Canadian moon rover? (Not so quiet any longer)

[robertross]

A big thanks goes out to AnalogMan for putting me onto this Canadian company also working on the TriDAR system for Orion, among other neat things.

http://www.neptec.com/News2008/031208_CanadaCom.html

Quick except:

"Canada is quietly putting together a proposal to build NASA an all-Canadian moon rover — a vehicle with a pressurized air cabin that astronauts could use without wearing bulky helmets and air tanks.

One space industry executive says this could be Canada's next big area of expertise after the Canadarms.

There are at least three American lunar rovers under development already.

MDA Corp., which built the Canadarms and Radarsat satellites, is also working on its own proposed lunar rover."


Okay, now how cool is that!!!!   

[amaturespacecase]

Well, NASA already has a big start on you. Did I imagine this or isn't it targeted concept to have 100% American hardware for moon missions?

[robertross]

That's a loaded question, imo, but sightly skewed.

Yes, ISS has shown both sides of the coin when it comes to partnerships. Having them as a source of hardware, like Italy building MPLM's or the Cupola, under the current contracts, obligates NASA to providing something in return (namely a flight of one of their astronauts, or cash equivalent). The other is a complete reliance, like Russian Soyuz or Progress re-supply, can put a chain around your neck (so to speak) to accessability.

The moral of that story is to do as much as you can internally, without denying you something so critical that you can't complete the goal (access to & return from ISS). Otherwise you face that statement: "Yes, isn't it pretty up there, too bad we can't use it". 

Canada, it could be argued, is much more stable when it comes to a reliable partner in support for such endeavours. The Canadarm has been a great source of pride for this country, but it has also been, and continues to be, an invaluable tool for the shuttle.

Having Canada contribute a lunar rover, or triDAR ranging system, or medical robot, does not prevent NASA from completing a mission to the moon. It might push them back a few months, or limit their operational capability, but they still go to the moon. It's simply outsourcing from a 'fairly' local supplier, without having to worry about developing that technology themselves.

Besides, if the USA does finally get to the moon, the enormous costs it burdens would be limited by the vehicle it chooses, as we all know by now. With the Canadian dollar most always much lower than the greenback, you're getting our hardware for a bargain.

SO, how many rovers can I put you down for? 

[Jorge]

Well, NASA already has a big start on you. Did I imagine this or isn't it targeted concept to have 100% American hardware for moon missions?

You imagined this.

100% US hardware for transportation, international partners can contribute lunar surface systems.

[synchrotron]

Besides, if the USA does finally get to the moon, the enormous costs it burdens would be limited by the vehicle it chooses, as we all know by now. With the Canadian dollar most always much lower than the greenback, you're getting our hardware for a bargain.

SO, how many rovers can I put you down for?  ;)

This is a multi-billion dollar effort. Doesn't seem affordable for a small country to provide this contribution.

[tankmodeler]

This is a multi-billion dollar effort. Doesn't seem affordable for a small country to provide this contribution.

It actually isn't anywhere near that expensive, you know, I've seen the numbers. This entire thing is very much up in the air and while several Canadian companies are putting together proposals, there isn't a Canadian policy on this yet, much less anything in response from NASA or the US Gov't. So it's all vapourware at the moment.

That said, however, one program model that has been examined is similar to that of the Canadarm on the shuttles, i.e. Canada pays for the development of the rover & presents one unit to Nasa gratis. Further rovers are bought by NASA to the original design for other missions. The cost for these other rovers would not include an increment for the development cost and would, therefore, be much, much cheaper than paying the development-included price. And, yes, the usual quid pro quo being talked about for this sort of thing is Canadian astronauts being taken to the moon alongside other international crewmembers.

Of course it all has to get through the Canadian government first and then through CSA before anything concrete really gets rolling. And, in case the rest of you don't know, the Canadian Government is in a bit of a state lately and "space" will be even lower on the priority list than usual until the gov't gets its fecal matter co-located. None of us are really holding our breaths.

Paul

[iamlucky13]

Well, NASA already has a big start on you. Did I imagine this or isn't it targeted concept to have 100% American hardware for moon missions?

You imagined this.

100% US hardware for transportation, international partners can contribute lunar surface systems.

To expand on this, the idea is that "critical paths" aren't dependent on international partners...crew launch, cargo launch, and surface access. That covers sortie missions. If you extend it to an outpost, it might also reasonably include power supply and habitation.

A pressurized rover doesn't fit into a sortie mission (single lander, less than 2 weeks duration), so there's no impact on that if Canada commits to but can't follow through on a pressurized rover.

It would augment an outpost mission (prepositioned infrastructure, multiple landers to the same site, up to 6 months stay per crew) by allowing them to effectively explore more efficiently and further from the outpost, but it's not necessarily required. ESAS sets approximate ranges of study for various schemes. If I remember right, it's 2 km with no rover at all, 10 km with a basic rover, and at least 50 km with a pressurized rover. I think my memory is being conservative here, but I'd rather understate from memory than overstate. So for an outpost, not having a pressurized rover reduces the potential return, but does not prevent the mission from taking place.

From the US perspective, sharing non-critical responsibilities seems like a great idea. The cost to us is sharing the limelight with other nation's astronauts. The benefit is effectively more funding. The benefit is pretty good from Canada's perspective, too, as they couldn't afford to build the critical infrastructure to be a part of lunar exploration by themselves. However, the risk seems a little higher, because if the US fails to follow through, they're stuck with a $billion rover and no way to get it to the moon.

[robertross]

From the US perspective, sharing non-critical responsibilities seems like a great idea. The cost to us is sharing the limelight with other nation's astronauts. The benefit is effectively more funding. The benefit is pretty good from Canada's perspective, too, as they couldn't afford to build the critical infrastructure to be a part of lunar exploration by themselves. However, the risk seems a little higher, because if the US fails to follow through, they're stuck with a $billion rover and no way to get it to the moon.

Don't worry, we have museums too 

[wannamoonbase]

This is a multi-billion dollar effort. Doesn't seem affordable for a small country to provide this contribution.

Not at all.  Canada's GDP is about 10% of the US.  Being 10% of the largest country on Earth isn't 'small'.   

My complaint about the CSA is 2 fold.  First it is funded at a fraction of the % of GDP that NASA gets.  Sadly.  Second, much of the money CSA does get goes into a Workfare program in Montreal and not hardware or spacecraft.  Considering these problems the engineers and scientists in Canada working on this stuff do an out standing job.

Without reservation, Canada if it supports this, would deliver a top notch rover and on schedule too (won't stick my neck out on budget, as I don't think anyone will make a budget for moon projects).


Full Disclosure:  I am Canadian with a US greencard and its awesome belonging to both.

[robertross]

To continue of wannamoonbase's post...
It seems as a rule of thumb, that Canada does/has everything as the USA, but 1/10th the amount, present federal debt excluded.  

If Canada would get its act together and properly fund its R&D initiatives (and many other areas), we might not lose all our skilled workers to the USA.

Canada CAN afford this. It should afford (pay for) this. And I believe it will go for this. We have a found something we can help out with and be good at. Let's get'er done!

[robertross]

This is a multi-billion dollar effort. Doesn't seem affordable for a small country to provide this contribution.

It actually isn't anywhere near that expensive, you know, I've seen the numbers. This entire thing is very much up in the air and while several Canadian companies are putting together proposals, there isn't a Canadian policy on this yet, much less anything in response from NASA or the US Gov't. So it's all vapourware at the moment.

That said, however, one program model that has been examined is similar to that of the Canadarm on the shuttles, i.e. Canada pays for the development of the rover & presents one unit to Nasa gratis. Further rovers are bought by NASA to the original design for other missions. The cost for these other rovers would not include an increment for the development cost and would, therefore, be much, much cheaper than paying the development-included price. And, yes, the usual quid pro quo being talked about for this sort of thing is Canadian astronauts being taken to the moon alongside other international crewmembers.

Of course it all has to get through the Canadian government first and then through CSA before anything concrete really gets rolling. And, in case the rest of you don't know, the Canadian Government is in a bit of a state lately and "space" will be even lower on the priority list than usual until the gov't gets its fecal matter co-located. None of us are really holding our breaths.

Paul

Well said Paul.
I particularly like the 'first one's free' approach. We have nothing to lose, really, only gain. It is a unique and challenging opportunity, and the (fill-in-the-blank) politicians would be fools to throw that chance away.

[imcub]

Well said Paul.
I particularly like the 'first one's free' approach. We have nothing to lose, really, only gain. It is a unique and challenging opportunity, and the (fill-in-the-blank) politicians would be fools to throw that chance away.

Well if the Canadian politicians do throw away this chance ... it wouldn't be the first opportunity lost ... junking the Avro Arrow comes to mind. 

As a Yank ... I'd love to see a Canadian Maple Leaf adorning a moon rover!

[wannamoonbase]

robertross:
thanks for the addition.  Regarding the first one free, it will be a little different than the arm in that there may only be a few rovers over a decade and they just get serviced. 

I can imagine a steady stream of add on doo-dads like scopes, shovels, arms, cranes etc.

imcub:
I look forward to the day of seeing a Canuck Rover turn up some regolith.

[robertross]

robertross:
thanks for the addition.  Regarding the first one free, it will be a little different than the arm in that there may only be a few rovers over a decade and they just get serviced. 

I can imagine a steady stream of add on doo-dads like scopes, shovels, arms, cranes etc.

imcub:
I look forward to the day of seeing a Canuck Rover turn up some regolith.

Well there would (theoretically) be one rover for every landing site. I can think of six right off the bat, and 6 more 'possibles' after that, +/- based on the US commitment. But we only provided what, 4 or 5 flight Canadarms?. Not exatly large quantities. The Canadarms 2 is essentially unique (I believe there are 2 units). Like our satellite operations (now few), we provide unique solutions.

Like I've said before, I would love us all to go to the moon, I just want it to be done in the right way (funding, proper launch vehicle, go to stay). We don't need another half-baked idea or funding-pulled scenario. If it means waiting 5 years, then fine.

Back to the topic at hand...

I see it evolving to the 'doo-dads' as well, including drill equipment (specifically). I'm fickle for US military hardware, but not the tanks themselves (yes, I love them), but it's the way the equipment gets adapted  for various tasks: dozers, amphibious vehicles, cranes. I'd like to see a generic vehicle designed to support those add-ons, along with trailering capability (even dual drive systems in tandem).

One vehicle, that can support and sustain all expected generic tasks. We have (briefly):

1) Crew transport
2) Drilling
3) Propellant tank transfer sled c/w crane
4) ISRU tasks
5) Equipment transfer & set-up
6) Dozer/crane c/w dump bucket
...yes it's exciting! And I truly would love to see that maple leaf on a lunar rover...as I was beaming seeing the Canada logo on the Mars Phoenix Lander. Good times!

[robertross]

This would be my concept for this type of vehicle. Ironically already used in some fashion for NASA...firefighting:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15154.msg344056#msg344056

Retired Down Range clarified the vehicle as a Swedish Bandvagn 206 developed by Hagglunds seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bv_206

Having the ability to hitch-on a supplementary vehicle is essential since you have a pressurized crew driving vehicle, which limits the useable volume for cargo. Of course I doubt tracks would work all that well on the moon, but if there were significant areas of dust, there may be a propensity to sink. It was the fact of two distinct vehicles that caught my attention. The second module would be the one that could be shipped as a new add-on for the varied tasks as ISRU advanced.