In some situations LEAF might heve better range than any ICE

Internal Combustion Engines need fuel as well as oxygen from the air to run. Could this make ICE engines inherently hybrid? Even though we think we are only paying for the fuel, actually we end up burning the air we bread.

Don't try this at home

Fill up the thank of an ICE vehicle, and put it on the surface of the moon. How far could it go? does it even start? maybe engaging the first gear, the electric starter motor could move it a bit forward...

Now try repeating the same with the Nissan LEAF. The air absence might actually help reducing the friction when speeding. If there was a proper highway on the moon, how far could it go on a single charge? and how many MPG there?

Does this mean the LEAF might be the right car for space exploration?

So next time someone with an ICE vehicle says "it only has 100 mile range", you might want to take him to an under water course, and see if the ICE vehicle can keep up

Summary: Yes the range of a vehicle should also be considered depending on the needs you have.

mikexilva said:

...If there was a proper highway on the moon, how far could it go on a single charge?
and how many MPG there?
Does this mean the LEAF might be the right car for space exploration?

Click to expand...

NASA's been there and done that.

The APOLLO 17 Leaf-ar Rover

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY

Each wheel had its own electric drive made by Delco, DC series wound motor capable
of 0.25 horsepower (190 W) @ 10,000 rpm, attached to the wheel via an 80:1 harmonic
drive, and a mechanical brake unit. Maneuvering capability was provided through the
use of front and rear steering motors. Each series wound DC steering motor was capable
of 0.1 horsepower (75 W). Both sets of wheels would turn in opposite directions, giving a
steering radius of 10 feet (3 m), or could be decoupled so only one set would be used
for steering. They could also free-wheel in case of drive failure. Power was provided by
two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity
of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), translating into a range of 57 mi (92 km).

Almost 60 miles on about 9 kWh.
Any idea how far they actually drove?

Four Lunar Rovers were built for a total cost of $38,000,000, $9.5M each.
Three Rovers went to the moon, one each on Apollo flights 15, 16, and 17.

Distances driven:
Apollo 15; total - 17.25 mi, longest - 7.75 mi, traverse - 3.1 mi.
Apollo 16: total - 16.50 mi, longest - 7.20 mi, traverse - 2.8 mi.
Apollo 17: total - 22.30 mi, longest - 12.5 mi, traverse - 4.7 mi.

An operational constraint on the use of the LRV was that the astronauts must
be able to walk back to the LM if the LRV were to fail at any time during the
EVA (called the "Walkback Limit"). Thus, the traverses were limited in the
distance they could go at the start and at any time later in the EVA. Therefore,
they went to the farthest point away from the LM and worked their way back
to it so that, as the life support consumables were depleted, their remaining
walk back distance was equally diminished. This constraint was relaxed
during the longest traverse on Apollo 17, based on the demonstrated reliability
of the LRV and spacesuits on previous missions.

...The rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph (13 km/h), although Gene Cernan
recorded a maximum speed of 11.2 mph (18.0 km/h), giving him the (unofficial)
lunar land speed record.

Really cool info. THANKS!

So how much extra will it be to take the Leaf on one of the commercial space flight programs?
Of course we will need to wait until the moon is actually on the itinerary, but we are use to the waiting right

With a solar panel we could leave the Leaf on the moon as a rental and charge the next tourists

Of course, in the vacuum of space, the inverters and motor would likely instantly overheat due to coolant boil-off and the lack of air for the radiators. The batteries would also quickly fail due to no cooling (or heating). The Leaf would be dead almost as fast as an ICE vehicle...

No problem, just drive in eco mode

The heat dissipation might be a problem, but if there's no air friction, you just need the initial energy pulse to put the car moving. After that, maybe the metal body can radiate 10W of heat in the form of infrared light. So if the inverter is 90% efficient, that would give about 100W of power to keep the car moving...

Actually, that is not true since there are mechanical losses in the drive line and tires that require constant input to overcome. In the powder of the moon's surface, tires losses might be appreciable...

mikexilva said:

No problem, just drive in eco mode

The heat dissipation might be a problem, but if there's no air friction, you just need the initial energy pulse to put the car moving. After that, maybe the metal body can radiate 10W of heat in the form of infrared light. So if the inverter is 90% efficient, that would give about 1000W of power to keep the car moving...

Click to expand...