Canadian Space Agency Shows Off Prototype Rovers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Space Agency Shows Off Prototype Rovers

Posted by timothy on Friday October 19, 2012 @10:40PM from the perfect-for-the-northern-territories dept.

An anonymous reader writes "At its headquarters in Longueuil, Que. Friday, the Canadian Space Agency rolled out a fleet of about a half-dozen prototype rovers that are the forerunners of vehicles that may one day explore the moon or Mars. The agency said the terrestrial rovers bring it one step closer to developing the next generation for space exploration."

70 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

On what Rocket? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 22:57 · Score: 2, Funny

But how are they going to get them to Mars Eh?
Secret LOX and Maple Syrup rockets?
1. Re:On what Rocket? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But how are they going to get them to Mars Eh?
  Secret LOX and Maple Syrup rockets?
  I had to think on that one. But I did that calculations and found that maple syrup only has about a fifth the enthalpy of combustion of something like RP-1. And Canadian maple syrup is famous for being pretty viscous. It might clog up the rocket engines and I don't think any Canadian could in good conscience adulterate the maple syrup to make it flow more smoothly. I understand that they have a large strategic stockpile, but I think they should just feed it to their astronauts and continue to use normal rocket fuel for their spacecraft.
2. Re:On what Rocket? by dbIII · 2012-10-20 01:17 · Score: 2
  
  The same way the USA will have to move the heavy stuff now they've given up - Soyuz.
3. Re:On what Rocket? by Walzmyn · 2012-10-20 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Canadian Whiskey
4. Re:On what Rocket? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  In Soviet Russia Energia rocket booster is always looking for... er... customers.
5. Re:On what Rocket? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-20 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Secret LOX and Maple Syrup rockets?
  Well, if you managed to convert maple syrup into sorbitol with any efficiency, and then mixed in some potassium nitrate - or even just extracted sucrose from it to mix it with KNO3 - you'd get some usable amateur rocket fuel.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
6. Re:On what Rocket? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-20 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  ...or they they could simply attach the astronauts to nozzles and feed them with a lot of fiber and legumes. It would also solve the perennial problem of micro-gravity toilets.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:On what Rocket? by theshowmecanuck · 2012-10-20 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Legumes mixed with maple syrup to fuel bacterial growth for added "nozzle" pressure?
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
8. Re:On what Rocket? by Macrat · 2012-10-20 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  The same way the USA will have to move the heavy stuff now they've given up - Soyuz.
  Note that SpaceX is already flying a capsule designed for humans. It just hasn't been man rated yet by NASA.
9. Re:On what Rocket? by davester666 · 2012-10-20 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, are you saying that being in possession of Maple Syrup means you the main ingredient for creating a bomb to blow up the White House? You need to phone the FBI!
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
10. Re:On what Rocket? by DerekLyons · 2012-10-20 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Except Soyuz isn't a heavy lift booster, in fact it's a fairly modest booster as such things go. Meanwhile, the US has the Delta and the Atlas, and the Falcon 9...
11. Re:On what Rocket? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  The United States in the past has banned Canadian payloads on american rockets. RadarSat 2 for example was launched on a soyuz from Pletsk because the United States refused to allow it to be launched on a US rocket.
  A few years later when ATK tried to purchase the owner of RadarSAT, McDonald Detweiler, when the government nixed that, ATK's response was,hey, after all we have done for you ...
  Yeah right.
Oh those wacky Canadians... by MaxToTheMax · 2012-10-19 22:59 · Score: 0, Troll

They're playing Space Program! How cute. (Yes, I know about the Canadarm. Take a joke.)
1. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  Canada spends less than a fifth of what the US does per capita on their space program. So yes, they are just playing.
2. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:50 · Score: 0
  
  Well so is the USA, before you can say we're serious we need to spend about 4X as much.
3. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Plus nasa also has other stuff to do like airplanes. Csa has only one thing to do
4. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Guspaz · 2012-10-20 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying we spend twice as much per capita on our space program?
5. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Well, so do you. Besides being a thrill-ride for A-types, what good is the manned space program? We've been to LEO, we know what's there now. You can't possibly pull out that stale old "exploration" argument.
6. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Jesse_vd · 2012-10-20 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand your comment... but if the US has 300 million people and Canada has 30 million, the US spends $59 per person and Canada spends $10
7. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  The aeronautics budget of NASA is about 450 million dollars, out of 17B. Not a huge amount of money.
8. Re:Oh those wacky Canadians... by Guspaz · 2012-10-20 19:09 · Score: 2
  
  You're right, I missed the "per capita" in your comment.
  Still, $300 million a year can go pretty far when a Falcon 9 launch (which will eventually be able to carry astronauts) costs $50 million... Let NASA blow all their money on ludicrously overpriced and bureaucratic lift capacity like Orion, Canada can get people into space on our own dime at a fraction the cost with private companies that don't have to build parts of their craft in every different state to get their budget past congress...
Low Comments. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:10 · Score: 0

It's seven in the morning on the east coast.
1. Re:Low Comments. by Spottywot · 2012-10-20 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Plus prototype rovers that *may* fly in 8 years time aren't nearly as exiting as a rover that's actually there and doing some science.
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
Maybe FedEx will deliver them by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-10-19 23:11 · Score: 0

Prototype Canadian rovers have the same problem as (notional) Iranian nukes: no delivery systems.
1. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  I feel much safer about Canadian rovers that can't be launched than Iranian nuclear weapons though.
2. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm, if Canadian Rovers are like Iranian nukes (which will be operational real soon now - since 1979), then delivery is no problem. How much does vaporware weigh, again?
3. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Spottywot · 2012-10-20 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not really the case. If it was how did Cadadarm and Dextre get there?
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
4. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-10-20 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: NOT on Canadian boosters - which was the point.
5. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Spottywot · 2012-10-20 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: NOT on Canadian boosters - which was the point.
  There you go, it was also *my* point. If the science gets done and the mission is accomplished what does it matter?
  For that matter, if that was your point then your original analogy wouldn't make any sense, after all no-one has put the non-existant Iranian nukes on *any* delivery system, Iranian or otherwise.
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
6. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  No delivery systems? Sure they have: Passenger planes!
  The biggest top-terrorist in the world (Bin Laden was a meaningless joke compared to him, he *has* access to nukes, since he was the one supervising their construction.) even openly admits that.
  Problem is: He has been seen very often to sit with CIA agents, drink tea, and joke around, without anyone attempting to kill him. As you might imagine, that is not good news, and explains a lot.
7. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by rossdee · 2012-10-20 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  Theres a whole lot less delta V involved in getting a missile warhead a thousand kilometers or so than getting a rover all the way to Mars, plus the rover has to land in one pice when it gets there.
  (Note Iranian missiles will not be aimed at USA, they will be aimed at Haifa and Tel Aviv
8. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  What about *American* nuclear weapons?
  The only ones in the hands of people crazy enough to *actually use them*! (Not even Ahmadinejad is *that* crazy.)
  What do you think *everyone in the whole rest of the world* feels about them?
9. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Guspaz · 2012-10-20 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  Because nobody in the world is offering any sort of commercial launch services, and certainly nobody in California is working on superheavy commercial launch vehicles that might have the capacity to take a probe to Mars...
10. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  (Note Iranian missiles will not be aimed at USA, they will be aimed at Haifa and Tel Aviv
  With the difference being...?
11. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by janimal · 2012-10-20 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Distance.
12. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-20 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  That was a case of "it seems like a good idea ... *later* ...oh shit, it seems it wasn't", which happens all the time in human history.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
13. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-20 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  (Note Iranian missiles will not be aimed at USA, they will be aimed at Haifa and Tel Aviv
  With the difference being...?
  The difference being that the SM-3-equipped guided missile US Navy warships will have to go to all the way to the Mediterranean to intercept them.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
14. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by theshowmecanuck · 2012-10-20 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  In the long run, it was probably good that the atom bombs were used when they were. That is, when they were still really small (relatively speaking). It is why people are and were scared as hell to use them when they got really big; and why anyone who is a proponent of using them for a first strike is feared if they are in power and roundly ignored otherwise. If we didn't see what they did, we wouldn't know, and likely Armageddon would have already happened and we'd either all be dead or playing Fallout 3 for real. A harsh reality but there you go. And quite frankly, given that the atrocities the Nazis perpetrated pale against the imperial Japanese of WWII, I don't feel too badly we learned how bad they were the way we did.
  As for Ahmadinejad, I personally think he is that crazy. I also don't think the Americans are. What you are talking about is a day and age when people really didn't understand what nuclear bombs could and would do and how bad radiation and fallout is. And they were fighting a people responsible for huge atrocities and figured they wouldn't surrender willingly even when faced with invasion (and as documents have pointed out... read history yourself I'm not going to educate you in something that is widely known... they were correct). I can't fault them for sparing their own (our own) side more casualties fighting an emperor-god plutocracy who used Pyrrhic tactics to avoid surrender. And remember, people knew so little about the effects of radiation in those days that many used radium coated watch dials to be able to read them at night. You can't compare today and yesterday the way you just did. To label Americans as being proponents of launching nuclear bombs is purely ignorant on your part.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
15. Re:Maybe FedEx will deliver them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  I have said that a few times. When they were used, there was only enough material to make two, they were small, and the damage was minimized by them being fission rather than thermonuclear. From that experience, we learned the horror that results from the use of nuclear weapons. It isn't beyond the voice of reason that our governments (all of them, including the 5 nuclear powers) have learned from that experience and decided to avoid using them at all costs, which would probably not have been the case if they weren't used in war.
My 1987 Festiva is a Mars Rover too! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:19 · Score: 0

Once I drive it to Mars, it's going to kick ass!
Canada is often overlooked by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:30 · Score: 1

Given that Canada has a smaller population than California, I am very proud of the innovations and contributions that we make in science and engineering. If only we had the ability to market ourselves as an innovative country instead of producers of snow and maple syrup. We need less humility and more pride!
1. Re:Canada is often overlooked by graphius · 2012-10-20 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  As a fellow Canadian I wish I had mod points...
Canadian Space Agency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 23:34 · Score: 0

Whoa... when did we get a space agency? I thought we just built space arms.
I wonder... by jamstar7 · 2012-10-19 23:38 · Score: 1

... if they'll use it to track down all that missing maple syrup?

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
International cooperation by trout007 · 2012-10-20 00:04 · Score: 3, Informative

There are a few projects that NASA, CSA, and other agencies are working on together. The idea is to try to make exploration much cheaper by having modular components. So you can pick a target like the moon. Decide what you want to do like drill some core samples from the polar regions and sample them. You need a chem lab, drill, Rover, lander, and launch vehicle. If you can pick ones that have already been designed and flown you can save lots of money.
http://www.americaspace.org/?p=21059

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
1. Re:International cooperation by DerekLyons · 2012-10-20 01:30 · Score: 2
  
  The idea is to try to make exploration much cheaper by having modular components. So you can pick a target like the moon. Decide what you want to do like drill some core samples from the polar regions and sample them.
  In space, particularly due to the wide range of temperature environments, that's like having a modular system that can go to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the Greenland ice cap, the Sahara desert, or the Amazon jungle. It's been studied again and again, but it never actually works beyond paper studies and the odd low fidelity demonstrator. You end up spending too much money either hacking existing bits to do what they weren't designed to or building custom modules, and not actually saving any money.
2. Re:International cooperation by trout007 · 2012-10-20 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think I was clear. I didn't mean to say you would have a Rover that could go anywhere. It means you could have one Rover that is designed for Lunar Polar Regions, One for Lunar Equatorial Regions, One for Mars Polar, Mars Equatorial, etc. The same with the Landers and instruments.
  You are right that in the past it's been difficult due to launch costs. But with commercial space we are seeing launch costs drop. This opens up some interesting opportunities. When your launch vehicle costs $300 million your mission is already expensive without a payload. You have to try to maximize your science. Spending another $600 million for a customized payload doesn't seem too bad.
  But if you can get a $50 million dollar launcher things change. It starts to make sense to spend less on the mission in return for less science. If you can get the costs of the Landers and Rovers down you can start to afford to do missions that don't have every bell and whistle on board.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
we built the canadarm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 00:58 · Score: 0

we built the canadarm
we built the canadarm
we built the canadarm
Arn't you proud!
Thanks cbc. Yes I am.
Now do a rover jingle.
CSA page for the rovers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 01:27 · Score: 3, Informative

If you're interested in actually seeing the rovers, the Canadian Space Agency has a good page describing them:
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/media/backgrounders/2012/1019.asp
1. Re:CSA page for the rovers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for the pictures (which the original article stupidly didn't include). I think a rover might benefit from having much larger wheels, with a flexible tread, like a rubbery or metallic rim which can deform if it goes over a rock, thus providing more grip, and meaning that the rover doesn't have to lift up so high to get over it. Larger wheels (i.e. much higher than the height of the main bodies shown in those examples) would allow the rovers to travel further distances without constant human intervention.
  Picture a wheel with eight spokes, and then a more flexible rim, in eight parts, which forms a curve so that the whole creates a wheel, but with the look of a 'flat tyre'.
2. Re:CSA page for the rovers by trout007 · 2012-10-20 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  The Artemis river has a wheel like you are describing. It's a solid spoked aluminum hub. Then a bunch of sharp metal claws are spring mounted to the hub with wire ropes. It's flexible at all temperatures and has lots of traction.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
TIL. by Seumas · 2012-10-20 02:34 · Score: 2

Today, I learned: Canada has as Space Agency.
1. Re:TIL. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  i'm glad I submitted this story, I can now go on, knowing that someone believes not only that Canada exists but that they have a space program!
2. Re:TIL. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, next March the ISS will be commanded by a Canadian - Chris Hadfield.
3. Re:TIL. by Seumas · 2012-10-20 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Will all of the science experiments on ISS from that point on be syrup based?
4. Re:TIL. by Megane · 2012-10-20 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  I expect at least some of them will be studies of beer and poutine.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
5. Re:TIL. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize Canada has been in on the ISS since inception as a project and part of the space race for decades, right? If you think NASA is American through and through, there's a number of nations that would like to sit down and have a chat with you.
6. Re:TIL. by Sovetskysoyuz · 2012-10-20 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize Canada has been in on the ISS since inception as a project
  Get your facts right, Canada was involved in the ISS long before Inception was filmed.
7. Re:TIL. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 18:42 · Score: 0
  
  NASA is 100% American, what with it being an agency funded by the American government and predominantly manned by Americans. If you were to say that space exploration is not a totally America-funded arrangement, you'd be correct.
Moon dust hovercraft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 03:35 · Score: 0

I thought of an idea for a rover on the moon....
how about using moon dust as rocket fuel?
when you blast dust downward, you make dust kick up.... you can collect that dust and use it as blast dust downward.
ought to take something that looks like a dish washing machine sprayer.
as long as you collect more dust than you use making dust kick up, you might be good... don't know about the weight factors though.
Prototypes by Freshly+Exhumed · 2012-10-20 04:10 · Score: 1

These are prototypes. Prototypes don't get sent anywhere. They are only design projects.

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
True purpose revealed by Freshly+Exhumed · 2012-10-20 04:21 · Score: 2

Ostensibly it is indeed a "Space" agency, but the real insider scoop is that in about a year the rovers will actually be sent to Vermont as a prelude to invasion and subjugation of that state's maple syrup and dairy industries. Of course the Green Mountain Boys will welcome us with roses.
You read it here first.

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Whot's this all aboot? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 06:27 · Score: 0

Bean there. Downe that.
The Great Red Planet by brusewitz · 2012-10-20 08:25 · Score: 1

Bob and Doug McKenzie go searching for beer on mars, eh?
key question by Phoenix666 · 2012-10-20 11:42 · Score: 1

does it have square wheels?

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.