NASA demos 2020's 12-wheeled, pressurized lunar rover concept car

We've all seen black and white footage of astronauts on the moon hot doggin' it over craters and dunes in a trick electric buggy, but that was over thirty years ago. In 2020, when a new generation of astronauts head there, they'll need a new generation of whip too, and that's just what NASA recently demonstrated to the public. Called the Small Pressurized Rover Concept, it looks to be an evolution of the 12-wheeled Chariot prototype we saw earlier this year, pimped out with an air-tight cabin that sleeps two and some bitchin' gold dubs. Inside a pair of explorers can go lunar RVing for up to two weeks at a time, covering 625 miles on one charge at a leisurely 6 mph, hopping out through rear-mounted (non-next-gen) spacesuits when something interesting catches their eye. You know, like aliens or something. Could happen.

[Thanks, Peter D.]

[Admiral @ Jul 8th 2009 10:44PM]

I still haven't figured out why it's going to take 11 years to do something that we were capable of doing 40 years ago.

[Samboini @ Oct 26th 2008 7:15PM]

The de-evolution of mankind.

[Genius Blog @ Oct 26th 2008 7:23PM]

Because.... they need to build a new spaceship, train astronauts, and then blast them to outerspace :)

[Flashpoint @ Oct 26th 2008 7:39PM]

I wanna see "them" build a space shuttle that can fly all the way to the moon, stay in orbit, drop a lunar lander with a built in rover - then, have the rover roll back into the lander and rocket back into orbit to be picked up by the Space shuttle for the return trip to the earth.


Something like the Cheyenne Dropship.

And before anyone says I'm dreaming or "it can't happen" just remember.

WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR...IT GETS.

[Johan S @ Oct 26th 2008 8:12PM]

Money is the reason.

It's not a knowledge gap, it's a financing gap. We already know how to build roads, but they still cost money right? We can spend a few tens of billion and get to the moon like in the 1950s and 60's during the height of the cold war. But how is that going to work out politically? I'd like to see one of the presidential candidates announce it "we're going to fix social security, the economy, healthcare, take care of national security while ensuring civil liberties, and oh yeah we're going to spend $100 billion over the next 2 years to get to the moon"

NASA's budget was 0.5% of the GDP in 1966. Today, that would mean $65 billion.

If it were up to me, that funding would be allowed, and also NIH would get $120 billion. Spending just over than 1% of GDP on NASA and NIH is well worth it.

[giuliop @ Oct 26th 2008 8:36PM]

"The de-evolution of mankind."

We must repeat.

[DonJuan @ Oct 26th 2008 8:37PM]

Exactly.. we landed on the moon as they say years years ago, and it will take them until 2020 to go again as they say.

Yet when they landed on the moon back then, they had 10% of the technology we have now, YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

they have to prepare and make new crap to get there again?

It just doesn't make sense.. they went there with some crapp ass rocket back in the 60's as they state, yet they need what now?


Come on, some shit they say just doesn't make sense whatsoever, IF they truly went to the moon in the 60's they could go there anytime they want. Instead of spending countless money just to go around the earths orbit they could of went to the MOON in the 90's and early 2000's yet " THEY need to prepare and fix equipment "

b.s

[Minilap @ Oct 26th 2008 9:29PM]

I think it's possibly because you are no longer in race with Russia and you don't have your politicians pushing things down to NASA's throat.

[Josh @ Oct 26th 2008 9:39PM]

It does surprise me that it hasn't been part of some crazily funded DoD scheme. Tell Bush that Bin Laden's hiding in the sea of tranquillity and we'd be there in a week.

[Mathurin @ Oct 26th 2008 10:30PM]

We want to do it better, and use it as a learning experience for a Mars landing.

So think of it less like "going to the moon" and more like a test drive.

[konshuss @ Oct 26th 2008 11:01PM]

I don't care how many laps you put in that puppy, you send them to Mars and they ain't comin' back.

[JohnTitor @ Oct 27th 2008 12:09AM]

the best thing about the cold war was the non-war competition, chess, olympics, space race, etc
if the soviet space program stayed strong, and korolov lived to send then to the moon, we could have seen great things by now
mars in the 80s, cheap space flights, robots on like every planet

[Brad @ Oct 27th 2008 1:32PM]

Christopher Columbus - 1492
Jamestown - 1607

Getting there isn't the problem. Staying there is. And trying to accomplish the "staying" part on barely adequate funding is hard.

[KAIKAI @ Oct 26th 2008 7:16PM]

wow...really now all this when you just use a wheelbarrow

[Chris @ Oct 26th 2008 7:18PM]

If you take a quick glance at just the white parts of the picture it looks like an elephant.

[Cunthor @ Oct 26th 2008 8:00PM]

No. It looks like a sad elephant. :(

[Brandon Chan @ Oct 26th 2008 8:01PM]

omg! I looked at it and i DID think it was an elephant. Good thing I did a search on comments first since I knew somebody would think the same way :)

[Brazell @ Oct 26th 2008 11:33PM]

I thought the exact same thing. I thought that it was like a joke ... "Oh, the Nasa Elephant Car."

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Oct 27th 2008 8:18AM]

ha! yeah, first thing I saw: an elephant with 2 trunks!?!?!?

[OneLove @ Oct 27th 2008 10:57AM]

Yes, moon elephants have 2 trunks and eat cheese.

[Chris @ Oct 26th 2008 7:19PM]

If you take a quick look at just the white parts of the picture it looks like an elephant.

[Chris @ Oct 26th 2008 7:20PM]

... *insert comment system rant type thing*

[Esat Dedezade @ Oct 26th 2008 7:22PM]

Ahh, you beat me to it :)

[Keith @ Oct 26th 2008 7:55PM]

An elephant with sad eyes and four trunks.

[james43062 @ Oct 26th 2008 9:07PM]

Mr. Snuffleupagus, in a pressure suit.

[John @ Oct 27th 2008 12:14AM]

Nu Nu, from the Teletubbies.

[OS @ Oct 27th 2008 1:10AM]

Looks like Cthulhu on a skateboard.

[Isomorphic @ Oct 26th 2008 7:23PM]

Caption Contest:

"Houston can't see us, over"

[craig @ Oct 26th 2008 7:29PM]

Saturn cars cost 20k, and are actually useful, why not use them?

[DeoWulf @ Oct 26th 2008 8:03PM]

Wow, why didn't NASA think of that? Wait... Internal combustion engines don't work in space-- no oxygen. Plus, rubber tires would crack or melt on the surface of the moon, since the temperature varies wildly in extremes of hot and cold.

You just kind of have to realize that these guys have some vague idea of what they're doing.

[pfromg @ Oct 26th 2008 9:30PM]

>some vague idea of what they're doing
no they dont !

With all the time and money they have had, they could have produced something that works, or even looks like it works. This image tells me that they have absolutely no clue wtf they are doing and they will never leave orbit with that pile of crap , let alone get to crash it on the surface of our moon.

[DeoWulf @ Oct 26th 2008 9:47PM]

Are you judging based on aesthetics, or functionality? I'd say the less aesthetics the better-- /that's/ a waste of money.

[Jack @ Oct 27th 2008 8:49AM]

surely they could make it more aerodyn... oh, wait...

[mvp @ Oct 26th 2008 7:29PM]

They forgot to mention the price tag which will probably run in the millions like all their other equipment.

[deyanimay @ Oct 26th 2008 7:31PM]

Its a portable toilet. Those two guys are trying to hold it in while waiting in line.

[deyanimay @ Oct 26th 2008 7:34PM]

"Houston we have a problem. the toilet backed up."

[Brian @ Oct 26th 2008 7:36PM]

UMMMM why is nasa driving around when they can be FLYING around....?

[DeoWulf @ Oct 26th 2008 8:04PM]

Flying in what, rocket packs? I think that would end up costing more money, especially in fuel. And if you mean planes or gliders, well... there's no air on the moon.

[Anthony H. @ Oct 26th 2008 7:38PM]

Am I the only one that thought the picture looked like Zoidberg?

[Brian @ Oct 26th 2008 7:40PM]

what's with the broken ankle on astronaut #1?

[iEye @ Oct 26th 2008 7:48PM]

I don't think aliens will be impressed by our technology...

perhaps we should show them the iPhone...

[Esat Dedezade @ Oct 26th 2008 8:06PM]

Umm... not that this is the only thing wrong with your statement, but if the iPhone does not, as you imply, fall in to the category of 'our technology' then whose technology is it?

Let me guess, its far superior to anything ever crafted by mere mortals and it is so superior to all else that homo sapiens have crafted that to simply gaze upon it is enough to make the hardest of men weep, fall to their knees and pay homage to the indescribable awe that encapsulates their souls when they gaze upon its majesty?

That what you mean?

What am I doing, I need to go to bed. Goodnight.

[iEye @ Oct 26th 2008 8:12PM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FFkvhoEfX8

[toxicpiano @ Oct 26th 2008 7:49PM]

Does anyone else think this looks utterly hilarious?

[Rick @ Oct 29th 2008 10:45AM]

Its been what.. 40 years, and that's the best looking rover they could come up with... no wonder they don't get funding, pathetic...

[McFly @ Oct 26th 2008 7:51PM]

that's the same site were the original "moon landing" was filmed

[DeoWulf @ Oct 26th 2008 8:07PM]

Yup, you can recognize the Moon-grass and sedimentary rock. Same exact place. :p

[Biff @ Oct 26th 2008 8:21PM]

Helloooo McFly Think McFly Think!!!

[McFly @ Oct 26th 2008 8:25PM]

you changed your nick to "Biff" just to reply to my comment? ....
hey it's been a while, they would have trimed the grass back then... duuuhhh

[McFly @ Oct 26th 2008 8:31PM]

oh and Biff, don't forget, two coats of wax on my car... , thanks