Battery electric off-road trucks are full of compromises. We’re not talking about capability here, but that to make an electric truck that’s really good at off-roading you usually have to screw up aero and drag with lift kits and knobby tires. That destroys range, so now you’re adding in heavy and expensive batteries so that the truck is even remotely usable.
David wrote about how the Chevy Silverado EV Trail Boss forces buyers to make a bunch of compromises to get their off-road vehicle in electric flavor. Every electric truck has this problem. They weigh tons, have comically huge batteries, and cost loads of money, but also can’t haul a load long distance. David thinks the solution, at least until battery tech catches up to this kind of role, is to equip electric trucks with range extender engines.
But hold on, Doughnaut says not so fast:
Oh yeah David, then why is the lunar rover electric!?!?! Can’t get any more off-road than that! Checkmate… checkmate.
Ranwhenparked counters:
Didn’t that have a range of like 57 miles?
Doughnaut says:
Which far exceeds that of all other moon-based cars.
Plus, some may say this is disingenuous, but I’m going to credit it an additional 238,900 miles.
I feel like I’m nearly ready to be CEO of some shady totally viable EV truck start up. Put me in coach.
Michael Beranek takes a shot:
Oh, sure, MSRP $38,000,000. In 1969 dollars.
But not so fast, from Doughnaut:
They just failed to ramp up production. I’m sure prices would have dropped to that of a Chevy C10 if they had made as many…
I think that’s checkmate. Lunar rovers are the perfect EVs.
Finally, your favorite Lewin is going through a bit of a crisis with a broken dream car and not really needing to drive a car. A. Barth gives sage advice:
Still, it’s hard to let go of something that is such a core part of my identity. How can I be a car lover if I never drive at all?
I would encourage you not to define yourself by your stuff.
And there are lots of ways to be a car enthusiast even if you aren’t driving a lot right now due to your situation. It’s also worth noting that the situation has an exceedingly high chance of not being permanent, so there’s that.
tl;dr – this too shall pass.
I agree. I don’t have a commute, so I drive my own cars so little that I’m lucky if any one of my vehicles drives over 1,000 miles in a single year. You don’t have to drive a lot of miles to be a car enthusiast! Love the cars you want and drive them the way you want. Have a great weekend, everyone!
(Topshot: NASA)
I see your EV lunar rover, and raise you nuclear power! https://science.nasa.gov/mission/msl-curiosity/
I wonder how big of an RTG you’d need to power a off-road vehicle with comparable power…
Although it was engineered/built in cooperation with Boeing, I can never get over the fact that GM could create a fantastically successful, impossibly lightweight, foldable, all wheel hub motor drive, independently sprung, four-wheel steered, controllable-from-either-seat EV with unique technology (e.g the tyres, gyro navigation, etc.) for an untestable, low-gravity environment, at the same time as selling gas-guzzlers based on technology that had hardly changed since the 1940s.
The fact that the LS engine still uses push-rods in the 21st century baffles me. Overhead cams were invented over a century ago!
Overhead cams aren’t a clear improvement. They do many things better, but pushrods are still less complicated, significantly cheaper, and make for a smaller packaged engine, keep weight lower (both lower center of gravity, as well as lower total weight). You ever wonder why everyone is putting LS’es in everything? Size and cost baby.
I assume a lot of that is the lunar rover was built for a customer base of one, with very specific requirements and a signed contract, while auto manufacturers have a large customer base with diverse needs. But, point taken!
You are correct, but one accepted justification for the space program (and military) is the subsidizing of R&D to redeploy in civilian applications.
*types this on a semiconductor based communications device.*
It was easier than you think. They don’t have to worry about aerodynamics on the moon. And other than delivery, weight is not a big issue either.
If you ever get out near Huntsville AL stop by the US Space and Rocket Center museum. Well worth half a day.
The ‘tires’ on the rover were wound wire with chevron SS treads. Absolutely wild.
I wonder if they could have used an ICE with a tank of O2?
Possibly, but you’d need both fuel (could be lots of things) and an oxidizer (liquid O2 like you said).
Gasoline would likely freeze and sublimate to the vacuum of space anyway, let alone the effects of microgravity and space vacuum on trying to tune the fuel delivery of an ICE engine, so you’d want to use the same fuel as the third stage rocket engines that got you the moon in the first place: liquid hydrogen.
So, an ICE rover would need to carry both liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks onboard, then safely mix them into an engine requiring rapid throttle response, idling capability, and would be impossible to tune and test on earth.
No wonder they chose EV then, which was already proven to work well in a vacuum, was very simple and compact, and was far less hazardous if it failed. The non-rechargeable, silver-zinc potassium hydroxide 36V batteries weighed 242lbs on earth, but just 40lb on the moon. They also boast about double the energy density for their mass than even the most modern lithium-ion batteries (though single-use as mentioned).
Cool! To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting they should have used ICE, just musing whether it was technically possible. Thanks for your background on this.
Sure, and it’s not a bad question. It’s absolutely possible to make an internal combustion engine work in space, but the effort to do so probably outweighs the benefit. Maybe with a moon base that can produce its own fuel and people are there long enough to test and tune the engine, but then again, other power generations like fuel cells are attractive as those produce clean drinking water as a byproduct, not just power.
The other thing to think about too is while solar panels obviously only work when they can collect sunlight, in space and on the moon’s surface, they aren’t limited to a 24 day/night cycle. Sure, conversion efficiency still isn’t great, but traveling through space, they can point at the sun 100% of the time, and at the Sea of Tranquility on the moon, the day/night cycle is over 2 weeks of continuous daylight at a time.
I do appreciate in Ad Astra, the lunar rover design is just, increased in size.
Yes, but you have about thirty of them, so you’re still well above average in toto.
I’m a couple days late posting it for people to see, but on David’s carspotting video rich in squarebody Chevy trucks;
I know
You’re wanting me to stay
But I can’t ignore the crazy dreams of rust-free Chevrolets.
I heard
That there’s a special place
Where old cars and pickups roam the roads forever and a day
I’m having wicked dreams/Of leaving salt country
For Santa Monica/And not-really-Elise
While cruisin’ down the street/With my five-on-the-floor
And getting notes from Beau/I should be pushing Fords…
These runs we have in the comments section whereby we get all silly and feed off each other is why Autopian, and the reader community, are the highlights of my day.
There’s an excellent book about development of the lunar rover.
Across the Airless Wilds by Earl Swift.
Highly recommend.
Agreed. Fascinating on a number of levels: technology, corporate intrigue, big government politics, and just good old fashioned ingenuity and derring-do.
Yeah, but the aero on it was terrible 😉
Not true. It had a coefficient of friction equal to zero… on the moon.
Wink wink. Wink. Wink wink wink.
You mean CoD? Drag coefficient. Although friction coefficient s about 1/4 as well.
yes I meant CoD. I was wondering when someone would catch that.
Came here to say the same, great book!
He also wrote a really interesting history of the building of the Interstates
While he covers technical subjects he has a highly readable writing style