This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Moon

Lockheed Martin and GM Team up for Human Lunar Terrain Vehicle

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
May 26, 2021
Filed under , , ,
Lockheed Martin, General Motors Team-up to Develop Next-Generation Lunar Rover for NASA Artemis Astronauts to Explore the Moon

Lockheed Martin, General Motors Team-up to Develop Next-Generation Lunar Rover for NASA Artemis Astronauts to Explore the Moon, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Lockheed Martin and General Motors Co. are teaming up to develop the next generation of lunar vehicles to transport astronauts on the surface of the Moon, fundamentally evolving and expanding humanity’s deep-space exploration footprint.
NASA’s Artemis program is sending humans back to the Moon where they will explore and conduct scientific experiments using a variety of rovers. NASA sought industry approaches to develop a Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) that will enable astronauts to explore the lunar surface farther than ever before. The LTV is the first of many types of surface mobility vehicles needed for NASA’s Artemis program.
Marc’s note: Who’s missing in this announcement? Oh, right, NASA.

Rover animation: Lockheed Martin General Motors Partner to Develop Next-Generation Lunar Rover

Press conference: Lockheed Martin and GM to Develop Lunar Rover

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

19 responses to “Lockheed Martin and GM Team up for Human Lunar Terrain Vehicle”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    They need a pressurized rover with a “shirtsleeves” driving cabin, that can operate at least several hundred miles away from the base (and preferably for a day or two). Even better would be if it had a robotic arm you could control from inside the rover, so you don’t have to suit up every time you stop for something interesting and want to take a sample.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      JAXA and Toyota are already working on the pressurized rover. I’m not sure about the range or whether or not it will have a robotic arm. But I think they’re targeting ten days of independent operations. That’s the Japanese contribution to the Artemis program.

  2. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    Isn’t JAXA already funding a pressurized rover with 1000km range? Why should NASA pay for this Lockheed/GM rover let the internationals provide a rover and some other parts of surface ops in exchange for seats on Orion and a lander.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      NASA also needs a short-distance, unpressurized rover for local work near the Artemis landing sites. I think that’s what LMA and GM are shooting for. Although they might claim they could do more, and try replace the JAXA/Toyota long-range, pressurized rover. But I doubt that would happen.

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        I want to see one by SpaceX/Tesla ?

      • Bob Mahoney says:
        0
        0

        I wonder if one- or two-person four-wheeled ATVs might serve for short-to-medium range work, giving each the capacity to off-load equipment and then carry additional person(s) back to the base/lander if one of them breaks down.

        • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
          0
          0

          Your ATV might be more comfortable in an xEMU than trying to sit in LTV

      • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
        0
        0

        That assumes this LTV comes online before 2028 goal Jaxa has for their rover. Given how things with HLS funding seem to be slipping things to the right is developing an unpressurized rover worth it if you have a pressurized option with more range going to be ready within a mission or two?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Potentially, quite a bit. A small vehicle which is easy to get into and out of would be useful. It would be faster and require less power than a large, pressurized rover, so it would be suitable for local work around the landing site or base.

          • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
            0
            0

            Regardless of how useful it might be nasa has enough on its plate trying to fund HLS and get sls Orion and gateway delivered they should let another country that is part of the Artemis accords fund the LTV and the Pressure rover. What’s the point of partner nations if they don’t help build out the surface assets .

  3. Jim Gagnon says:
    0
    0

    Whatever happened to the Lunar Electric Rover? Are we throwing away all the work done on it?

    https://www.space.com/6974-

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      What work done on it? As far as I can tell, that was a paper concept study from over a decade ago.

    • gunsandrockets says:
      0
      0

      NASA loves to study things to death. For any updates, just search for Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle

      https://www.nasa.gov/explor

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        NASA loves to study things to death

        True, partly, but isn’t there more to this story? Your comment reminded me of the straight-up comparisons that I so often see between NASA and contractors with the efforts of SX. These comparisons almost always ignore a relatively simple thing; SX can afford to fail. NASA cannot.

        Imagine the uproar should NASA develop tech as SX is currently doing with Starship: “NASA Blows Up More $Millions As Latest Rocket Fails – Again.” When Mr. Musk’s rockets blow up he’s seen as an example of America at its finest, an entrepreneur willing to put his money on the line. It’s heroic, even.

        Lost in all of this are the obvious temporal and financial advantages and disadvantages of the SX approach, which would be a far too deep dig by the casual reporter.

        NASA also took a fair amount of heat for the Starliner fiasco.

        As to whether or not the incremental approach can be adapted partially or entirely by governmental entities, there’s additionally the huge inertia surrounding The Way Things Are Done.

  4. Leonard McCoy says:
    0
    0

    I’m a doctor, not a mechanic but it seems like this might work with only a small set of upgrades. https://uploads.disquscdn.c

  5. NArmstrong says:
    0
    0

    If left to NASA, NASA would trade away to other countries the provision of virtually anything and everything. So if this is a GM/Lockheed initiative that is much better for the US. Personally I am tired of having to learn how to use systems designed and built elsewhere. I’d like to see these companies and other like Space X design and develop the required systems and NASA or other governments can buy or rent the systems that they need.

  6. Moonman1969 says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like GM/LM is following the same model that Grumman did in winning the Apollo LM contract in 1962. At that time Grumman spent a couple years investigating how to build a lunar module and then when NASA issued an RFP no other company was able tp compete.