Check out the video of Apollo astronauts trying it out. Turns out, a normal running gait isn't a great idea, it's better to bunny hop.
Moon is running on Quake engine.
Next moon mission they will try out rocket jumping techniques
Isn't that how they got on and off the moon?
They figured that out because the suits are so bulky and pressurized on the inside. Every joint is either a hard rotation point or, at the knees and elbows, essentially a bendy tube. When you inflate that tube to keep the meat computer inside alive, it gets harder to bend and acts like a spring. So the hop came from bouncing on the legs of the suits like two big springs. They fell over a lot.
I think they meant if theoretically the person had full range of motion
Although I do wonder what would change if they didn’t have the bulky suits and ran during a parabolic flight simulating lunar gravity.
The suspension phase would be higher and longer.
Which is why the bunny hop is more natural.
Keep in mind hoping with enough force that your feet rises .45 meters (about a foot and a half), which is about average for a statist high jump on earth equates to about 3 meters on the moon. You’d land with the same force as on earth… but it takes much longer to get back down.
The other problem with running is stopping. You get going too fast, build up too much speed and you suddenly need more space to stop- or you fall on your face.
Bunny hopping is more controlled… and the entire world was watching.
Best not to goof off too much. Alan Sheherd…. im talking to you.
Edit: just for the record, i think shepherd is a legend for that. There were very few people who knew what he was up to, IIRC only the mission planer knew. He smuggled the club head and golf balls up and used a shaft from one tool or another (that the club head was modified for.) apparently the mission planner gave the go-ahead as long as it happened at the end of EVAs, if there was extra time.
There is literally a video out there of Usain Bolt racing a couple scientists I think, aboard one of those zero grav planes.
Well since there's only 1/6th the gravity an zero atmosphere you can't really "run" as you do on Earth anyway. Even walking is moderately difficult. Astronauts that walked on the moon found it easier to hop for great distances or shuffle for short distances.
However, if your question is "How fast could the average person move horizontally across the moon surface?" then it likely comes down to how fast they can hop forward, and continue to hop landing on their feet without stumbling and falling down. Since there's no atmosphere the only friction to slow you down is the times your feet are in contact with the ground for the hop. So you could likely hop horizontally faster and faster and faster until you get exhausted from hopping or you don't land right and hop and stumble and fall down. Likely pretty fast. Much faster than a top athlete running on Earth if you practice I bet.
This sounds like fun, 2 tickets please
If you didn't have to deal with a cumbersome spacesuit, I imagine you could run, but you'd lean over much more towards the horizontal - like maybe 45° or lower, so each 'step' would be a push backwards in line with your longitudinal axis. Don't waste energy by bounding up.
Source: wild speculation.
In all fairness I'm speculating on this too, so feel free to poke holes in my argument.
We probably need to refine our goal question a little bit. Is it:
or
I imagine you could run, but you’d lean over much more towards the horizontal - like maybe 45° or lower, so each ‘step’ would be a push backwards in line with your longitudinal axis.
What you're suggesting is matching the amount of effort to move to the body with the position of the center of gravity on the body to be closer to equal to on Earth. I don't know the math here.
This might work toward the sprint scenario. However I think we'd run into in efficiencies in our physiology toward the other scenario. Walking or running for bipeds like us means we lean forward to move our center of gravity in a space in front of us. We're essentially falling forward, and moving our feet under that center of gravity so we don't fall down. On Earth a sprint might move our body's center of gravity up to the upper part of our chest, like this runner here where I've put the red line:
With only 1/6th the gravity you'd need to move the center of gravity WAY farther forward to the top of your head (and beyond?). At the lean you would have to have, would you even be able to draw your knees up to your chest, or would they drag on the ground as you move your leg forward to take the next step. Then the body mechanics wouldn't match our evolutionary advantages for running, but closer to climbing a ladder or running up very steep stairs. While we can do those things, our physiology isn't really optimized for it.
Further, we don't have the ability to perfectly translate all of our motion forward. Some of it is going to go up. Not much "up" would mean we lose friction with the ground and have to wait to fall back to re-engage to impart more forward motion.
Do these two things together mean that because our center of gravity is so far forward, and errant "up" motion would cause us to fall flat on our faces? Certainly we could dial back the forward motion to prevent the fall, but at that point perhaps we aren't leaning very far over, and therefor aren't moving forward very fast with each step.
Here's some work from the Univerity of Alaska explaining the physics of running here on Earth I used for reference in forming my opinion source
Full disclaimer, I am NOT a Kinesiologist, doctor, or physicist. I have no credentials of expertise in this area. I'm just some dude on the internet. Take everything I'm saying as suspect.
One thing the lean does is use gravity to cancel out the torque caused by our feet doing the moving. If you don't lean, you fall backwards because your feet move faster than the rest of your body. It's not so much that we're falling forward and catching ourselves as the lean position is where we need to be for equilibrium.
The angle plays into it, but it's more about the distance ahead of the feet that the centre of mass is to cancel out that torque. Gravity is weaker on the moon, but that also means your foot can't apply as much pressure, so there would be less torque to cancel. Leaning more would further reduce that pressure.
Ultimately, I think the way we'd end up doing it (assuming a more mobile suit or let's say within a pressurized dome) is we'd have to learn to apply less force when trying to sprint/run on the moon. Then we can find an equilibrium that has a similar lean to what we do on earth (and I agree that we didn't evolve for running on the moon and would not be very good at running with a much deeper lean).
This thread is the reason I posted this. So my question is can we calculate the angle you would need to point your shoulders at, and the amount of bounce for optimal speed. (disregarding danger from obstacles and whatnot)
Not a cheetah, maybe more a gazel or kangaroo.
Maybe gain a bit of momentum by adding a forwards somersault.
Got me Bhopping like I’m back on Q3DM17.
Theres a video of Usain Bolt on one of those anti grav planes trying to run. Its not the best example but kinda funny to see nonetheless
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
