Moon missions: How to avoid a puncture on the Moon
One big challenge for anyone developing technology for the Moon are the huge temperature ranges.At the lunar poles temperatures can plunge lower than -230C, that's not far off absolute zero, where atoms stop moving. And that's a problem for tyres."Without atom motion you have a hard time having the material be able to deform and return," says Dr Padula.The tyres need to be able to deform as they go over rocks and then ping back to their original shape."If we permanently deform a tyre, it doesn't roll efficiently, and we have issues with power loss," says Dr Padula.The new wheels will also carry much bigger loads than the lightweight rovers Apollo astronauts cruised around in.The next space missions will need to drive round "bigger science platforms and mobile habitats that get larger and larger", he says.And that will be an even heftier problem on Mars, where gravity is double that on the Moon.
Apollo's lunar rovers used tyres made from zinc-coated piano wire in a woven mesh, with a range of around 21 miles.Since extreme temperatures and cosmic rays break down rubber or turn it to a brittle glass, metal alloys and high-performance plastic are chief contenders for airless space tyres."In general, metallic or carbon fibre-based materials are used for these wheels," says Pietro Baglion, team leader of the European Space Agency's (ESA) Rosalind Franklin Mission, which aims to send its own rover to Mars by 2028.One promising material is nitinol, an alloy of nickel and titanium."Fuse these and it makes a rubber-acting metal that can bend all these different ways, and it will always stretch back to its original shape, says Earl Patrick Cole, chief executive of The Smart Tire Company.He calls nitinol's flexible properties "one of the craziest things you will ever see".Nitinol is a potentially "revolutionary" material says Dr Padula, because the alloy also absorbs and releases energy as it changes states. It may even have solutions to heating and refrigeration, he says.However, Mr Barthet at Michelin thinks that a material closer to a high-performance plastic will be more suitable for tyres that need to cover long distances on the Moon.
Bridgestone has meanwhile taken a bio-mimicry approach, by making a model of the footpads of camels.Camels have soft, fatty footpads that disperse their weight on to a wider surface area, keeping their feet from sinking into loose sandy soil.Inspired by that, Bridgestone is using a felt-like material for its tread, while the wheel comprises thin metal spokes that can flex.The flexing divides the lunar module's weight into a larger contact area, so it can drive without getting stuck in the fragments of rock and dust on the Moon's surface.Michelin and Bridgestone are each part of different consortiums that, along with California's Venturi Astrolab, are presenting their proposed tyre tech to Nasa at the John Glenn Centre this month (May).Nasa is expected to make a decision later this year - it might choose one proposal or adopt elements of several of them.Meanwhile, Michelin is testing its tyres by driving a sample rover around on a volcano near Clermont, whose powdery terrain resembles the Moon's surface.Bridgestone is doing the same on western Japan's Tottori Sand Dunes.ESA is also exploring the possibility of whether Europe might make a rover on its own for other missions, says Mr Barthet.
The work might have some useful applications here on Earth.While working on his doctorate at the University of Southern California, Dr Cole joined a Nasa entrepreneurial programme to work on commercialising some of the technology from the Mars super-elastic rover tyre.An early product this year will be nickel-titanium bicycle tyres.Priced around $150 (£120) each, the tyres are much more expensive than regular ones, but would be extremely durable. He also plans to work this year on durable tyres for motorbikes, aimed at areas with rough roads. For all this, his "dream" remains to play a part in humanity's return to the Moon."So, I can tell my kids, look up there on the Moon," he says. "Daddy's tyres are up there."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
SpaceX launches joint astronaut crew to ISS in NASA's Crew-11 mission
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - An international crew of four astronauts launched toward the International Space Station from Florida on Friday aboard a SpaceX rocket, beating gloomy weather to embark on a routine NASA mission that could be the first of many to last a couple months longer than usual. The four-person astronaut crew - two NASA astronauts, a Russian cosmonaut and Japanese astronaut - boarded SpaceX's Dragon capsule sitting atop its Falcon 9 rocket at NASA's Kennedy Space Center and blasted off at 11:43 am ET (1543 GMT). They will arrive at the ISS on Saturday.
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The true story of America's Wuhan lab: Crippling disease outbreak 'is linked to top secret island base'... amid claims it was weaponized on PURPOSE
On a small dot of land, just a mile from the northeast coast of Long Island, New York, sits the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, an off-limits federal research facility established in 1954. Operated by the Department of Homeland Security, the laboratory studies highly transmissible animal diseases that the government says are not a threat to human health.
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Scientists slam Trump administration climate report as a ‘farce' full of misinformation
A new Trump administration report which attempts to justify a mass rollback of environmental regulations is chock-full of climate misinformation, experts say. On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to undo the 2009 'endangerment finding', which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. Hours later, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a 150-page report defending the proposal, claiming scientific concern about the climate crisis is overblown. 'Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe,' wrote the energy secretary, Chris Wright, in the report's introduction. Esteemed climate scientist Michael Mann said the report was akin to the result he would expect 'if you took a chat bot and you trained it on the top 10 fossil fuel industry-funded climate denier websites'. The DOE published the report hours after the EPA announced a plan to roll back 2009's 'endangerment finding', a seminal ruling that provided the legal basis for the agency to regulate climate-heating pollution under the Clean Air Act. If finalized, the move would topple virtually all US climate regulation. In a Fox News interview, Wright claimed the report pushes back on the 'cancel culture Orwellian squelching of science'. But Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University and expert in climate misinformation, said its true purpose is to 'justify what is a scientifically unjustifiable failure to regulate fossil fuels'. 'Science is the basis for climate regulation, so now they are trying to replace legitimate science with pseudoscience,' she said. The attack on the research underpinning the endangerment finding – which says greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare – comes as part of Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' agenda to boost fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming. 'This is an agenda to promote fossil fuels, not to protect public health and welfare or the environment,' said Rachel Cleetus, a director at climate and science non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists who was an author on the sixth US national climate assessment. Asked about scientists' assertions that the new report is rife with misinformation, a DOE spokesperson Ben Dietderich, said: 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous presidential administrations.' But the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces what is widely considered the gold standard compendium of climate science, compiled by a huge multinational team of scientists, peer reviewed and agreed to by every national government. The latest IPCC synthesis report, released two years ago, was a vast undertaking involving 721 volunteer scientists around the world. It states that it is 'unequivocal' that human activity has heated the planet, which has 'led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people'. By contrast, the Trump administration report was crafted by five handpicked scientists who are seen as having fringe or contrarian views by mainstream climate scientists, with no peer review. The experts behind the report have previously denied being climate deniers. The DOE did not respond to a question about the authors. 'This report had five authors and was rushed over four months, and would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer review process,' said Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at the climate non-profit Berkeley Earth, who called the paper a 'farce'. Wright, the energy secretary, insisted he had not steered the report's conclusions, while Judith Curry, one of the report authors, said in a blog post she hoped the document will push climate science 'away from alarmism and advocacy'. Mainstream climate scientists, however, condemned the findings as distorted and inaccurate. 'This is a report written by a couple of scientists who are outliers in their arguments for climate change,' said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University. 'This document does in no way depreciate the value of previous assessments, but rather just cherrypicks the literature to pretend to create a new review.' Mahowald said the lack of peer review means it's 'obviously not as robust' as the IPCC report or the US government's periodic national climate assessment, which the Trump administration recently took offline. The latest national climate assessment, compiled by a dozen government agencies and outside scientists in 2023, concluded that the 'effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States' 'If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different,' Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, said of the new report. 'The only way to get this report was to pick these authors.' Hausfather agreed that the authors' work 'might represent their views but is not consistent with the broader scientific literature on climate change'. He was among the scientists whose work the authors cited. The new paper includes a chart from a 2019 report which he led, claiming it demonstrates how climate models 'consistently overestimated observations' of atmospheric carbon. But Hausfather's research actually showed that climate models have performed well. 'They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,' he said. The DOE did not respond to a request for comment about Hausfather's concerns. That approach to research seems to underpin the entire paper, said Hausfather, who is also the climate research lead at tech company Stripe. 'This is a general theme in the report; they cherrypick data points that suit their narrative and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not,' he said. Dessler said scientists are obliged to engage with the full range of evidence, even if it contradicts their initial assumptions. Ignoring this principle 'can rise to the level of scientific misconduct', he said. 'The report they produced should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide,' Dessler said. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence.' The lack of peer review in the administration's report led to conclusions that deviated, sometimes wildly, from the scientific literature. Many of its claims are based on long-debunked research long promoted by climate deniers, said Mann. 'It is shop worn, decades-old, discredited climate denier talking points, dressed up in the clothing of some sensible new set of revelations,' he said. 'What's different is that it has the imprimatur of the EPA and the federal government now.' The report, for instance claims that warming trends have been overstated, despite evidence to the contrary. It was published as extreme heat is affecting millions of Americans. 'They're literally trying to tell us not to believe what we see with our own two eyes … and instead buy into their denialist framing that rejects not just the science, but what is plainly evident if you look out your window,' said Mann. The authors also write that ocean acidification is occurring 'within the range of natural variability' and beneficial for marine life despite the ocean's acidic levels currently being the highest since 14m years ago, a time when a major extinction event was occurring. And the report references the apparent health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which it says 'has shown considerable growth in recent years'. The reef was recently hit by its sixth mass bleaching event since 2016, a devastating phenomena for corals where they whiten and sometimes die due to high sea temperatures. No widespread bleaching events were recorded on the reef prior to 1998. The report is 'tedious' and at times 'truly wearisome', according to Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. Kopp recently worked on a paper showing how rising temperatures and drought will worsen crop yields, counter to the report's claims that crops will flourish with extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 'Carbon dioxide fertilization is largely irrelevant to how increasingly extreme heat and intense drought will impact crop yields,' Kopp said. 'As a former department of energy fellow, I'm embarrassed by this report.'
