Would a rover on an asteroid float away because of the low gravity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A rover on an asteroid with low gravity, such as the one landed on by the Japanese mission, faces unique challenges in movement due to the gravitational force of only 0.13 millimeters per second². The rover risks floating away if it reaches the escape velocity, necessitating a propulsion system to maintain contact with the surface. Traditional wheels may be ineffective due to reduced traction, making multi-legged designs or grappling systems more viable for mobility. Additionally, using ballast or thrusters can help manage movement, but careful calculations are essential to ensure stability and control.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of asteroid gravitational fields
  • Knowledge of propulsion systems for space rovers
  • Familiarity with mobility mechanisms in low-gravity environments
  • Basic principles of escape velocity and surface acceleration
NEXT STEPS
  • Research propulsion system designs for low-gravity environments
  • Explore the mechanics of multi-legged rovers versus wheeled designs
  • Study the effects of gravitational force on rover mobility
  • Investigate methods for measuring gravitational fields of asteroids
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, robotics developers, and researchers in planetary science will benefit from this discussion, particularly those focused on rover design and mobility in low-gravity environments.

sciencec
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
Would a rover on an asteroid float away because of the low gravity?
I’m wondering if a lander/rover landed on an asteroid with a very low gravity, and we wanted to make said rover move around the asteroid, would it “float” away because of the low gravity? Wouldn’t the normal force and the gravitational force equal 0? If we added a propulsion system, how would we know the amount of propulsion to “give” to the lander? I hope my questions are clear. Thank you!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Hopping aside, a rover would float away forever if it reached the escape velocity of the asteroid. The normal vs gravitational force does not have much to do with it as the asteroid is round and not flat. The question becomes one about the size of the asteroid vs how fast you want to be going.
 
Orodruin said:
Hopping aside, a rover would float away forever if it reached the escape velocity of the asteroid. The normal vs gravitational force does not have much to do with it as the asteroid is round and not flat. The question becomes one about the size of the asteroid vs how fast you want to be going.
So there’d have to be a way to keep the rover from floating away forever. Would the propulsion system work?
 
sciencec said:
Wouldn’t the normal force and the gravitational force equal 0? If we added a propulsion system, how would we know the amount of propulsion to “give” to the lander?
The gravitational field of an asteroid can be measured by sending something to orbit it. That will enable calculating the surface acceleration/gravitational force of thrust required. Yes, thrusters would work. They wouldn't be needed all the time, just when rolling over rough terrain that could cause the rover to jump off the surface.

However, the low gravity also means reduced traction, so a rover would be a very slow way to move.
 
russ_watters said:
However, the low gravity also means reduced traction, so a rover would be a very slow way to move.
A rover could move around much more quickly if it could fire pegs or grapples into the ground and attach tethers / walking legs. Wheels are clearly not the best solution and thrusters would probably be wasteful of fuel.
I heard mention of multi-legged walking rovers being potentially better than wheels even under planetary gravity in some situations. That makes sense as there are no roads available.
 
sophiecentaur said:
A rover could move around much more quickly if it could fire pegs or grapples into the ground and attach tethers / walking legs.
That seems cumbersome, but potentially doable.
Wheels are clearly not the best solution and thrusters would probably be wasteful of fuel.
I heard mention of multi-legged walking rovers being potentially better than wheels even under planetary gravity in some situations. That makes sense as there are no roads available.
I'm mostly not referring to getting around terrain, I'm talking about the difficulty of just moving at all. Anything that relies on friction or has the potential to bounce will be a major problem, and that includes legs. The g on that asteroid the Japanese landed on was .13 millimeters per second2. A rover that relied on friction to move would take hours to accelerate to walking speed if it managed to stay on the ground.
 
russ_watters said:
The g on that asteroid the Japanese landed on was .13 millimeters per second2.
Wow - you really would have to 'pussyfoot around'. I can see the attraction of thrusters but there would be less fuel involved if the surface would allow some sort of attachment to the ground.
If the surface is very loose (most likely?) then the vehicle could collect a large bucket full of dust / rocks to provide ballast. But would that actually help? The escape velocity is still the same so the speed of movement wouldn't necessarily be improved; the ballast would need to be slung underneath and decoupled from the rover's varying vertical motion. Not a problem if very long spindly legs were used.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K