Artemis Wheel-less Rover

[RocketBlam]

Traveling on a moon with a wheeled rover can be useful, but they have limitations. Have you ever driven a rover faster than 25 m/s? Hit a bump and your trip comes to a rapid end. And it just takes so LONG to get anywhere. The Artemis I rover solves this by getting rid of the wheels altogether. Why drive when you can fly?

This rover allows you to travel rapidly across low-gravity moon landscapes like Minmus, Bop or Pol without having to deal with a low maximum speed, or hitting bumps and tumbling ass over teakettle, pardon the sailor language. The low gravity worlds are a particularly challenging environent, because a lightweight rover is difficult to drive there. It is powered entirely by RCS, and it has no wheels. Perfect for traveling to a couple of biomes and collecting science. Includes all reusable science modules, and a handy seat for your favorite Kerbal astronaut.

Download here: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/artemis_i/

The Artemis I in Action!

http://youtu.be/6j21IYD2FRw

Edited March 30, 2014 by RocketBlam

[TripleStaff]

just a small tip, add pictures. most people doesn't bother to click the spaceport link, and the pic there is kinda small. just saying that som pics of it "in action" would help. anyway, I'm sure it's an amazing craft

Ps. rovers are "cars", aka, they have wheels, otherwise it's a LGTV (Low Gravity Transport Veichle)

[RocketBlam]

Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it. I've added an image of the amazing Artemis Rover in action.

PS: This rover is not a "car".

[Camaron]

He means that it isn't a rover. The same way a boat isn't a car because it has no wheels.

It's still pretty cool though.

[xxjetterxx]

I'm going to reveal something today, same title, different execution

Hint: legs.

[RocketBlam]

He means that it isn't a rover. The same way a boat isn't a car because it has no wheels.

It's still pretty cool though.

To my mind, it's a rover because it is designed to travel on a planet, not in space or between planets. It's function is that of a rover. But it's really just a question of semantics.

Although it would work fine in space too, if someone needed a small craft to travel relatively short distances, but further than a Kerbal could get in his EVA suit.

Edited March 29, 2014 by RocketBlam

[RocketBlam]

I've tried it now on the moon and on Minmus. On Minmus, it's a great ride. On Mun, it's still a good way to get around, but because of the higher gravity you just use more fuel, so your range is shorter. It ought to be great on Pol, or Bop and Gilly.

[TripleStaff]

WHat a rover is according Wikipedia:

"A rover (or sometimes planetary rover) is a space exploration vehicle designed to move across the surface of a planet or other celestial body"

these are probably more of intresst...:

KSP Wiki:

"A rover is a vehicle equipped with wheels, allowing it to move across the surface of a celestial body"

And:

"For a vehicle to be classified as a rover, it must have at the very least a command module and some wheels."

[RocketBlam]

Think outside the box, TripleStaff. Don't let definitions limit your imagination.

[TripleStaff]

It's not the fact that it isn't a rover that buggs me, but the fact that mos people thin it's a rover (wheels) and therefore skips this thread, because they allready have a good rover. alltough, your "rover" is amazing, I love it, it reminds me of the flying bedstead.

[RocketBlam]

I further developed this idea into Artemis II, shown here. I flew it to Pol and tested it out. What I am discovering is that the wheels are essentially useless in gravity this low. Your traction is so low that it takes forever to build up any speed, and the extremely uneven terrain makes driving a very difficult task. Honestly, version 1 is much better at traveling around in gravity this low.

In this version, the wheels are essentially just landing gear.

Now, in higher gravity, like on the moon, the wheels would perform better, but the RCS flying performs worse, because you use more fuel to go anywhere. So I guess my conclusion is that the RCS thrust system is great on low gravity worlds, say, Minmus and lower, and wheels are better (or at least useful) on higher gravity moons like Mun.

Also, in fairness, wheeled rovers with solar panels essentially have unlimited range.

Edited March 30, 2014 by RocketBlam

[RocketBlam]

It's not the fact that it isn't a rover that buggs me, but the fact that mos people thin it's a rover (wheels) and therefore skips this thread, because they allready have a good rover. alltough, your "rover" is amazing, I love it, it reminds me of the flying bedstead.

Ah, I see. Well thanks for the compliment. I think it's about the most fun vehicle I've ever built, even if it has its limitations.

[TripleStaff]

Ah, I see. Well thanks for the compliment. I think it's about the most fun vehicle I've ever built, even if it has its limitations.

funniest thing that I ever made comcisted of 37 SRB's and a seat, with jeb in it

[RocketBlam]

funniest thing that I ever made comcisted of 37 SRB's and a seat, with jeb in it

Did it get into orbit?

[RocketBlam]

OK, on Minmus, the range for the rover is essentially planet-wide. It looks like you can get into orbit, de-orbit and land somewhere, then get back into orbit and land back at the lander with the fuel it has on-board - barely. I actually discovered this doing high-speed tests. I got it up to 200 m/s, and discovered that I was about to get into orbit just from forward velocity.

Edited March 30, 2014 by RocketBlam

[TripleStaff]

Did it get into orbit?

does turning into a kraken-like creature and smashing into the VAB count as an orbit?