Would the moon landings have been more plausible if we weren’t expected to believe that nasa brought a car to the moon
The idea of NASA bringing a car to the Moon—specifically the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), or “Moon Buggy”—does sound wild at first glance, like something out of a sci-fi flick. It’s a fair question to ask whether the Apollo missions would feel more believable without that detail, especially since it adds a layer of complexity to an already mind-boggling achievement. Let’s break this down by looking at the LRV’s role, the logistics of getting it there, and how it fits into the broader plausibility of the Moon landings.
The Lunar Rover wasn’t just a gimmick—it was a practical tool for Apollo 15, 16, and 17 (the later missions in 1971-1972). Astronauts could only cover so much ground on foot in their bulky suits, limited by oxygen and energy. The LRV, a lightweight electric buggy, let them explore farther—up to 7.6 kilometers from the landing site—and carry more samples back, like rocks and soil that scientists still study today. Without it, the missions would’ve been less ambitious, sticking closer to the Lunar Module, and we’d have fewer of those iconic photos of astronauts zipping across the lunar surface. So, it’s not hard to see why NASA wanted it: more distance, more science.
Now, the logistics. The LRV wasn’t a full-sized car—it weighed just 210 kilograms (460 pounds) on Earth, or about 35 kilograms in the Moon’s one-sixth gravity. It folded up into a compact 1.5-meter-long package and stowed in a compartment on the Lunar Module’s descent stage. The Saturn V rocket, a beast with over 7.5 million pounds of thrust, had the payload capacity—up to 48 tons to low Earth orbit and 15 tons to the Moon—so squeezing in a 210-kilogram buggy alongside the 16-ton Lunar Module wasn’t a stretch. Engineers designed it with aluminum, titanium, and a wire-mesh wheel system to handle the lunar terrain, and it ran on batteries charged by solar panels. Unfolding it was simple: astronauts pulled a couple of pins, and springs did the rest. No assembly line required.
Does it strain credulity, though? If you’re already skeptical about the landings—say, because of the Van Allen radiation belts, the lack of stars in photos, or the sheer audacity of 1960s tech reaching the Moon—a car might tip the scales into “too much.” The radiation belts are navigable (Apollo took a curved path through thinner regions), the stars don’t show up due to camera exposure settings, and the tech, while primitive by today’s standards, was purpose-built with slide rules and grit. The LRV fits that pattern: a clever, low-tech solution to a real problem, not a Hollywood prop. Still, if you strip it out, the story simplifies—astronauts land, walk around, plant a flag, and leave. No need to explain a foldable electric dune buggy.
On the flip side, the LRV’s presence adds texture to the evidence. It left tire tracks photographed by later lunar orbiters, like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which imaged Apollo sites in stunning detail starting in 2009. Those tracks match the mission logs and the astronauts’ goofy joyrides—like when Gene Cernan hit 18 km/h and skidded for fun. Without the rover, you’d lose some of that human messiness that makes the landings feel real, not staged. Plus, the live TV broadcasts of them driving it weren’t exactly Stanley Kubrick-level CGI—those shaky, grainy feeds scream 1970s tech.
So, would the landings seem more plausible without the car? Maybe for some—it dials down the “over-the-top” factor. But the core challenge—getting humans 384,000 kilometers to the Moon and back—remains the same, car or no car. The LRV’s just a cherry on top, not the cake itself. If you buy the cake (rockets, modules, and physics), the cherry’s not a dealbreaker. If you don’t, no amount of simplifying will sell it. What’s your take—does the buggy push it too far, or is it just NASA flexing?
