Bikes on the moon
#1
Tragically Ignorant
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
Bikes on the moon
Just a fun thought experiment:
Imagine that someone built a smooth, perfectly level 100 mile road on the moon, and designed a space suit/bike combination that allowed you to ride on it. What would be the maximum speed you could achieve strictly under your own power in 1/6 g and a vacuum, and what would be the ideal gear ratio?
Nerd out all over the place. I'm more interested in seeing people's reasoning than in getting to the "right" answer as there's really no way to test it. But if someone wants to create a computer model with nifty looking animations, wheeee!
Qualifications: Rider has just arrived from earth and has not lost significant bone/muscle mass and assume air supply sufficient to do a 200 mile round trip.
Imagine that someone built a smooth, perfectly level 100 mile road on the moon, and designed a space suit/bike combination that allowed you to ride on it. What would be the maximum speed you could achieve strictly under your own power in 1/6 g and a vacuum, and what would be the ideal gear ratio?
Nerd out all over the place. I'm more interested in seeing people's reasoning than in getting to the "right" answer as there's really no way to test it. But if someone wants to create a computer model with nifty looking animations, wheeee!
Qualifications: Rider has just arrived from earth and has not lost significant bone/muscle mass and assume air supply sufficient to do a 200 mile round trip.
Likes For phughes:
#3
WALSTIB
Rode in Arizona. Close enough and no space suit saddle rash. Even have a crater.
Likes For hillyman:
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,090
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 1,289 Times
in
743 Posts
As a jumpstart, the Lunar Rover had four 1/4 HP motors for a total of 1 HP. The average recreational rider puts out .35 HP over a two hour ride. It weighed 460 lbs on Earth, and could carry a payload of 1,080 Earth lbs. Tires will be an issue since the temperature can reach 260 F on the surface, and much colder if you happened to go through a shady section. Assuming a flat area, shade won't be an issue. Of course that is just the surface, the vacuum above will be much colder.
Oh, and the dust is very abrasive. I suggest waxing the chain...
Oh, and the dust is very abrasive. I suggest waxing the chain...
Likes For phughes:
#5
Senior Member
Just a fun thought experiment:
Imagine that someone built a smooth, perfectly level 100 mile road on the moon, and designed a space suit/bike combination that allowed you to ride on it. What would be the maximum speed you could achieve strictly under your own power in 1/6 g and a vacuum, and what would be the ideal gear ratio?
Nerd out all over the place. I'm more interested in seeing people's reasoning than in getting to the "right" answer as there's really no way to test it. But if someone wants to create a computer model with nifty looking animations, wheeee!
Qualifications: Rider has just arrived from earth and has not lost significant bone/muscle mass and assume air supply sufficient to do a 200 mile round trip.
Imagine that someone built a smooth, perfectly level 100 mile road on the moon, and designed a space suit/bike combination that allowed you to ride on it. What would be the maximum speed you could achieve strictly under your own power in 1/6 g and a vacuum, and what would be the ideal gear ratio?
Nerd out all over the place. I'm more interested in seeing people's reasoning than in getting to the "right" answer as there's really no way to test it. But if someone wants to create a computer model with nifty looking animations, wheeee!
Qualifications: Rider has just arrived from earth and has not lost significant bone/muscle mass and assume air supply sufficient to do a 200 mile round trip.
Regular pneumatic rubber tires would work fine on the moon IF there is a smooth, paved road there. The reason they didn't use em for the lunar rovers had more to do with avoiding potential flats and negotiating extremely rugged regolith terrain.
#7
Tragically Ignorant
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
So, in a vacuum, this should be even faster. Also, while everything is 1/6 earth weight, your legs will be able to put out the same force as they did on earth, so let's start the bidding on top speed.
I'll start the bidding at approximately 3x earth max, or about 567 MPH. Let's make that the over/under. If you think it's more or less, why?
Last edited by livedarklions; 07-31-20 at 01:33 PM.
#8
LR÷P=HR
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,161
Bikes: 1981 Holdsworth Special, 1993 C-dale MT3000 & 1996 F700CAD3, 2018 Cervelo R3 & 2022 R5, JustGo Runt, Ridley Oval, Kickr Bike 8-)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 862 Post(s)
Liked 1,195 Times
in
687 Posts
If you hit the deck at 567MPH will you only receive 1/6 the road rash?
Barry
Barry
Likes For Barry2:
Likes For Pratt:
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Hollister, CA (not the surf town)
Posts: 1,734
Bikes: 2019 Specialized Roubaix Comp Di2, 2009 Roubaix, early 90's Giant Iguana
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 641 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times
in
549 Posts
That lack of gravity would also make it difficult to get traction between tire and surface making it difficult to accelerate and also might even make it difficult to balance on two wheels. Interesting question for the physics experts out there.
Likes For Ogsarg:
#11
Senior Member
We know that the max speed is well above 100 mph because people can do much better than that on earth when they ride behind a dragster: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/64922...w-world-record
So, in a vacuum, this should be even faster. Also, while everything is 1/6 earth weight, your legs will be able to put out the same force as they did on earth, so let's start the bidding on top speed.
I'll start the bidding at approximately 3x earth max, or about 567 MPH.
So, in a vacuum, this should be even faster. Also, while everything is 1/6 earth weight, your legs will be able to put out the same force as they did on earth, so let's start the bidding on top speed.
I'll start the bidding at approximately 3x earth max, or about 567 MPH.
#12
The dropped
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,144
Bikes: Pake C'Mute Touring/Commuter Build, 1989 Kona Cinder Cone, 1995 Trek 5200, 1973 Raleigh Super Course FG, 1960/61 Montgomery Ward Hawthorne "thrift" 3 speed, by Hercules (sold) : 1966 Schwinn Deluxe Racer (sold)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1739 Post(s)
Liked 1,014 Times
in
696 Posts
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
If we take the current speed record of 189.3mph as a max speed on Earth to model from:
Aerodynamic resistance should be the same as drafting behind a canopy (as in the earth speed record attempt) considering there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Gravitational pull/downward frictional resistance is 1/6th. If there is a linear relation (?) and all things being equal, one should travel six times faster in 1/6 gravity.
so I'll say a base figure of 6x183.9 or 1103.4 mph.
That assumes sufficient staggered gearing and run on distance to ramp up to that speed and a human with enough physical capacity to maintain a constant RPM until you get there.
I think however, there will be a reduction in that speed estimate due to frictional losses from the bikes components themselves.
Aerodynamic resistance should be the same as drafting behind a canopy (as in the earth speed record attempt) considering there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Gravitational pull/downward frictional resistance is 1/6th. If there is a linear relation (?) and all things being equal, one should travel six times faster in 1/6 gravity.
so I'll say a base figure of 6x183.9 or 1103.4 mph.
That assumes sufficient staggered gearing and run on distance to ramp up to that speed and a human with enough physical capacity to maintain a constant RPM until you get there.
I think however, there will be a reduction in that speed estimate due to frictional losses from the bikes components themselves.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,379
Bikes: 1982 Bianchi Sport SX, Rayleigh Tamland 1, Rans V-Rex recumbent, Fuji MTB, 80's Cannondale MTB with BBSHD ebike motor
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 667 Post(s)
Liked 529 Times
in
355 Posts
We know that the max speed is well above 100 mph because people can do much better than that on earth when they ride behind a dragster: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/64922...w-world-record
So, in a vacuum, this should be even faster. Also, while everything is 1/6 earth weight, your legs will be able to put out the same force as they did on earth, so let's start the bidding on top speed.
I'll start the bidding at approximately 3x earth max, or about 567 MPH. Let's make that the over/under. If you think it's more or less, why?
So, in a vacuum, this should be even faster. Also, while everything is 1/6 earth weight, your legs will be able to put out the same force as they did on earth, so let's start the bidding on top speed.
I'll start the bidding at approximately 3x earth max, or about 567 MPH. Let's make that the over/under. If you think it's more or less, why?
Remove the person from the equation so you don't need to worry about losses of flexing the space suit. Instead assume some max wattage motor. The real work left is computing the rolling resistance of the tires, bearings and drive train. Would need a lot of gearing so losses could be substantial. Subtract some losses for frame flexing due to the irregular pedal motion and vibration due to imperfectly balanced wheels. Add a factor for the bearing grease becoming more viscous and clearances shrinking with temperature.
Max speed will be where these frictional losses equal assumed power output.
Would have to think about the effect of gravity on the process. Level tarmac so assumed no change in potential energy. Force equal mass, not weight, thus times acceleration so the reduced gravity has no real affect on top speed. With less normal force there would be less traction, but with only a half horsepower or so that may not matter either.
In all honesty I think energy losses flexing the suit would be the limiting factor.
Won't break 100 mph. Hell, in suit probably won't hit half of that.
Last edited by Pop N Wood; 07-31-20 at 02:55 PM.
#17
Tragically Ignorant
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,095 Times
in
5,053 Posts
#18
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
Fun question!
My back of envelope calc estimate for top possible speed is about 1500 km/hr.
I assume the rider can put out about 200 watts. I also assume 0.9 coefficient of static friction of tires and road. I also estimated rolling resistance based on 40 watts at 50 km/hour on Earth scaling linearly to high speed (200 watts at 250 km/hr) but reduced by the lower gravitational force (so top speed is 250 x 6). And that would be the dominant force to work against since there is no gravity term and no air resistance term.
The rider would be limited by available traction to accelerate at about 6 km/hr per second so it would take about five minutes to reach that speed (and at least that long to slow down before turning around!).
However, thermal failure of drivetrain components might be an issue at anything close to that speed. Also the road has to be super smooth and the wheels need to be true and round.
Otto
My back of envelope calc estimate for top possible speed is about 1500 km/hr.
I assume the rider can put out about 200 watts. I also assume 0.9 coefficient of static friction of tires and road. I also estimated rolling resistance based on 40 watts at 50 km/hour on Earth scaling linearly to high speed (200 watts at 250 km/hr) but reduced by the lower gravitational force (so top speed is 250 x 6). And that would be the dominant force to work against since there is no gravity term and no air resistance term.
The rider would be limited by available traction to accelerate at about 6 km/hr per second so it would take about five minutes to reach that speed (and at least that long to slow down before turning around!).
However, thermal failure of drivetrain components might be an issue at anything close to that speed. Also the road has to be super smooth and the wheels need to be true and round.
Otto
Likes For ofajen:
#19
Non omnino gravis
Not applicable. The dragster is creating a vacuum so the cyclist is getting a boost from the air pressure behind her.
Remove the person from the equation so you don't need to worry about losses of flexing the space suit. Instead assume some max wattage motor. The real work left is computing the rolling resistance of the tires, bearings and drive train. Would need a lot of gearing so losses could be substantial. Subtract some losses for frame flexing due to the irregular pedal motion and vibration due to imperfectly balanced wheels. Add a factor for the bearing grease becoming more viscous and clearances shrinking with temperature.
Max speed will be where these frictional losses equal assumed power output.
Would have to think about the effect of gravity on the process. Level tarmac so assumed no change in potential energy. Force equal mass, not weight, thus times acceleration so the reduced gravity has no real affect on top speed. With less normal force there would be less traction, but with only a half horsepower or so that may not matter either.
In all honesty I think energy losses flexing the suit would be the limiting factor.
Won't break 100 mph. Hell, in suit probably won't hit half of that.
Remove the person from the equation so you don't need to worry about losses of flexing the space suit. Instead assume some max wattage motor. The real work left is computing the rolling resistance of the tires, bearings and drive train. Would need a lot of gearing so losses could be substantial. Subtract some losses for frame flexing due to the irregular pedal motion and vibration due to imperfectly balanced wheels. Add a factor for the bearing grease becoming more viscous and clearances shrinking with temperature.
Max speed will be where these frictional losses equal assumed power output.
Would have to think about the effect of gravity on the process. Level tarmac so assumed no change in potential energy. Force equal mass, not weight, thus times acceleration so the reduced gravity has no real affect on top speed. With less normal force there would be less traction, but with only a half horsepower or so that may not matter either.
In all honesty I think energy losses flexing the suit would be the limiting factor.
Won't break 100 mph. Hell, in suit probably won't hit half of that.
Likes For DrIsotope:
#20
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
I would suggest a fat tire trike. Three wheels would not sink as far into the moon dust. Also the open position of a trike rider would better accommodate a rider in a space suit.
Likes For rydabent:
#21
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
The single biggest force a cyclist has to overcome is wind resistance. The moon has no atmosphere, so that is off the table. The rider then only needs to overcome minimal rolling resistance, and account for equally minor mechanical losses. According to the calculator here, a combined rider + bike of 150kg, unrestrained by drag, requires just 176W to maintain 60m/s (117mph.)
Otto
Likes For ofajen:
#22
Non omnino gravis
I don't think it would factor quite that heavily. On flat ground on Earth, gravity manifests itself as rolling resistance, so Lunar rolling resistance would effectively be 1/6th of that on Earth. But rolling resistance is a couple of percent at most here-- probably something along the lines of 2-3m/s @ 176W on the moon.
Likes For DrIsotope:
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,800
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1943 Post(s)
Liked 2,163 Times
in
1,322 Posts
I hear that even the moon doesn't have bikes under $1000.
John
John
Likes For 70sSanO:
#24
LR÷P=HR
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,161
Bikes: 1981 Holdsworth Special, 1993 C-dale MT3000 & 1996 F700CAD3, 2018 Cervelo R3 & 2022 R5, JustGo Runt, Ridley Oval, Kickr Bike 8-)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 862 Post(s)
Liked 1,195 Times
in
687 Posts
It's a NASA bike.... Getting it to cost over $1,000 no problem.
BTW - Did you know NASA left the keys in the Lunar Rover.
After all, what country is going to steal it?
Barry
BTW - Did you know NASA left the keys in the Lunar Rover.
After all, what country is going to steal it?
Barry
Last edited by Barry2; 07-31-20 at 05:24 PM.
#25
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,027
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22571 Post(s)
Liked 8,918 Times
in
4,152 Posts
Without an atmosphere, you could probably get up to 100 mph+ and stay there for awhile. Frictional losses of the drivetrain and tires deforming/gripping the road are minimal.
Regular pneumatic rubber tires would work fine on the moon IF there is a smooth, paved road there. The reason they didn't use em for the lunar rovers had more to do with avoiding potential flats and negotiating extremely rugged regolith terrain.
Regular pneumatic rubber tires would work fine on the moon IF there is a smooth, paved road there. The reason they didn't use em for the lunar rovers had more to do with avoiding potential flats and negotiating extremely rugged regolith terrain.