5 ms·

My guess: the odometry markers not only measure distance, they also provide traction. They're stronger for basically the same reasons I-beams are strong. The sh

by mholt 12y ago

My guess: the odometry markers not only measure distance, they also provide traction. They're stronger for basically the same reasons I-beams are strong. The shape of the cross-section is extremely durable through certain types of stresses. In the case of the wheels, they're stronger against punctures and bending depending on the direction of the torque.

pdkl95 12y ago
There could be value in having different types of surfaces on the wheel as well. The odometry region might be able to handle some problems that the smooth regions cannot (and vice versa).
- fit2rule 12y ago
  The odometry region is a danger zone for exactly the same problem described in the article: big pointy rocks that don't move - at all - can get stuck in the holes, and suddenly rover is stuck on that big pointy rock. Whats needed, in my humble opinion, is variant chevron patterns which distribute the puncture load evenly across the contact surface .. seems that the chevron itself is a big pointy thing, and when it gets close to another big pointy thing - i.e. Mars itself - then the tearing happens. This is sort of a 'duh', though, I have to say .. perhaps the Mars rovers should be tested in places like the Kimberly region of North-western Australia, a wild and hostile landscape where - essentially - massive piles of steely/iron ore rock and associated minerals have been practically welded into place onto the planet across the wide, hostile, Mars-like region .. I've punctured many a wheel there myself, dang it, in that part of the world. Anyway, the wheel design and its problems/lessons-learned is indeed fascinating. This article was a real blast for this remotely-operated robot fan.
  - dalke 12y ago
    This is not a 'duh'. Curiosity is at the edge of what we can build and place on the surface of Mars. It's very carefully designed to handle the expected conditions on Mars. As the article points out in section 5, it's possible to make the wheels thicker, and handle a wider amount of surface conditions, but that comes at a cost. Not only would it be more expensive to deliver to Mars, but > a major constraint arose from a tricky moment in the landing sequence, at the moment that the wheels deployed, while the rover was suspended from the bridle underneath the descent stage. The wheels' sudden drop imparted substantial forces on the mobility system, and keeping wheel mass as light as possible reduced those forces to manageable ones. There were other factors that made it important to keep wheel mass low. Making Curiosity handle all of the worst (dry) terrain on Earth might end up with a machine that cannot be landed on Mars, or a reduced science capacity. Remember also that it was designed for a two year mission. That was a success. Now it's on an extended mission.
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      In my opinion the condition of the wheels at this point in the mission profile is a 'duh', absolutely, but not necessarily a 'dud'. The investigators themselves admitted they were surprised to learn that the design of the cantilever, combined with 'sharp pointy rocks on Mars that have been stuck in place for millions of years', as well as what is a near-obvious flaw in the chevron design, produced the current conditions. Lesson learned, but hardly a surprise. I'm not saying it was a failure, just that the cause of the problems is hardly surprising, or even unpredictable given the circumstances. But, as always, design and budget constraints produce a panoply of ways things can get - eventually - busted in production ..

by mholt 12y ago

pdkl95 12y ago

There could be value in having different types of surfaces on the wheel as well. The odometry region might be able to handle some problems that the smooth regions cannot (and vice versa).

fit2rule 12y ago
The odometry region is a danger zone for exactly the same problem described in the article: big pointy rocks that don't move - at all - can get stuck in the holes, and suddenly rover is stuck on that big pointy rock. Whats needed, in my humble opinion, is variant chevron patterns which distribute the puncture load evenly across the contact surface .. seems that the chevron itself is a big pointy thing, and when it gets close to another big pointy thing - i.e. Mars itself - then the tearing happens. This is sort of a 'duh', though, I have to say .. perhaps the Mars rovers should be tested in places like the Kimberly region of North-western Australia, a wild and hostile landscape where - essentially - massive piles of steely/iron ore rock and associated minerals have been practically welded into place onto the planet across the wide, hostile, Mars-like region .. I've punctured many a wheel there myself, dang it, in that part of the world. Anyway, the wheel design and its problems/lessons-learned is indeed fascinating. This article was a real blast for this remotely-operated robot fan.
- dalke 12y ago
  This is not a 'duh'. Curiosity is at the edge of what we can build and place on the surface of Mars. It's very carefully designed to handle the expected conditions on Mars. As the article points out in section 5, it's possible to make the wheels thicker, and handle a wider amount of surface conditions, but that comes at a cost. Not only would it be more expensive to deliver to Mars, but > a major constraint arose from a tricky moment in the landing sequence, at the moment that the wheels deployed, while the rover was suspended from the bridle underneath the descent stage. The wheels' sudden drop imparted substantial forces on the mobility system, and keeping wheel mass as light as possible reduced those forces to manageable ones. There were other factors that made it important to keep wheel mass low. Making Curiosity handle all of the worst (dry) terrain on Earth might end up with a machine that cannot be landed on Mars, or a reduced science capacity. Remember also that it was designed for a two year mission. That was a success. Now it's on an extended mission.
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    In my opinion the condition of the wheels at this point in the mission profile is a 'duh', absolutely, but not necessarily a 'dud'. The investigators themselves admitted they were surprised to learn that the design of the cantilever, combined with 'sharp pointy rocks on Mars that have been stuck in place for millions of years', as well as what is a near-obvious flaw in the chevron design, produced the current conditions. Lesson learned, but hardly a surprise. I'm not saying it was a failure, just that the cause of the problems is hardly surprising, or even unpredictable given the circumstances. But, as always, design and budget constraints produce a panoply of ways things can get - eventually - busted in production ..