Lunar rover, how cheap using Lunokhod technology

In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

Frogwatch wrote:
In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?


You could do it - in fact, the current Fregat upper stage is based on
the landing stage of the Lunas that landed the Lunokhod rovers. But why
use batteries when the solar arrays the two rovers used let them work
for several months to a year?
Also, they went up on Proton rockets, so these would not be cheap
missions to redo by any means (Proton is the Russian equivalent of
Saturn I/Titan III), but of course the rovers could be made far more
capable with modern electronics.
To make a mission at reasonable cost, you really want something that
goes up on a Soyuz or Delta II.
The big question is of course what do you expect a rover to find on the
Moon that's worth the cost of the R&D to build it and the launch cost?
That's why there has been so little interest in Moon missions over the
years...it's a pretty boring place.

Pat

The inert mass could easily be cut by 90%.

Unfortunately, there's still no viable USSR/Russian R&D documentation,
much less of any prototype in fly-by-rocket action that'll prove their
worth.

It's exactly as though it was also entirely fake, for pretty much the
same reasons our Apollo missions were bogus.

~ BG

Frogwatch wrote:
In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

On Dec 3, 8:32 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

You could do it - in fact, the current Fregat upper stage is based on
the landing stage of the Lunas that landed the Lunokhod rovers. But why
use batteries when the solar arrays the two rovers used let them work
for several months to a year?
Also, they went up on Proton rockets, so these would not be cheap
missions to redo by any means (Proton is the Russian equivalent of
Saturn I/Titan III), but of course the rovers could be made far more
capable with modern electronics.
To make a mission at reasonable cost, you really want something that
goes up on a Soyuz or Delta II.
The big question is of course what do you expect a rover to find on the
Moon that's worth the cost of the R&D to build it and the launch cost?
That's why there has been so little interest in Moon missions over the
years...it's a pretty boring place.

Pat

Not nearly as boring as your Zionist/Nazi and Rothschild protective
mindset.

~ BG

In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

You could do it - in fact, the current Fregat upper stage is based on
the landing stage of the Lunas that landed the Lunokhod rovers. But why
use batteries when the solar arrays the two rovers used let them work
for several months to a year?

Remember, nighttime on the lunar surface lasts 14 days. You're going to
need batteries to store keep-alive power from what the solar panels can
accumulate during daytime. Plus, it gets mighty cold at night. You'll need
those batteries to provide power for heaters, as well (perhaps supplemented
by radioactive decay heaters).

Also, they went up on Proton rockets, so these would not be cheap
missions to redo by any means (Proton is the Russian equivalent of
Saturn I/Titan III), but of course the rovers could be made far more
capable with modern electronics.
To make a mission at reasonable cost, you really want something that
goes up on a Soyuz or Delta II.
The big question is of course what do you expect a rover to find on the
Moon that's worth the cost of the R&D to build it and the launch cost?
That's why there has been so little interest in Moon missions over the
years...it's a pretty boring place.

While you were right about the lack of interest in the past, I think that
the current international consensus is that there is plenty to see and
learn. The Moon has the surface area of North and South America combined.
All of the lunar landers, manned and unmanned, have surveyed a surface area
only equal to a single mid-sized city. Today's rovers could conduct surveys
relatively cheaply with today's technology and techniques.

On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, "Vincent D. DeSimone"
wrote:
In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

You could do it - in fact, the current Fregat upper stage is based on
the landing stage of the Lunas that landed the Lunokhod rovers. But why
use batteries when the solar arrays the two rovers used let them work
for several months to a year?

Remember, nighttime on the lunar surface lasts 14 days. You're going to
need batteries to store keep-alive power from what the solar panels can
accumulate during daytime. Plus, it gets mighty cold at night. You'll need
those batteries to provide power for heaters, as well (perhaps supplemented
by radioactive decay heaters).

Instead of, or in addition to batteries, they can always use h2o2,
plus a little synfuel to go along with that h2o2 if they need a whole
lot more energy density.


Also, they went up on Proton rockets, so these would not be cheap
missions to redo by any means (Proton is the Russian equivalent of
Saturn I/Titan III), but of course the rovers could be made far more
capable with modern electronics.
To make a mission at reasonable cost, you really want something that
goes up on a Soyuz or Delta II.
The big question is of course what do you expect a rover to find on the
Moon that's worth the cost of the R&D to build it and the launch cost?
That's why there has been so little interest in Moon missions over the
years...it's a pretty boring place.

While you were right about the lack of interest in the past, I think that
the current international consensus is that there is plenty to see and
learn. The Moon has the surface area of North and South America combined.
All of the lunar landers, manned and unmanned, have surveyed a surface area
only equal to a single mid-sized city. Today's rovers could conduct surveys
relatively cheaply with today's technology and techniques.

But that's what Japan, India and China are already doing, and not
costing us hardly a nickel. So why should we bother?

Remember that undocumented and thus unproven fly-by-rocket landers do
not count.

~ BG

Vincent D. DeSimone wrote:
You could do it - in fact, the current Fregat upper stage is based on
the landing stage of the Lunas that landed the Lunokhod rovers. But why
use batteries when the solar arrays the two rovers used let them work
for several months to a year?


Remember, nighttime on the lunar surface lasts 14 days. You're going to
need batteries to store keep-alive power from what the solar panels can
accumulate during daytime. Plus, it gets mighty cold at night. You'll need
those batteries to provide power for heaters, as well (perhaps supplemented
by radioactive decay heaters).


On Lunokhod, the batteries were used to run the temperature control
system fans and crank open the solar array lid when daylight came again.
Heat was supplied by a isotopic heater mounted on the back of the rover
during the lunar night; although this didn't generate electricity,
there's no reason such a dual capability RTG system couldn't be designed
nowadays.*
Total electrical power output wouldn't need to be much if it wasn't
being used to power the wheels on the rover (like the big one of MPL will)

While you were right about the lack of interest in the past, I think that
the current international consensus is that there is plenty to see and
learn. The Moon has the surface area of North and South America combined.
All of the lunar landers, manned and unmanned, have surveyed a surface area
only equal to a single mid-sized city. Today's rovers could conduct surveys
relatively cheaply with today's technology and techniques.


But you can see a lot more of the surface in very good detail from low
lunar orbit than from a rover on the surface, especially with no air
drag or distortion to deal with, like occurs in a Earth satellite in
it's far higher minimum orbital altitude.
If you are going to put rovers down, then they had be mighty small and
light if you want to do it on a budget.
Even sampling the surface composition might be able to be done from low
orbit via vaporizing a small amount of it with a laser, and studying the
spectra of the gases emitted.
This could be done over a lot of points on the surface rather than the
limited area a rover could cover during even a long lifetime.
A lot of the surface has already been studied as to composition from
orbit simply by studying the backscatter of the sunlight hitting it in
various frequencies via tight wavelength filters.

* You can see the isotope heater on the right in the side view of the
Lunokhod in this drawing:
http://airbase.ru/space/crafts/ams/a...hod%5B1%5D.jpg
It's the cylindrical thing with the circular plate attached to it on the
side facing the rover's body; the little wheel next to it is lowered
onto the surface to measure true distances as the rover moves around,
and to avoid false distances due to the drive wheels slipping as they
rotate.

Pat

On Dec 3, 7:39*am, Frogwatch wrote:
In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. *These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. *Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

The second lunokhod made it 23 miles but at 840 kg it might not be a
technology you would want to resurrect in full.

Keeping a rover operational after a fortnight at -233C (50C below the
lquifaction of oxygen) on batteries alone is a task that has been
dismissed outright, but atleast it can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

It might make sense to set up a 'battery base'. This weight dosn't
have to be carried, the PVs for recharging can be much bigger and moon
dust is an excellent insulator.

Using satellite images, a telescope the size of that on the mars MRO
would have a resolution of under an inch from a 10km altitude, paths
could be selected so that an average speed of 3mph could be
maintained. This would give a rover a range radius of 500 miles.

On Dec 3, 10:07 pm, Totorkon wrote:
On Dec 3, 7:39 am, Frogwatch wrote:

In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

The second lunokhod made it 23 miles but at 840 kg it might not be a
technology you would want to resurrect in full.

Keeping a rover operational after a fortnight at -233C (50C below the
lquifaction of oxygen) on batteries alone is a task that has been
dismissed outright, but atleast it can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

It might make sense to set up a 'battery base'. This weight dosn't
have to be carried, the PVs for recharging can be much bigger and moon
dust is an excellent insulator.

Using satellite images, a telescope the size of that on the mars MRO
would have a resolution of under an inch from a 10km altitude, paths
could be selected so that an average speed of 3mph could be
maintained. This would give a rover a range radius of 500 miles.

The USSR/Russia has nothing objective in order to support their
claims.

As far as we know, a semi-controlled impact was as good as it gets.

~ BG

On Dec 3, 10:17*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:07 pm, Totorkon wrote:





On Dec 3, 7:39 am, Frogwatch wrote:

In the late 60s and early 70s, the Soviets landed two Lunokhod rovers
on the moon that drove many km over the surface. *These two vehicles
were very successful and the lander and ramp device seemed very
reliable. *Instead of a completely new design, could this technology
be updated with new electronics and batteries?

The second lunokhod made it 23 miles but at 840 kg it might not be a
technology you would want to resurrect in full.

Keeping a rover operational after a fortnight at -233C (50C below the
lquifaction of oxygen) on batteries alone is a task that has been
dismissed outright, but atleast it can be tested in a vacuum chamber.

It might make sense to set up a 'battery base'. *This weight dosn't
have to be carried, the PVs for recharging can be much bigger and moon
dust is an excellent insulator.

Using satellite images, a telescope the size of that on the mars MRO
would have a resolution of under an inch from a 10km altitude, paths
could be selected so that an average speed of 3mph could be
maintained. *This would give a rover a range radius of 500 miles.

The USSR/Russia has nothing objective in order to support their
claims.

As far as we know, a semi-controlled impact was as good as it gets.

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A french built corner reflector gave its position to an accuracy of
less than a meter, and a few ounces of selenean soil were sent back.