Lunar Chariot prepares to tear up some moon dust

Movie Camera
  • 17:40 25 March 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • Phil McKenna
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
 
NASA's Chariot is the first in a new line of lunar vehicles that could someday bulldoze roads, dig trenches, and drill for minerals on the moon
 

This isn't your father's idea of a space rover. NASA's Chariot is the first prototype in a new line of lunar vehicles that could someday bulldoze roads, dig trenches, and drill for minerals on the moon. And it is already proving as nimble as it is powerful in earthbound testing.

Chariot, a two-tonne "truck" with a top speed of 20 kilometres per hour, has been tearing up the Lunar Yard, a test bed at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, since engineers there completed construction of the vehicle in September of 2007.

The Lunar Yard is a 2-acre expanse of small hills covered in a mix of sand and crushed granite designed to mimic the loose surface of the moon.

The current prototype has a detachable plough for turning over lunar soil, but future designs may incorporate a back hoe, or excavator, and a drill rig capable of boring into the lunar soil. "Building a lunar truck isn't so much 'rocket science' as it is applying what you know about earth-bound trucks," says Lucien Junkin, Chariot's lead engineer.

Mars lessons

Independent steering on each of its six pairs of wheels allows the vehicle to spin on the spot, zigzag up steep crater walls, and manoeuvre into tight spaces with ease.

The Chariot – so named because the current model has no seats, windows, or doors, and can be driven from the rear – can also lower its chassis to the ground making it easier for astronauts in bulky spacesuits to climb aboard.

The design builds on lessons learned from Spirit and Opportunity, NASA's twin rovers that have been exploring Mars for the past four years.

Both continue to limp across the Red Planet despite each having lost control of one their six wheels. Having six pairs of wheels, each powered independently, should allow Chariot to carry on functioning should anything go wrong with one of its wheels.

The current prototype uses fans to cool its battery-powered motors. This would not be possible on the moon, so finished versions will disperse heat by circulating fluid instead.

Improvements planned

Initial tests of the vehicle's speed, turning capacity, and ploughing ability at the Lunar Yard have exceeded its designers' expectations. Chariot's engineers are, however, trying to improve steering response times. They also hope to give the vehicle the ability to raise or lower each individual wheel to keep its chassis level on uneven ground.

The lunar truck, which was designed and built in 11 months at a cost of approximately $3.5 million, will undergo further testing this summer at Moses Lake State Park in Washington State, where the region's steep, shifting sand dunes offer similar topography to that of the moon.

Junkin says these tests, scheduled for the first two weeks of June will be open to the public. "America paid for it, they ought to be able to get a chance to see it at work," he says.

Comment subject
Comment
No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please:
<i> or <b>
Your name
Your email
 

We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment. We will not use it for any other purpose.

 
 
There are 15 comments on 1 page

Travel To The Moon

By Rick

Wed Mar 26 00:50:56 GMT 2008

Why can't the shuttle leave orbit and go to the moon?

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Greg

Wed Mar 26 03:23:22 GMT 2008

The shuttle contains structures that it needs in its role as a resusable spacecraft. Wings. A tail. Landing gear. Even streamlining. Each of those things add mass to the habitable spacecraft part of the shuttle. You could drag all of that extra mass up to the speed needed to get it into Lunar transit, but you would also have to slow it down again when you get there. It would be incredibly inefficient.

You could carry 200 pounds of bricks with you when you climb Mount Everest, but why would you want to?

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Paul

Wed Mar 26 15:54:21 GMT 2008

True, but then the space shuttle is already built, working, tested. Surely easier to wack in a bit of extract fuel than build another space craft

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Jwb

Wed Mar 26 18:11:49 GMT 2008

You would nor even need the shuttle to wench it out od the Earth's gravity well If it were in orbit. Our 'new' disposable stuff could do that.

The real advantage would be to use the shuttle as a SHUTTLE between orbit (space station) and the moon.

Grasnted you would not need the streamlining for that kind of transport, but there would be 0 wear from atmospheric reentries. Maintainence costs would be very low. Think of the liferaft possibilities. ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Pat

Sat Apr 05 14:33:13 BST 2008

Why don't we leave the shuttle fleet in orbit at the lagrange points instead of scrapping them here at home? If a mission ever required it, refuel them and use them for emergencies!

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Holmstar

Wed Mar 26 16:01:53 GMT 2008

The space shuttle cannot achieve a speed high enough to reach the moon. To reach the moon, you need a velocity of about 24,000 miles per hour. The space shuttle can only reach about 17,300 miles per hour.

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Tobs

Wed Mar 26 16:27:18 GMT 2008

What mass of fuel would need to be lifted separately to get the shuttle the extra distance?

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Chris Bryan

Wed Mar 26 21:33:08 GMT 2008

But surely if the shuttle "can only reach about 17,300 miles per hour" and not 24,000 then it will still be able to reach the moon, but it will just take longer to get there?

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Jdawg

Thu Mar 27 16:17:34 GMT 2008

I could be wrong but I think that he was referring to the escape velocity needed to get to a distance as far away as the moon. The escape velocity is the velocity required to escape the gravitational pull of an object(in our case, the earth). If your velocity doesnt at least equal the escape velocity of a certain distance, then you will never be able to get to that distance.

REPORT | REPLY

Travel To The Moon

By Mystikphish

Thu Mar 27 18:01:07 GMT 2008

Unfortunately, no.

Reaching objects in orbit is not like driving to grandma's house. On Earth, your maximum speed doesn't determine WHERE you can go, just how long it takes to get there. But, in space or more specifically in orbit, how fast you can go DOES directly determine WHERE you can go. To get to the moon and stay there you don't "drive there" at your leisure, you must reach the same ORBIT that the moon is in. Your orbit is primarily determined by your velocity., your "speed". To reach the moon's orbit you must reach effectively the same "speed" the moon is moving, approx. 24,000 mph.

REPORT | REPLY

Howdy From Nasa Neighbors

By Fred Rogers

Wed Mar 26 19:36:15 GMT 2008

Mme. Ceurstemont,

Thank you for the feature. Much obliged. But here in Houston, we pronounce it YOO-stun.

REPORT | REPLY

Howdy From Nasa Neighbors

By Ian

Wed Mar 26 22:54:08 GMT 2008

Who-stun? yoo-stun.

REPORT | REPLY

Speed And Mass To And From Moon

By Mark

Wed Mar 26 22:27:25 GMT 2008

Interesting tech talk about speed and mass to and from the moon. Greg is right...how would you slow this kind of mass down efficiently and cost effectively? Looking back at Apollo returning to earth at 24k/mph, and considering the fact they did not have the mass to use the atmosphere as a proper brake, nor did they have retro rockets to enable them to slow down at the edge of re-entry.......hmmmmmm, there's no way one small heat shield and three parachutes defied the laws of physics to safely brake a projectile re-entering earth's atmoshere at 24k/mph, but "they" say we did....maybe "they" have this one worked out too!...wink, wink....LOL.

REPORT | REPLY

Speed And Mass To And From Moon

By Mystikphish

Thu Mar 27 18:27:19 GMT 2008

Typical response from a moon-hoax wingnutter...

<i>"considering the fact they did not have the mass to use the atmosphere as a proper brake"</i>

Says who? you? Show some proof about that statement. It's incorrect. Read this for everything you need to know about why your statement is incorrect, (long URL - click here). The Galileo probe recently successfully completed the hardest aerobrake attempted with a reentry velocity of 106,030 mph!

<i>"nor did they have retro rockets to enable them to slow down at the edge of re-entry"</i>

Correct, because they did not need them. Them blunt-object design of the Apollo command module was sufficient to brake the craft to speeds at which the parachutes could be successfully deployed. Yes, even from 24,000 mph!

REPORT | REPLY

There are 15 comments on 1 page

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine
  • For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
  • For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
  • Search all stories
  • Contact us about this story
  • Sign up for our free newsletter
 
Password Login
Subscriptions