Why no rovers to the moon planned?

[astronaut23]

The moon is plenty interesting and alot closer to go to and check out than Mars.

So why don't we put some rovers on the moon? I'd like to seem some modern pictures taken from the surface of the moon. They could even drive em around and go look at the old Apollo hardware on the moon. I'd like to see what the descent stages, flags, rovers, ect look like 40 years after they have been abandoned.

Seriously, I would like some modern videos of the moon. Good high quality pictures. Not the old grainy pictures from the early 70's.

 

[CalliArcale]

The main reason can be summed up thusly:

"So many missions, so little time."

There are loads of cool missions that could be done. But space agencies can only do so many, so they pick and choose. Another lunar rover would be awesome. So far, the only unmanned rovers on the moon have been the two Lunokhods, operated by the Soviet Union. The only other rovers were the Lunar Roving Vehicles driven by Apollo astronauts on the last three Apollo moon missions.

That said, there *are* people looking into sending rovers to the Moon. The most interesting ones right now are those involved with the Google Lunar X Prize. This is especially cool because not only are they planning to drive rovers on the Moon, not only are they planning to take pictures of Apollo hardware, but it's *private enterprise* that's doing it! Like the X Prize for the first private manned suborbital spaceflight, won by Scaled Composites with their SpaceShipOne, this is all about encouraging private space exploration through competition. It's pretty cool, and I really hope somebody claims the prize.

Google Lunar X PRIZE

 

[samkent]

Another reason we haven’t put new rovers on the Moon is we already know what’s there. It would be a waste of funds. The only reason we intend on going back in 2020 is the same as why we went there in the 60’s, politics.

 

[marsbug]

There's a lot we don't understand about the moon itself still, like how long it's vulcanism on the far side persisted, how parts of it's surface came to be magnetized, what the mascons are, how it's mantle managed to retain volatiles like water after the giant impact that formed it, why there are more giant basins on one side than the other, even the giant impact theory of its origin still has flaws that need to be resolved. There are lots of theories about moon science, and very little in the way of confirmation. The lunar surface also holds a record of the whole solar system,from solar wind traces stored in regolith to utterly pristine meteorites from all across the solar sytem (including, probably, early earth). I guess nasa is pinning its hopes on its new moonshot plans, which would make rover exploration redundant if they come to fruition.

 

[kelvinzero]

Yes there are many worthy things to do on the moon and it is easy to find lists of these if you are not too blinkered.

It just seems to be incredibly expensive to develop specialised landers. Do you want to land a rover of a hundred kilograms, or for much less cost have an orbital device of ten times the mass that can scan the entire moon with fantastically sensitive instruments?

I expect that the vehicle that can land people will also deliver dozens of rovers. Maybe the first landers could carry nothing but robotic payloads? I havent heard of a plan for this but I would be perfectly happy if they didnt send people at all until there was a sizeable infrastructure in place on the moon.

 

[job1207]

I am wondering what will be left to be discovered on Mars. The rovers are energizer bunnies. I would bet that some group will have rovers on the Moon before too long. If you read about the Chinese, Japanese, Indian space programs they all talk about the race to the moon.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I am wondering what will be left to be discovered on Mars. The rovers are energizer bunnies. I would bet that some group will have rovers on the Moon before too long. If you read about the Chinese, Japanese, Indian space programs they all talk about the race to the moon.

There's lots left to be discovered on Mars. The surface area of Mars is about the same as the dry surface of the earth. How much would we have learned about earth with 3 rovers that have covered about 15 km near the equator, and one fixed lander near the arctic circle, and 2 or 3 more near the equator? Certainly quite a bit, but definately not everything. In fact, all those probes could easily have missed all animal life. Add to that the recent confirmation of methane emissions...we have barely scrathched the surface of what there is to learn about Mars.

As for the moon, it is a far more sterile environment, but there's more to be learned there, particularly about the early history of the solar system, and the formation of the earth and moon.

 

[job1207]

It is going to be a long time before we get to Mars. The rovers will have been running around for 10 years. Hopefully, the next gen rovers will be anyway. I do understand your comment, but as you know, the top 9 NASA projects were satellites or rovers.

 

[gunsandrockets]

No moon rovers planned? Ah, but there are from China.


Here is a 2012 mission... http://www.china.org.cn/china/sci_tech/ ... 699674.htm


And another for 2017... http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 767730.htm