Filed under: Etc.
Off-world off-roading: NASA tests new lunar rover
by Alex Nunez on Oct 25th 2008 at 3:26PM 
Click above for a gallery of the Small Pressurized Rover
This week in Arizona, NASA conducted tests of the new battery-powered Small Pressurized Rover (SPR) it hopes to use when the U.S. sends astronauts back to the moon by 2020. The SPR is a huge leap forward over the original open-air (or is it open-vacuum?) rovers used by the Apollo astronauts. The configuration consists of a pressurized cabin mounted atop a modular chassis that can drive in any direction, thans to wheels that turn 360 degrees. The cockpit leads back to an area housing an airlock that the astronauts can use to transfer from one rover to another, from the rover to a apacecraft, or from a rover to a surface installation and vice-versa.
At the back of that compartment are two "suitports" that allow the astronauts to enter and exit their EVA (extra-vehicular activity) spacesuits without having to bring them into the vehicle itself. The suit backpacks lock into the ports and open up, allowing the wearer to climb out and work in the pressurized vehicle in normal clothing. Very, very cool stuff here. Since the rover is modular in nature, it can also operate as a non-pressurized vehicle, with all the operators in turrets wearing suits. Top speed is 10 km/h (around 6 mph), and the rover should enable astronauts to go on missions away from base for up to two weeks, covering up to 625 miles, according to Reuters. We've gallerized a pair of high-res images and NASA's fact sheet below, and the NASA Edge blog has more photos you might be interested in checking out.
Gallery: NASA Small Pressurized Rover
[Sources: Reuters, NASA, NASA Edge Blog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Swede 3:45PM (10/25/2008)
SPACE ELEPHANT!
No really!
Reply
Swede 3:46PM (10/25/2008)
With two trunks and wheels!
J M C 3 5:05PM (10/25/2008)
They'll scare the martians.Maybe it'll keep 'em from invading.
LDMAN 3:49PM (10/25/2008)
Those ARB airlockers are going to be a b.tch to use in the vacuum of space.
Reply
The Luigiian 3:52PM (10/25/2008)
Aw, come on! 2020 before we get to see another moon landing?!
I would hope that we could at least reach Mars by then! Where's JFK when you need him?
Reply
220v 3:58PM (10/25/2008)
Lazy bastards. how hard can it be to move stuff around with gravity at 1.6m/s²?
When the Chinese get to the moon they'll just be pulling it all around on carts. Much smarter solution.
Reply
1970Dodge 5:08PM (10/25/2008)
I agree, 1/6 the gravity I think would mean that when they test this rover here on earth, they are doing 600% of the spec. they really need. [ex. say they need that chassis to support max 1000lbs on the moon, then it only needs to prove it can hold 167lbs here].
Random idea, Why don't they give these guys bikes? [Cmon, you know lunar BMX would be awesome]
Kitko 6:27PM (10/25/2008)
The same 1.6m/s² applies for speed, momentum AND braking...
fizzandpop 4:08PM (10/25/2008)
And in other news, everyone else involved in space exploration stopped and thought "we can make that for 100th of the price". Seriously, NASA is rubbish.
Reply
Sid 4:48PM (10/25/2008)
I take from the use of the word 'rubbish' you are English. And you think NASA is "rubbish". Well...because the British moon-landing and deep-space probes and space-shuttles and Hubble telescopes are so much cheaper right?
fizzandpop 5:28PM (10/25/2008)
Well yes. You cite moonlandings (pointless), deep space probes (international) and Hubble (busted). Commercial space stuff (i.e. the useful things that gives us TV and phone calls and stuff) is done at a fraction of the cost by, SHOCKER!!! people outside the USA. Sorry, it's not the 60s, the united states of arrogance doesn't have a lock on this stuff anymore.
Sid 5:50PM (10/25/2008)
You`re right. When the Martian Manned Mission lands, the Americans should stick an `apology`notice onto the Beagle 2.
Theres a hiking trail next to your house. Go take a walk on it.
Kitko 6:29PM (10/25/2008)
Step-in space suits are Russian design.
RyanK 3:37AM (10/26/2008)
Sending people back to the moon is simply a stepping stone to larger goals, unless you consider spending all our time sitting on this rock whining at each other a noble effort. Sending robotics out is nice and all but you can only do so much with the engineering and experimentation. A human with a lab kit can get far more done on a much larger scale.
As for Hubble being busted, I'd love to see the ESA design and launch a space based telescope on that size and scale that they can service in space over a 18 year life span. The fact it's finally degraded to it's current state is a testament to the engineering that went into it. If the ESA or any other space agency does manage such a thing, good for them, until then we're still on top of the pile in that respect (and many others).
Please, leave the blind patriotism and US bashing to the idiots that want to sit here and waste their lives away in a cubicle. The rest of would like to get off this rock and explore something beyond a 500 mile orbit.
Joe 11:37AM (10/26/2008)
Further, Hubble isn't "busted" as you so eloquently state, fizz. It experienced an error in its data formatter, which, guess what, was built in the late 1980s. Yeah, it operated in space flawlessly for 18 years, and it finally bit the bullet.
But what's this?
Oh, there's a second side to the data formatter? A program can be sent up to the Hubble to flip the data formatter around and make it start working again? The Americans actually did something right? They thought ahead and figured out how to make something last?
In all seriousness, though, the Hubble has discovered so many things in its 18 years you would be amazed. Yeah, it cost a lot of money, but no other country/organization has funded and launched a scientific project with the scope of the Hubble. The ISS pales in comparison, because its built modularly, with distributed computing and technical apparatus spread throughout the entire spacecraft.
Also, nothing is cheap in space. I work in the defense industry, and I have experience in spacecraft design, and launching a payload into orbit is incredibly expensive. Even for small launches, with an extremely small payload, just the launch portion of the mission can cost $50 million+. That doesn't take into account design, manufacture, software development, IV&V, systems checkout, maintenance (once its in orbit), upkeep, degradation, and/or replacement.
tankd0g 12:33PM (10/26/2008)
The Hubble is a joint NASA/ESA project FFS!!!
Joe 12:57PM (10/26/2008)
Now who's reading Wikipedia, tankd0g?
Dan 2:01PM (10/26/2008)
My question is why are we spending so much money on these space things, when all that money could be used to help people in dire need. I bet if we stopped wasting money in space and instead shifted our priorities we could abolish world poverty by 2020, instead of puting a man on the moon to do a couple of experiments, and then come back again.
Sid 2:21PM (10/26/2008)
Dan...thats a narrow way of looking at things. In that respect, they should stop the candidates from spending $65 on their campaigns each per month.
The space program is all about continuing to advance our race, to achieve breakthroughs in all field of science...in fact some of the current CATSCAN tech is NASA developed I believe. The knowledge we gain of our surroundings helps everyone. If you wanna start cutting down on un-necessary spending, lets start with our militaries, frudulent and greedy bankers, corrupt politicans and a class system where 10% of the population owns 90% of the nation's wealth.
Dan 3:45PM (10/26/2008)
Sorry, but I'd rather help out a fellow man than find out if there is remnants of bacteria on Mars. I think we should deal with our problems here first, then broaden our horizons. That's great that NASA developed the CATSCAN technology, maybe they should change to a medical research institute, in my opion that would be much more of a benefit to society. But why should we be more focused on space particles and marsian life, than starving kids, and people eating out of garbage dumps.