Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, spacejet said:

Yeah they are all over this stuff for sure. Amazing. I want to do it in KSP not reality.

Oh, OK. Typically posts in Science & Spaceflight are about reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/31/2022 at 4:26 PM, Ember12 said:

...  because no matter what they will be less efficient than wheeled vehicles, and probably slower.

This^^

Aesthetics and 'SciFi-ness' aside, I never understood the idea that walkers were somehow better than wheels or tracks, especially for anything of any size, or carrying heavy loads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, pandaman said:

This^^

Aesthetics and 'SciFi-ness' aside, I never understood the idea that walkers were somehow better than wheels or tracks, especially for anything of any size, or carrying heavy loads.

I thought about this a lot when I was a kid.  Then again in my twenties, thirties,..you get the picture.  Anyway, my conclusion was that legs make more sense at about the point that roughness of the surface is increased to the point that bumps and troughs are about the size of the vehicles wheels or larger and the slope of these bumps and troughs is steeper than "slope" of the wheels (lets call "slope" of wheel the slope of the line from contact patch to radius at front of wheel).  Note that vertical faces will always have a slope steeper than the slope of the wheel.  Generally, bigger wheels  can always be better than legs as long as the height and slope of bumps can be accommodated for.  But it is easy to see that if wheel size is limited for some other reason, or most of the slopes and heights of bumps involved would require ridiculous or impossible wheel diameters, then legs can certainly make more sense.  This is all by gut, and I realize a wheeled vehicle can negotiate very rugged terrain.  My hypothesis is that a legged vehicle would be faster and more efficient at a cross-over point in the ballpark of what I've described.  I have zero mathematical proof of this.  Just a lot of time playing with hotwheels and matchbox cars and observing spiders and bugs mostly.

Edited by darthgently
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I thought about this a lot when I was a kid.  Then again in my twenties, thirties,..you get the picture. ...

Yes, me too. 

I certainly don't disagree with you on any of that.  The Boston Dynamics, and other similar stuff, sure is impressive and the capabilities will certainly improve.  And for lightweight exploration rovers it could be the way to go.  But the complexity of it would be a big concern from a reliability angle.   A wheeled vehicle is so much simpler mechanically, with current tech at least.

My thoughts mainly stemmed from the ATAT style walkers and 'fighting mech' concepts with their obvious vulnerability to falling over, and high profiles rendering taking cover practically impossible.  Give me a nice stable, low profile, tank over a 40ft tall walker any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2022 at 9:45 AM, darthgently said:

I thought about this a lot when I was a kid.  Then again in my twenties, thirties,..you get the picture.  Anyway, my conclusion was that legs make more sense at about the point that roughness of the surface is increased to the point that bumps and troughs are about the size of the vehicles wheels or larger and the slope of these bumps and troughs is steeper than "slope" of the wheels (lets call "slope" of wheel the slope of the line from contact patch to radius at front of wheel).  Note that vertical faces will always have a slope steeper than the slope of the wheel.  Generally, bigger wheels  can always be better than legs as long as the height and slope of bumps can be accommodated for.  But it is easy to see that if wheel size is limited for some other reason, or most of the slopes and heights of bumps involved would require ridiculous or impossible wheel diameters, then legs can certainly make more sense.  This is all by gut, and I realize a wheeled vehicle can negotiate very rugged terrain.  My hypothesis is that a legged vehicle would be faster and more efficient at a cross-over point in the ballpark of what I've described.  I have zero mathematical proof of this.  Just a lot of time playing with hotwheels and matchbox cars and observing spiders and bugs mostly.

Where wheels can't go, tracks will laugh at the terrain. 

The main reasons you might want legs are completely demolished once you realize tanks routinely scale 70 degree inclines (albeit slowly).

Also at this hypothetical crossover point, consider the flexion you are having to impart on the legs to obtain the same speeds. 

How that affects the joints, and what reinforcement is going to be necessary to prevent the entire thing from shaking/ossilating itself apart. This adds weight, and now your top speed is lower.

Also any failure of a Walker's legs is catastrophic, and easily lethal for the crew. 

A tank throwing a track still isn't a good day, but you're alive and stationary at least.

Just some food for thought

If ksp2 has robotics, I think walkers will be easy to create. I just want tracks in stock, since using wheels never made too much sense for me personally

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...