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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges and considerations of operating a rover on an asteroid with very low gravity. Participants explore the implications of low gravitational forces on movement, propulsion requirements, and potential designs for rovers suitable for such environments.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a rover would "float" away due to low gravity, suggesting that normal and gravitational forces might equal zero.
  • Another participant notes that a rover could float away if it reaches the escape velocity of the asteroid, emphasizing the importance of the asteroid's size and the desired speed of movement.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of wheels on low-gravity surfaces, with suggestions that multi-legged rovers or grappling mechanisms might be more effective.
  • Some participants propose that thrusters could be used to maintain contact with the surface, especially when navigating rough terrain, although they acknowledge that thrusters might be fuel-inefficient.
  • There is a discussion about the potential for using ballast to improve traction, but questions remain about its effectiveness given the escape velocity constraints.
  • One participant cites the low gravitational acceleration of an asteroid (0.13 mm/s²) and discusses the implications for movement speed and the challenges of relying on friction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the best approach for rover design and movement on low-gravity asteroids. There is no consensus on the effectiveness of different propulsion methods or rover designs.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations such as the dependence on the asteroid's surface characteristics and the unresolved challenges of movement dynamics in low gravity.

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 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K