to the rover speed needing to be lower than escape velocity. Would it not also be useful to compare velocities to that of a circular orbit? Because say it is traveling with enough velocity to achieve circular orbit and accidentally hits a ramp, the rover is as useless as if it hits escape velocity?
– Capeboom
Jan 6 at 12:15
The difference between escape velocity 11.2 km/s and orbit velocity of about 8 km/s of Earth is not that big. A factor of the square root of 2, half the kinetic energy, that is the relation between escape velocity and orbit velocity.
– Uwe
Jan 6 at 12:36
I think poor traction will be a major problem for rovers in very low gravity long before accidentally reaching orbit becomes a problem.
– Russell Borogove
Jan 6 at 22:43
@Capeboom for the purposes of that sentence, yes that's correct. But for realistic up/down/bumpy terrain you'll have problems at much lower speed.
– uhoh
Jan 6 at 22:44
add a comment |
A body with very low gravity has no atmosphere anyway. But rovers did work on the Moon too, not only on Mars.
A rover should be substantially slower than the escape velocity of the small body to be useful. There should be no danger of escaping the body just accidentally.
Lets look at some small bodies for examples.
Pluto's surface gravity is 0.62 m/s^2 and the escape velocity is 1.21 km/s.
Ceres 0,29 m/s^2 and 0.51 km/s, Vesta 0.25 m/s^2 and 0.36 km/s.
For constant density, the escape velocity and the surface gravity of a body scale linearily with its radius and the diameter.
The diameter of Vesta is about 525 km, a similar body with a diameter of about 105 km would have 0.05 m/s^2 and 0.07 km/s. A rover with a peak velocity of 10 m/s would be still much slower than the escape velocity of 70 m/s. No danger for accidental escape at a gravity even less than 1 % of Earth's gravity.
The velocity for a very low orbit is a bit lower, the factor is the square root of 1/2, so if escape velocity is 70 m/s the orbit velocity is about 50 m/s. No danger of an accidental orbit.
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
A body with very low gravity has no atmosphere anyway. But rovers did work on the Moon too, not only on Mars.
A rover should be substantially slower than the escape velocity of the small body to be useful. There should be no danger of escaping the body just accidentally.
Lets look at some small bodies for examples.
Pluto's surface gravity is 0.62 m/s^2 and the escape velocity is 1.21 km/s.
Ceres 0,29 m/s^2 and 0.51 km/s, Vesta 0.25 m/s^2 and 0.36 km/s.
For constant density, the escape velocity and the surface gravity of a body scale linearily with its radius and the diameter.
The diameter of Vesta is about 525 km, a similar body with a diameter of about 105 km would have 0.05 m/s^2 and 0.07 km/s. A rover with a peak velocity of 10 m/s would be still much slower than the escape velocity of 70 m/s. No danger for accidental escape at a gravity even less than 1 % of Earth's gravity.
The velocity for a very low orbit is a bit lower, the factor is the square root of 1/2, so if escape velocity is 70 m/s the orbit velocity is about 50 m/s. No danger of an accidental orbit.
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
edited Jan 6 at 13:10
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
answered Jan 6 at 11:35
UweUwe
9,29822751
9,29822751
1
With regards to the rover speed needing to be lower than escape velocity. Would it not also be useful to compare velocities to that of a circular orbit? Because say it is traveling with enough velocity to achieve circular orbit and accidentally hits a ramp, the rover is as useless as if it hits escape velocity?
– Capeboom
Jan 6 at 12:15
The difference between escape velocity 11.2 km/s and orbit velocity of about 8 km/s of Earth is not that big. A factor of the square root of 2, half the kinetic energy, that is the relation between escape velocity and orbit velocity.
– Uwe
Jan 6 at 12:36
I think poor traction will be a major problem for rovers in very low gravity long before accidentally reaching orbit becomes a problem.
– Russell Borogove
Jan 6 at 22:43
@Capeboom for the purposes of that sentence, yes that's correct. But for realistic up/down/bumpy terrain you'll have problems at much lower speed.
– uhoh
Jan 6 at 22:44
add a comment |
1
With regards to the rover speed needing to be lower than escape velocity. Would it not also be useful to compare velocities to that of a circular orbit? Because say it is traveling with enough velocity to achieve circular orbit and accidentally hits a ramp, the rover is as useless as if it hits escape velocity?
– Capeboom
Jan 6 at 12:15
The difference between escape velocity 11.2 km/s and orbit velocity of about 8 km/s of Earth is not that big. A factor of the square root of 2, half the kinetic energy, that is the relation between escape velocity and orbit velocity.
– Uwe
Jan 6 at 12:36
I think poor traction will be a major problem for rovers in very low gravity long before accidentally reaching orbit becomes a problem.
– Russell Borogove
Jan 6 at 22:43
@Capeboom for the purposes of that sentence, yes that's correct. But for realistic up/down/bumpy terrain you'll have problems at much lower speed.
– uhoh
Jan 6 at 22:44
1
1
With regards to the rover speed needing to be lower than escape velocity. Would it not also be useful to compare velocities to that of a circular orbit? Because say it is traveling with enough velocity to achieve circular orbit and accidentally hits a ramp, the rover is as useless as if it hits escape velocity?
– Capeboom
Jan 6 at 12:15
With regards to the rover speed needing to be lower than escape velocity. Would it not also be useful to compare velocities to that of a circular orbit? Because say it is traveling with enough velocity to achieve circular orbit and accidentally hits a ramp, the rover is as useless as if it hits escape velocity?
– Capeboom
Jan 6 at 12:15
The difference between escape velocity 11.2 km/s and orbit velocity of about 8 km/s of Earth is not that big. A factor of the square root of 2, half the kinetic energy, that is the relation between escape velocity and orbit velocity.
– Uwe
Jan 6 at 12:36
The difference between escape velocity 11.2 km/s and orbit velocity of about 8 km/s of Earth is not that big. A factor of the square root of 2, half the kinetic energy, that is the relation between escape velocity and orbit velocity.
– Uwe
Jan 6 at 12:36
I think poor traction will be a major problem for rovers in very low gravity long before accidentally reaching orbit becomes a problem.
– Russell Borogove
Jan 6 at 22:43
I think poor traction will be a major problem for rovers in very low gravity long before accidentally reaching orbit becomes a problem.
– Russell Borogove
Jan 6 at 22:43
@Capeboom for the purposes of that sentence, yes that's correct. But for realistic up/down/bumpy terrain you'll have problems at much lower speed.
– uhoh
Jan 6 at 22:44
@Capeboom for the purposes of that sentence, yes that's correct. But for realistic up/down/bumpy terrain you'll have problems at much lower speed.
– uhoh
Jan 6 at 22:44
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33368%2fare-rovers-useful-on-low-gravity-low-atmosphere-bodies%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
