4 ms·
There's probably a radiation issue that wouldn't make it suitable for close to human contact. I wonder how much energy the rover needs to move around since the
by aakil 14y ago
There's probably a radiation issue that wouldn't make it suitable for close to human contact. I wonder how much energy the rover needs to move around since the gravity there is considerably weaker.
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoRover mass is same on Earth or Mars. So acceleration costs the same. Low gravity also means less friction with the ground, making it somewhat harder to move on Mars. Climbing hills would be easier on Mars.
- aakil 14y agoIsn't there also an issue of impulse though? There must be an acceleration dip compared to earth since I'm basically pushing a mini cooper on earth but only a bicycle on mars. Note: I'm a scientist so I'm embarrassingly bad at physics.
- mpyne 14y agoIt would be easier to lift the rover perhaps, but F=ma, so since the mass of the rover hasn't changed, neither has the acceleration you can develop for a given force applied.
- Shadow6363 14y agoIsn't the friction dependent upon the normal force which on Mars would be less. Therefore, shouldn't the force required to overcome that also be less?
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoWheels need friction to develop acceleration. So its a negative not a positive.
- maxerickson 14y agoIt's only a negative if the vehicle needs to accelerate quickly. So sufficient friction is sufficient, not a negative or a positive. Given that the batteries store roughly 2.4 kW-h, it's probably safe to assume that the max drive power is less than 500 watts (2.4 kW-h / 10 hours -> 240 watts). Earth side electric vehicles commonly have drive power over 100 kilowatts.
- rlpb 14y agoAbsolutely, if you were pushing a block along the ground. Fortunately modern "wheel" technology reduces the bearing friction so much that it is no longer a factor. The only friction left is the friction holding the wheel to the ground. This is reduced in reduced gravity, such that wheels are more likely to slip.