Rifleman - 19/2/2008 2:21 PMIn all fairness, NASA did send three rovers to the moon, they just where not remote controlled.
Blackstar - 19/2/2008 5:31 PMQuoteRifleman - 19/2/2008 2:21 PMIn all fairness, NASA did send three rovers to the moon, they just where not remote controlled. I think the definition of "rover" requires that it move.
hop - 19/2/2008 7:39 PMQuoteBlackstar - 19/2/2008 5:31 PMQuoteRifleman - 19/2/2008 2:21 PMIn all fairness, NASA did send three rovers to the moon, they just where not remote controlled. I think the definition of "rover" requires that it move.I suspect he's talking about the lunar roving vehicle which most certainly did move
Blackstar - 9/2/2008 10:34 AMhttp://science.discovery.com/tv/tank/tank.htmlI think it is an Americanized version of a program that appeared in Canada in December. They probably removed all the references to beavers.
texas_space - 19/2/2008 10:43 AMFor all the desire to build a moon base, it sure would be nice to send a lunar rover to the polar regions of the Moon to see if water ice is ACTUALLY there. Seems like a good rover task to me.
Blackstar - 12/2/2008 12:32 PMLunokhod was in many ways a disappointing program because it could have been so much more. The Soviet Union wanted a propaganda victory after Apollo. So they turned Lunokhod into a demonstration of engineering, rather than a science program. They wanted to be able to brag about how many kilometers they drove each day. So the science got relegated to second priority. As Spirit and Opportunity have demonstrated, the point of having a rover is to go to interesting stuff, not simply to _go_.