sound stages are pretty flat.

Can they do it in the age of high def?

it's OK, there's no gas prices on the moon

Thanks for the link, Bruce. I've been exploring the NASA site quite a bit--cool stuff.
I never saw that first rover, which may be at JSC, but just so astrotourists aren't 2/3 disappointed on their visit to Houston:
The lunar rovers in pics 2 and 3 were tested in the state of Washington:

NASA Tests Lunar Robots and Spacesuits on Earthen Moonscape ["Earthen"?]

Conditions on the moon will be harsher, but prototype NASA robotic vehicles and their developers braved sand storms and unprecedented temperature swings on sweeping dunes near Moses Lake, Wash. [halfway between Mount Rainier and Idaho], this month to prepare for the future.

http://david.farmnet.com.au/files/2007/10/jd2.jpg

Student astronaut, distracted by text messaging,
"splashed down" into the Sea of Tranquillity.

Teams from seven NASA centers and one university coordinated their activities on the Moses Lake Sand Dunes from June 2-13 to gain hands-on experience with specific technical challenges anticipated when humans return to the moon by 2020 and begin to explore the lunar surface and set up initial outposts.

While you're on that page, click "Photo Gallery" (under article) or "Gallery: Evaluating Lunar Concepts" (at right; same gallery).
Lookit what this other gallery page for the vehicle in pic 2 is called!
Live and animated videos.

FAIL!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Please, no.

I continue to be disturbed by certain issues of nomenclature:

:thumbsdn: ". . . the Constellation Program to send human explorers back to the moon, and then onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system." Why is this program named after a grouping of stars, when the program is staying within the solar system?

:neutral: The launch vehicles (rockets) are named Ares, the Greek name for Mars, which is a planet, fine.

:thumbsdn: The crew vehicle (space capsule, not the SUV) is named Orion, which is a constellation but still has nothing to do with the Moon or the rest of our solar system.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/2...007e113280.jpg

Not 1950s sci-fi art but NASA artist's rendering of the lunar lander.

:neutral: The lunar lander is named Altair, which is the name of the biggest star in the constellation Aquila, the eagle. Hey, there's at least a connection with Neil Armstrong's lunar lander, the Eagle. . . . [Later] Oh, I see the lander page explains that.

:zzz: In surfing that quadrant of the NASA site, I saw various lunar rovers called NASA Concept Vehicle (pic 1 in Bruce’s OP), Crew Mobility Chassis Prototype (pic 2), and Crew Exploration Vehicle—blah.

To summarize: Here's a mission to the Moon, first, then elsewhere in the solar system. The names currently refer to a type of star grouping, a planet, a particular constellation, a star in a different constellation, and just some working titles. Where's any consistency?

NASA should rename everything to focus on the lunar mission. When the time comes, they can name further stuff after Mars and Jupiter, but it doesn't make any sense at any time to go outside the solar system for names for spaceships and such, when there are plenty of great names closer to Earth:

:thumbsup: Program: the Soleil Moon Frye Program (= solar system in general + Moon in particular + common east Asian pronunciation of "fly")

:drummer: Launch vehicle: the Keith Moon

:borg: Crew vehicle: the Ban Ki-moon

:apaw: Lunar lander: the Moon Landrieu

:driving: Crew Exploration Vehicle: the Moon Unit Zappa

:typing: Constellation Program Office (Johnson Space Center, Houston): Marion Moon Aldrin Domestic Engineering Center