Looking back at the history of remote control driving of a rover. . .

. . .what do you see as lessons learned as to what to do or what NOT to do with a rover?

Lesson 1: Never underestimate the sand hazards!

any others?

__________________
Keeper of the Jabberwock

Do the same again, for the most part. Considering in particular the breathtaking lifespans of the rovers, they got just about everything right.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Never underestimate the wind devils that can blow away the sand from the solar panels!

__________________
N6MAA10816
Faber '62 ΔTX
Are you a Bright?

I agree with ToSeek, do the same thing again except betterer. I'd like a rover that's better equiped to look for life. I'd also be happy with sending one at a time. If it fails, then you correct whatever you think caused the failure and send an almost identical rover. If it succeeds you learn from it and send an improved version. This way we could have a new robot explorer on mars say every six years. With a modular design new instruments could be slotted into, development time could be kept down.

Nice alternative for using caps to convince people. CT sites should use this approach more often. .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I'd like to claim it as my own neologism, but I think it had already been inventerated before I used it.

I'm sure that we're learning a lot about the specifics of rovers on Mars, that we should be able to impliment soon. Some of which don't get summed up easily in a short sentence:
- Our ability to set up autonomous driving is improving.
- The ability to handle more diverse terrains would be good, for example, wider treads on the wheels, or some kind of snow-shoe attachment for the soft stuff.
- Be careful not to overload the memory units.
- Design the moving parts to be able to not get ruined by grit.
- Design elbows so they don't need heat.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Prob the hardest part, Its hard enough to stop the Yorkshire 'grit' wearing the bearings on my MTB away, and I can clean it after every ride.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Knowing that the atmospheric pressure on the surface is very low, I presume a hovercraft solution would make no sense, correct?

__________________
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

A hovercraft could be made of light enough materials to work on Mars, but I think that it would be difficult to get it to have enough power to go anywhere, and especially not uphill. I also think it would spray dust, and make certain kinds of investigation difficult or impossible.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I think that the Mars Rovers have giving us incredible scientific returns. I do hope that we build on their achievments in the future. I would prefer some type of exploration vehicle that can travel faster to interesting locations. While the Rovers have done excellent work, they are very slow in covering terrain. Perhaps the ability to fly to different locations can somehow be achieved. How about a flying vehicle with a detachable exploration rover to do the close-up scientific work. It would be a great challenge to design it and certainly very expensive to build, but isn't that what NASA should be about; taking a difficult challenge and making it happen. I would prefer something like this instead of a short duration manned mission, and it would probably be much cheaper, with no risk to human life.

As much as I admire the achievements of the MERs, I still favor (some day) setting up a network of cheap stationary landers across the surface to give us a steady stream of long-term synoptic and seismic data.

As for the MERs themselves, no complaints. Kudos to the person who said that they should fix their joints if they use the design again. I also think Brak's idea of a standardized, modular MER design is great.

__________________
"Call me old-fashioned, but I think fire is magic. And it scares me a lot."

--The State

Perhaps a compressed air system with a pump and a small on-board reservoir could be used to blow grit from joints, wheels, motors as well as clear the panels?
Bigger diameter wheels, active suspension, lower CoG would improve mobility.

More RAT blades. When one is worn out, jettison it and install another.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

A driver.

Makes sense. We've already had golf on the moon.