blackstar said:That cabin shape doesn't seem very sensible. Wouldn't you want something that didn't waste volume like that?
blackstar said:But it's a _circle_. Nobody builds cars like that. You want a cabin that is horizontal so that people can move around in it. And you don't want to raise the center of gravity with a second floor, because then it topples over more easily.
Rhinocrates said:I do note that it has a very wide track. I'm trying to find the rationale
Actually the design DOES make sense, in contextRhinocrates said:Edit: I've just dug up another image (sorry, source unknown), and there's a second section visible, possibly allowing freer longitudinal movement, though that could just be an unpressurised service module.
RanulfC said:But without knowing all the constraints and at least SOME of the "assumptions" made during the design process I have to agree with Rhinocrates, that it was a design meant to address the issues Boeing knew about rather than a free-form "best-case" design. (I wouldn't go so far as to call it "fundamentally flawed" because Blackstar makes a bit of a "fundamental" mistake in his critisism that people don't build cars or trucks "that way" when in fact people DO build rather "weird" designs when working to a point solution around constraints. For example one would think that designing and building a series of trucks that had a single person, high mounted cab placed on the chasis on the left side of the vehicle engine would be "flawed" because of such things as low visibility to the right side among others. Yet there are thousands of those trucks driving around on US highways working the 'niche' of field-to-processing transportation. In the context they make technical and economic sense )
There weren’t supposed to be cars on the Moon—until an ingenious design and a killer demo made it happen.www.fastcompany.com
I'm cheating a bit here, the rover first flew on Apollo 15.