A Parametric study and experimental testing of lunar-wheel suspension on dynamic terrainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of a flexible metallic wheel proved to be one of the most challenging and time-consuming aspects of the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo missions (V. Asnani, D. Delap, and C. Creager. 2009. Journal of Terramechanics, 46: 89 103). The design was realized through an iterative trial and error design process, driven primarily by manufacturability and physical testing. Although the wire-mesh-compliant wheel design was identified as the best choice for the Lunar Roving Vehicle, mission scenarios have evolved and future lunar vehicles are bound to have to meet different functional requirements and more severe life and operational constraints. For example, these vehicles will have to travel farther on the lunar surface, explore permanently shadowed craters, and perform a variety of tasks such as transporting sensitive payloads and excavatiing regolith, and allow for both unmanned and manned operation. This work focuses on optimizing the suspension design parameters of a flexible, compliant wheel for maximizing the dynamic terrainability performance of a lunar rover. The suspension design parameters are identified, independently of the explicit wheel configuration. The terrainability of the rover is defined here as the rover's ability to negotiate terrain irregularities. Terrainability is quantified by the objective functions describing road holding and rider comfort. These objective functions ensure that the rover payload is isolated from vehicle terrain-induced vibrations, and that the wheels maintain ground contact during higher speed traversals. A simplified vehicle model is used for the dynamics analysis of the terrain vehicle system with the terrain modeled as a random stationary ergodic process characterized by a power spectral density function. A sensitivity analysis is performed to identify conflicting objectives, and a recommendation on optimal wheel suspension design variables is made. Finally, experimental testing of reduced-scale wheels with different suspension properties is conducted on three irregular terrain types and results confirm the theoretical predictions. Ultimately, the results of this research will be used in a system-level analysis of the wheel design parameters on vehicle performance to guide the structural optimization of the compliant wheel for lunar surface exploration vehicles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".