We'll never get solar there if we don't travel the pot hole filled path that leads there.
I doubt that you'll ever get solar there, period. I doubt this because of physics. The solar constant, the average energy density delivered by the Sun at 1 AU, using all frequencies, not just visible light or near infrared, is 1.36 kW/m^2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant) This means that if you had something which was 100% efficient and was hanging in orbit outside of the Earth's atmosphere, you would get 1.36 kW out of each square metre of whatever you use to generate power. (photovoltiacs, solar steam, other heat engine, whatever, I don't care what tech you use, the MAX you can get is 1.36 kW per square metre. There ain't no more.) You are NOT going to get 1.36 kW at the Earth's surface, the atmosphere will gulp a lot of that, the exact percentage varying dependent on atmospheric conditions, altitude, and a host of other factors. You are NOT going to get 100% efficiency; the record is, last I heard, 46%, and most commercial photovoltaics get under 18%. Let's be optimistic and say 25%; that 1.36 kW which you aren't going to get is really 340 W which you aren't going to get. That's half a fucking horsepower. That means that to have an engine as powerful as a bloody 5 hp lawnmower engine you will need TEN BLOODY SQUARE METRES OF WHATEVER YOU USE TO COLLECT SOLAR ENERGY. (That's 3.4 kW or so...) Actually, more than that. It gets worse. You have to store power for use when it's dark or rainy or whatever, so you need a lot more collection area to power the batteries you're going to need. My car, a Toyota, is 4.5 metres long, bumper-to-bumper, and 1.8 metres wide, max. If it was a perfect rectangle, which it's not, it would have a 8.1 square metre topside surface area... including the glass bits at front, back, and sides that I need to use to see out of. It has an engine which develops in excess of 140 kW. So the solar cells would require something bigger than my Toyota, but having 2.4% of the power. It ain't gonna go very far, and it ain't gonna go very fast. Hill climbing? What's that?
I have not calculated the weight of the solar collector, or of the system needed to align the collector for best efficiency (no alignment? Cool. Cut another 15-25% off of the power you can collect...) or of the batteries or of, well, anything. All I have considered is how big it would have to be to produce power, unless there's some magic pixie dust which will multiply the solar constant.
Putting solar collectors on cars will never be practical, according to physics, unless someone can show me where my calculations are incorrect. It might work if you put the solar collectors at home base, and put a lot of batteries in the car and charged them that way, but having solar collectors on a vehicle will result in having impractical toys, nothing more.
It's not a Wright Bros-Spit-Concorde thing; physics says that you have 1.36 kW/m^2 to play with. Max. Count on having less, often a lot less. Aircraft have no similar limitation. Even if you somehow magically get 100% conversion (good luck with that...) that would bring the size of the collector needed for a 5 hp motor to 2.5 square metres. If the entire topside surface area of my Toyota was solar collectors, and if those collectors were 100% efficient, that would be a 16 hp (12 kW) motor, less than a tenth the power of the one in the Toyota right now. The Toyota is not the most nippy machine ever made. A solar-powered car would be considerably less nippy.
Sorry, but solar cars are not practical, and will never be practical, unless you can repeal physics.
I invite those who like solar cars to point out errors in my calculations.