Rovers seem a bit too complex for their mission.

given murphy's law....there are just so many things that can go wrong
that will. It appears that the wheels all have independent drives and
i really wonder about a system like that. Had i designed a mars rover i
would have considered a larger rubber ball with an inner gyro /flywheel
assemblege inside of it to move it along and probably with an internal
nuclear engine to power it and a thermostat controled area for
mechanical equipment especially the onboard data control features. as
for retractable scientific equipment probes and montiors that would take
some thinking....but thanks to the planet's gravity i can definately
simplify retraction methods by allowing a rotation to allow a lock to
unlatch and the equipment to fall into place rather than using all those
solinoids and rotors or hydrolics or pistons etc....less complexity the
better.

Im not saying that these are not brilliantly designed pieces of
equipment just that they may be overly designed. Nature seems to
prefer streamlined organisms and we see more of that kind of
streamlining in our terrestrial automotive industry than we do up on the
business of mars probes at the moment.

The good thing about the complexity of the probes is that we are getting
a lot of trial and error experience with remote controlled systems.

If i were in charge at nasa at the moment I would be thinking more in
terms of an unmanned mars resource exploitation mission than a manned
mission .

The first thing i would consider for moon exploration is to use satalite
balistics to crator the moon a bit and observe exactly what happens. It
seems kind of interesting to me that no one has ever observed the moon
getting hit with a meteror...even a tiny one????

we observe this on earth fairly frequently. the tell tail signs of a
meteor hit on the moon is not anything burning up in an atmosphere...but
rather a bit "dusting" at the surface.

(pcam pxd) wrote:

given murphy's law....there are just so many things that
can go wrong that will. It appears that the wheels all
have independent drives and i really wonder about a system
like that.

It would be more fun to wonder about the linkage you'd need if
there were only one motor. Oh, wait...I see the answer below.
No wheels, just one ball rolling itself uphill, downhill or
traversing any slope you encounter...no linkage required.

Had i designed a mars rover i would have
considered a larger rubber ball with an inner gyro
/flywheel assemblege inside of it to move it along and
probably with an internal nuclear engine to power it and a
thermostat controled area for mechanical equipment
especially the onboard data control features.

Watch out for rocks with sharp points.

Speaking of "data control features," would you forget all that
complex software and just install a cable modem? Those things
have to be idiotproof, as you know.

as for
retractable scientific equipment probes and montiors

that would take some thinking....

Coming right after your thoughts about a giant rubber ball
rolling itself around Mars, that's a good point...but I think
you missed it.

but thanks to the planet's
gravity i can definately simplify retraction methods by
allowing a rotation to allow a lock to unlatch and the
equipment to fall into place rather than using all those
solinoids and rotors or hydrolics or pistons etc....less
complexity the better.

Im not saying that these are not brilliantly designed
pieces of equipment just that they may be overly designed.

In the beginning, there were only objectives. Someone said,
"Hey, it's all desert. Let's just send a big old nuclear beach
ball out there and let it roll up and down the hills." Everyone
else insisted on something that addressed as many of those
objectives as possible.

Nature seems to prefer streamlined organisms and we see
more of that kind of streamlining in our terrestrial
automotive industry than we do up on the business of mars
probes at the moment.

I'm trying to picture your rover, and the huge rocket it would
take to get it on its way to Mars, and the huge parachute it
would take to keep it from being just one of the "satalite
balistic cratoring" experiments you mention below.

The good thing about the complexity of the probes is that
we are getting a lot of trial and error experience with
remote controlled systems.

You can do that in a room.

If i were in charge at nasa at the moment I would be
thinking more in terms of an unmanned mars resource
exploitation mission than a manned mission .

I would be thinking about some Mars exploration missions.

The first thing i would consider for moon exploration is to
use satalite balistics to crator the moon a bit and observe
exactly what happens.

Cratoring and satalite balistics just aren't in vogue these
days.

It seems kind of interesting to me
that no one has ever observed the moon getting hit with a
meteror...even a tiny one????

Spooky. Damned spooky.

we observe this on earth fairly frequently. the tell tail
signs of a meteor hit on the moon is not anything burning
up in an atmosphere...but rather a bit "dusting" at the
surface.

Maybe they only hit on the other side. Maybe no one has looked
for evidence of recent impacts. Maybe they have, by comparing
photographs, and they've found millions of new impact sites and
said "So what? They're the same as the old ones."

I assume we can look forward to hearing some more of your
ideas, since you don't have to figure out how to turn on a
computer and log in.

Murphy's Law explains why webtv got connected to usenet.

I think the people at NASA are following an important engineering principle:
don't change a winning team; or in this case design. The old Pathfinder
turned out to be such a great success that there is little reason to
experiment with something totally new.