5292249
story
Comments: 151 +- Hardware: Solar-Powered Moon Rover To Explore Apollo Landing on Wednesday July 22 2009, @09:41PM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday July 22 2009, @09:41PM
from the check-out-the-whole-stage dept.
from the check-out-the-whole-stage dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicrobotics.gif); width:40px; height:77px;
robot
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicspace.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
space
Mike writes "Carnegie Mellon roboticist Dr. William Whittaker has teamed up with Astrobiotic Technology to develop a solar powered moon rover that will explore the Apollo landing site in 2011. The photovoltaic clad robot features two electric motors in the hub of each wheel, and a half cone of solar generators up top that will power the wheels, run computers, and beam stereo HD video back to earth. The project has been entered in the $25 million Google Lunar X Prize competition."
Related Stories
Submission: Solar-Powered Moon Rover to Explore Apollo Landing by Anonymous Coward
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the Apollo landing sites need to be preserved for posterity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But they've already dismantled it!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you think the second guy coming down the ladder stepped?
The first footprint on the moon lasted less than 20 minutes.
Really? REALLY? (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew we were a glorified pack of narcissistic monkeys but this just take it.
"Lets go look and see where we landed LAST time we were here, that seems like a good idea."
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure about that. The LEM [wikimedia.org] consisted of two parts, the descent stage, and the ascent stage. The Ascent stage stood about 11 feet off of the ground atop the descent stage. The descent stage would have acted as a deflector [geocities.com], shunting aside the ascent motor exhaust and protecting the bootprint. If you watch the Apollo 14 [youtube.com] and Apoll [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_11_30th.html [nasa.gov] the Apollo 11 flag was knocked over.
Buzz Aldrin punch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Buzz Aldrin punch (Score:5, Insightful)
This single punch is all that's required to earn my respect. No speech, interview, or biography holds as much weight to the punch he threw. It's an act of pure love and protection of the sacrifice he made to make history for all mankind.
Buzz Aldrin, you f-ing ROCK!!!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The case was tossed out too, making him look even more stupid!
I can imagine the Judge's reaction upon viewing the video evidence...
My verdict: you are a mega-wanker; he should have hit you harder!
NEXT!
Please leave the landing sites alone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sending a mouse to disturb the eternal footprints of giants. Sort of a metaphor for the current state of NASA, sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Another GLXP team was quoted as saying "we promise to stay outside the fence".
Here's hoping they'll observe from a distance (Score:5, Insightful)
heh, what's that footprint worth on eBay? (Score:2)
Now, if you could dig them up and bring them back, along with some other artifacts, now that would be worth something!
Do regular international salvage laws apply to abandoned moon gear?
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that no laws apply in space. Sure, we have the moon treaty, but that's hardly a paninternational agreement.
The only rules that apply are those that others have the ability and will to enforce. Both factors severely reduce the number of people that will bother you up there.
Of course, if you upset enough people, you might not want to try coming back.
Re:Here's hoping they'll observe from a distance (Score:5, Informative)
You are aware that most (if not all) of the footprints were obliterated by the rocket that took the astronauts off the moon, right?
Uh, no they weren't. In fact, you can see the tracks of the astronauts in the latest images of the Apollo 11 landing site [discovermagazine.com] returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Aldrin's famous first footprint exists only as a photograph.
That's not at all obvious. When the rockets of the ascent stage were fired, thus beginning the return to rendezvous with Columbia, the surface of the moon may have been shielded by the components of the LM that were left behind.
Parent
Re:Here's hoping they'll observe from a distance (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, you can see the tracks of the astronauts in the latest images of the Apollo 11 landing site [discovermagazine.com] returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Um, maybe it's just me but I don't see any footprints in the LRO image of the Apollo 11 landing site. Perhaps you're referring to the footprints in the Apollo 14 image? Those footprints go quite a long ways away from the LM and due to the pixelation of the image it's hard to tell just how well-preserved they might be that close to the descent stage.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Horrible Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the Apollo landing sites should be off limits. One mistake and Armstrong's first boot prints could be destroyed. I cannot believe that a group of scientists have the audacity to mess around with the Apollo 11 site.
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:5, Funny)
If only Armstrong made a giant leap instead of a small step then the first footprint might have survived.
Parent
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the first bootprints might have survived due to the LEM base acting as an umbrella. Sure, the flag may have been knocked over (Aldrin saw it fall), but the lack of atmosphere means there would be no swirling of the dust.
Could someone please explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could someone please explain (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean google moon will soon feature streetview?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
They think it will get them press.
I bet, in the end, they don't do it, but send the rover elsewhere.
Re:Could someone please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it necessary that we go back and explore what was accomplished in the past?
Because the relics of the past visits will give us valuable insight into long-term exposure of our machinery in the environment of the Moon - something that is surely relevant to future efforts of colonization. All the things we left behind have been sitting (hopefully?) untouched for 40 years getting bombarded with micrometeoroids, experiencing huge temperature swings and moonquakes, and generally experiencing the reality of existing there.
I find it fascinating and am excited to see pictures of how the sites have weathered.
Parent
Moonquakes (Score:5, Interesting)
While they're at it, it would be awesome to deploy a few more seismometers...
Moonquakes [nasa.gov] are pretty damn cool from a seismological perspective. Beyond that, some of the ones recorded by Apollo-installed seismometers were >Mw 5. Big enough to be damaging.
The moon isn't tectonically active, of course, but it is seismically active, and the data recorded in the 70's indicates that the moon's lithosphere is a very different beast compared to earth's. At any rate, it would produce some extremely neat data!
Re:Moonquakes (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the things that I think was near criminal about the post Apollo period was that the ALSEPs were turned off, including the seismometers, to satisfy Senator Proxmire. So many billions of dollars to put them on the Moon, but $ 250,000 / year to keep collecting data was just too much.
Parent
oblig capricorn one quotes (Score:2)
Charles Brubaker: [dividing up the first aid kit] John, you take the flint. Peter and I will split up the matches. Anybody want the gun?
Lt. Col Peter Willis: I'd shoot my foot.
Cmdr. John Walker: I'd shoot his foot.
then there is of course, my favorite: so thereâ(
Re: (Score:2)
2 Motors? (Score:2)
Why two motors in each wheel hub?
The only reason I can think of is that 1 small motor @ 100% is more efficient than 1 large motor @ 50%... or is that incorrect?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly just rednendency. The Mars rovers have shown us that a little design redundency and simple, good engineering can go a really, really long way. It sounds like this moon rover is hoping to follow in their metaphorical footsteps. This seems an excellent approach (one that we should take more often) and I wish it the best of luck!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
WHY? (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, it's bullshit. They may develop the thing, but it's not going to fly itself. The Google X-Prize money is for the development, not the flying, and it's not enough to get it there anyway.
They WANT to have it explore the moon (actually they want to be seen wanting to do so, in order to increase their chances of getting the prize money; you think the timing of the announcement was random?). There's nothing here about anyone else wanting them to.
And given their announced target, I think they've just pointed the space demodulator at their foot. Far too many people would be offended.
All in all, this is a PR job. The guy may be capable of developing, but the chances are that having teamed up with this company, their plans are to get the prize money, maybe develop, maybe not, and know for certain ahead of time it'll never leave the ground. They just want the money. The tip off? Such a device could do valuable research, such as roving around the south pole looking for ice. Are they planning any useful or noble venture like that? No. They're planning on some virtual tourism, and true to big ticket money tourist ideals think that they're permitted to walk on anyone's lawn they wish just so they can take their holiday photos.
Fuck 'em. If you think they're hosebags for wanting to trundle all over what may be the most historic of historic sites, complain to the Google Lunar X-Prize people http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/contact-us [googlelunarxprize.org] and tell them not to support this project.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the chances are that having teamed up with this company, their plans are to get the prize money, maybe develop, maybe not, and know for certain ahead of time it'll never leave the ground. They just want the money.
What? There's no prize money until you land on the Moon. From the prize website [googlelunarxprize.org]: "The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million."
I heard Red Whittaker, the team leader, speak last summer; he said he does expect to make money off the project. Not from the prize, as the costs are several times the prize money, but from all the money that can be generated from the publicity of the landing. He wouldn't be doing the project if it was going to lose money; he
Why visit old relics? (Score:2)
Why bother visiting old relics? Surely there are more interesting landing sites on the dark side, or the poles, of the moon that warrant more exploration than 40-year-old non-rusting relics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll support this if... (Score:2, Interesting)
*the* Apollo landing site? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's with the summary's "the" Apollo landing site? Last time I checked, there were 6 landing sites. (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17.)
This entire thread, summarized: (Score:5, Funny)
"Bet they can do it on the sound-stage in Nevada" - Idiot who doesn't understand that every other idiot also thought of the same joke at the same time.
"But we didn't go to the moon! I saw it on Fox, so it must be true" - Flaming moron who couldn't find their ass with both hands, a copy of an anatomy textbook and a full length mirror.
"LOL, wut, we didn't go to the moon, you peeps are sheep" - Troll, pretending to be the above idiot, thereby becoming a recursive idiot instead (idiot^2).
"NASA SUCKS!!!" - Multiple varieties of idiot, any one of whom very well might be a community college certified rocket scientist.
"NOES! They'll destroy the historic bootprints!" - Idiot who believes that lack of erosion signals lack of change. The bootprints are likely long gone, due to heating and cooling of the rocks, vibrations from the ground and, at the landing sites proper, the exhaust from the ascent stage of the lander. Nobody but your high school science teacher seriously thinks they'll last a hundred years, or whatever numeric value you were told.
"Git offa my lawn you kids!" - Angry curmudgeon tired of being able to predict slashdot posts in advance, just by seeing the fucking story title.
There, now you don't have to read the thread. You just read every post, condensed into one. You're welcome. Now, go defy expectations and RTFA instead.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Sad but true. Now If you'll excuse me I must join the manned vs unmanned debate with a polished version of the same arguments I've been using for years in every previous occurrence of that debate I've participated to.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now, go defy expectations and RTFA instead.
defy expectations and RTFA instead.
and RTFA instead.
RTFA
RTFA? What are you some kinda young'un who don't know who things work around here? Get offa my lawn!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, not all of them, and the truth is we don't actually know what the landing sight looks like with very close resolution. Didn't you see the photo of the footpath? Some of the footprints from Apollo 11 remain, certainly. Such details of the LEM pad site are a matter of speculation.
Re: (Score:2)