Perseverance Mars Lander

[enf]

[trash]

Trash, we are mostly talking past each other.

You stay stubbornly fixated on mass and inertia.

That's mainly because you're arguing trivial points that make no real difference with respect to gravity based on a misunderstanding of physics.

In dumb simple terms, my Ford Falcon has wheels for two reasons. They are simple and efficient.
Why do you think all the Mars Rovers have wheels and not legs?
Is it because legs are better and engineers haven't though of them or they have considered them and they are just not the best solution for the application of exploring Mars?

So basically your were suggesting spot would or even might be better in multiple ways for exploring Mars.
So far you haven't put forward good arguments to support any of them.
Could a spot type robot be used? That is always possible and I will bet it is always a consideration.

OK.. so let me make it clear. I love new and unusual engineering and applications. I'm all for trying anything and everything new, cool and better.
But it's time for a BIG dose of reality here. I have to deal with engineering fvcktardary on an almost daily basis.
So while I have a really good sense of humour and I really enjoy just a sensible debate on any thought experiment, I'm a little bit cruel when it comes to making sure that fantasy doesn't over ride reality.

We research and develop new things and use what we know will certainly work.
And sometimes we just don't do something because there are higher priorities or better projects.

Some good news though, NASA is now starting to explore using cheap and off the shelf components in space for some applications rather than space rated components. Manned equipment will obviously require the high standards, but other equipment which is not critical and is basically unimportant pathfinding missions will be tested with "parts from Jaycar"

OK.. so I'm playing the devils advocate here. OK, maybe I'm not the advocate.
This will cheer ya up. NASA's "Spinoff" publication for 2020 just hit the pavement. Techno-porn


That is one of the goals of NASA, to develop technology for space that has real purpose on Earth as well.

[Uncle Fester]

That's mainly because you're arguing trivial points that make no real difference with respect to gravity based on a misunderstanding of physics.
...
So basically your were suggesting spot would or even might be better in multiple ways for exploring Mars.
So far you haven't put forward good arguments to support any of them.

There is nothing trivial about gravity here, in fact based on the speed of a rover on Mars, inertia could be seen a trivial point. You still seem to be on an imaginary planet where everything is flat and smooth.

I also have a fair bit of experience designing and building a Mars rover-like vehicle (at least from the physics point of it, is remote controllable, AI is still in the planing stage) and negotiating GRAVITY with it on rough terrain.
Many times I wished it had legs, view this post if you dare, description on the next page in 2 posts:


But I get it now, this is some kind of game of yours to simply ignore all the arguments I wrote why a walking robot would be beneficial while playing some great physics expert know it all, which I clearly see you are not.
I may not be one but I do know when I see one.

Bet you ignored this too:


I rest my case.

[trash]

Ignore you arguments. Not at at all. I consider everything you have said. You seem to think that people need to agree with you.
As I said, your arguments are weak. You've not made a good case for using walking robots on Mars.

You started with a price tag. You ignored that space hardware needs to be rated, hardend, tested, retested, and specially engineered.
The $2.7 Billion price tag for Perseverance comes with a Rocket, lander, and a range of instruments. Spot for $74k comes with... styrofoam packing.
It's hair brained to think you could use an off the shelf Earth toy to do anything practical on Mars let alone a complex mission.

You then made claims about energy efficiency which were wrong, and then you doubled down and were still wrong.
One Spot uses 4 times more power than than Perseverance. You couldn't even come up with a practical power supply for one that might be able to deploy on Mars to power just one spot let alone multiple units.

And then trying to double down on "efficiency" ...

OK Fester, time to take a chill pill. We both know you're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole and I'm not buying it.

Bet you ignored this too:

As I said, I have not ignored anything you posted.

Let me make it clear. You're being wildly optimistic about what you think they can already do and what they will be able to do.

IF they put a walking robot on Mars like spot, it isn't going to be an Boston Dynamics toy.
It's going to be an expensive space craft that moves slowly and has a greatly reduced power supply, most likely an RTG running something like 20 watts.
It'll be a single unit, most likely much larger than an Earth toy and of course carrying a range of sensors and communications and it will be one way mission into a Mars cave.
The real issues comes back to cost. Can they put a mission together that validates the task? Is looking in a cave on Mars worth the effort or would it some other mission be a priority?
If it's a pathfinding mission, then you might think they would send one to the moon.
Meanwhile everywhere else on Mars it's wheels on dirt.

When do you think they will send a walking robot to Mars?

Again, let me make it clear. I don't think you will see one on Mars because of these mission/engineering/cost ratios.
Not unless there is a specific cave that we might want to look into. Then the priority of that mission will be that cave and validate that engineering.
Using them for general surface exploration, I do not see any significant advantage.

[Uncle Fester]

As I said, your arguments are weak. You've not made a good case for using walking robots on Mars.

You ignored that space hardware needs to be rated, hardend, tested, retested, and specially engineered.
.
It's hair brained to think you could use an off the shelf Earth toy to do anything practical on Mars let alone a complex mission.

You then made claims about energy efficiency which were wrong, and then you doubled down and were still wrong.
One Spot uses 4 times more power than than Perseverance. You couldn't even come up with a practical power supply for one that might be able to deploy on Mars to power just one spot let alone multiple units.

And then trying to double down on "efficiency" ...

As I said, I have not ignored anything you posted.

Sorry to break my promise but I can't let these falsehoods stand and I have just finished my work and have no new SciFi shows to watch, so the only current entertainment available is to create my own.

If you had actually read my comments you would have been aware that I said Spot is more efficient than the rover based on the DISTANCE it could cover per day.
There is no reason why Spot can't walk as fast on Mars as it can on Earth.
The reason why the rovers are so slow is that they have to carefully plan and negotiate each metre to avoid the rover getting bogged with it's wheels.
Of course the fact that Perseverance weighs a ton is also a reason, yet it gets away with only 110W which is quite astonishing but at what gradient of slope will it stall?
So that is 1.3kWh for the rover's 12 hour day for optimistically 2.4km, against 0.4kWh for Spot's 1h consumption (on Earth) lets say conservatively 4km fairly flat ground but Spot will run longer per charge on Mars even laden with equipment.

I also never said to just drop down off-the-shelf Spots.
I said that the base of this $75k critter can be used for attachments, sensors transceivers and even suggested a modular port for swappable tools.
Of course it needs to be hardened as you say it, things like boots protecting the DOFs from dust and temperature management and shielding of the sensitive electronics are obvious. This is standard procedure even for the thousands of LOW COST shoebox satellites that are smothering us in LEO lately.

I think you don't understand what Spot is.
You can make it's shell out of Titanium, Aluminium, Carbon Fibre or Bamboo, that is irrelevant.
Spot is the advanced R&D for the motor skills, mechanics and software to enable this kind of motion that will enable research in areas where traces of former or even existing life could be possible, like caves, tubes and possibly smaller but deeper craters containing water.
You not going to find any life in the desert where the rovers can roam.
THAT is the burning question why we are sending all this expensive stuff there and THAT is the case for a walking robot!

Spot will walk on Mars just as well as on Earth and equally fast.
It will achieve far greater distances in only 1 HOUR than a rover can travel the whole day, while heading to it's point of destination
and then lie the rest of the day under the full sun with a miserly 100W foldable panel attached to him for 6 hours to fully charge its battery.
It will typically spend a couple of hours each day to explore the cave and come out again for the charge while it can still process and transmit the data to it's base.
These are trivial problems with simple solutions, nothing compared to what they did over 50 years ago when they sent humans to the moon
with much less technological advancements than we have today.
Before then that was still seen as Scifi and there are still crack pots today that claim impossible, it never happened.

Don't tell me you are one of those.
Lots of Ppl will even be driving electric cars soon, even though a lot of 'Specialists' told us that they will never have the range of a petrol vehicle.
I even remember a UNI lecturer telling us in the late 70's that there will never be a blue LED!
Stop thinking yesterday.

No clue what you mean with doubling down on efficiency.
Spot's base will weigh roughly 12kg on Mars, so you still think that makes no significant difference?
How about you do a 5km power walk in an hour carrying three 50kg sacks of cement strapped to your back (assuming you weigh 75kg).
Still think you are using the same energy? You would likely collapse at 0.5km or less unless you are Arnie or similar.
That is the difference between Earth and Mars.
That is why Spot's batteries will last longer there per charge.

I basically wrote most of above in my posts before.
Maybe I am just very bad at writing and you didn't understand me.
I hope this simple summary is a bit clearer but please read slowly because I do give attention to detail.

[lsemmens]

with initial animation.