![NASA NASA](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/nasa_64.png)
![Moon Moon](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/moon_64.png)
NASA Ends VIPER Project (nasa.gov) 30
Following a comprehensive internal review, NASA announced Wednesday its intent to discontinue development of its VIPER (Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover) project. NASA: NASA stated cost increases, delays to the launch date, and the risks of future cost growth as the reasons to stand down on the mission. The rover was originally planned to launch in late 2023, but in 2022, NASA requested a launch delay to late 2024 to provide more time for preflight testing of the Astrobotic lander. Since that time, additional schedule and supply chain delays pushed VIPER's readiness date to September 2025, and independently its CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) launch aboard Astrobotic's Griffin lander also has been delayed to a similar time. Continuation of VIPER would result in an increased cost that threatens cancellation or disruption to other CLPS missions. NASA has notified Congress of the agency's intent.
Disappointing (Score:5, Interesting)
A pity. We know pretty much nothing about the physical state of ice in lunar craters. This would told us a lot.
A statement that we "might" use some of the instruments in (unnamed) future missions really isn't a substitute for a mission that's actually ready to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's really a shame is that they can't work with anyone else to get it there.
China can land rovers on the moon, but NASA is banned from working with them.
The ESA might be able to do it now. Japan has landed a probe on the moon. Okay it fell over, but that's because they deliberately selected a difficult slope to learn about landing on those.
India has landed a probe on the moon too.
Sunk Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad the SLS cannot be subjected to the same calculus, because Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the SLS cannot be subjected to the same calculus, because Congress.
It will be but there needs to be a viable alternative first.
Congress also wants NASA to get back to the moon so if they want to cut SLS they also need to cut the Artemis mission wholecloth or just straight up tell NASA "No Moon mission until Starship is ready, whenever that is" and cover all those costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that (a variant of) Starship is the lunar lander for Artemis, that's kinda implied already.
Re: (Score:3)
The Artemis lander SpaceX is building will not be launching the Orion capsule with the astronauts off Earth, that will still be done with SLS.
That could change in the future but Starship itself still hasn't quite pulled off orbit yet and it has a number of functions to prove out yet (I mean they are still versioning the thing, it's got a lot of testing still) and that's before the Artmeis lander itself (which is different from the version they are testing now) get's a full design and test. I know they are
Re: (Score:2)
The mission profile is get to orbit and then to the Lunar Gateway station by SLS, and then transfer to Starship which got there unmanned. Starship will land vertically on the moon, somehow the astronauts will get themselves and their equipment out, and then it will ascent back to Lunar Gateway. They will transfer to Orion again and make their way home.
NASA has not given SpaceX the only lunar lander contract, Blue Origin has one too. The second landing is supposed to be on a Blue Origin craft, although it's
Re: Sunk Cost (Score:1)
There are quite a few viable commercial alternatives. The biggest problem is that things are not tuned to each other in these government organizations. It would be a lot easier to send smaller rockets with equally small and cheap payloads and let them fail faster, but someone gets the idea of making a big payload, then is surprised there is nothing available to carry it so then they schedule that project and by that time we are 20 years later and everything has shrunk anyway to the smaller size.
Re: Sunk Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Alternative to SLS? Not at the moment, next closest is Falcon Heavy but it can't match SLS Block 1 and nowhere close to what Block 2 will do (something like 130T vs 54T). Arriane 6 or Vulcan isn't doing it either, nor have either of those rockets been human-rated either (not that I think it would be an issue for FH)
The issue with SLS isn't really one of performance, the RS-25 is still an amazing high-performance engine, it's always been one of cost. If SLS was 1/3 the price like it was supposed to be we'd still bemoan it's expendable nature but it'd be more understandable.
The only thing on the line to match what SLS can do would be Starship and I imagine NASA themselves are chomping at the bit to move to that platform but as much confidence I have in Starship it's still far from a risk-free proposition to pin your hopes on that just yet. We got a couple years still.
Re: (Score:1)
But SLS and especially Block 2 doesn't exist yet, it's vaporware. It had 1 Block 1 launch without any payload in the entirety of its project and though NASA declares it a relative success, the mission was rife with problems (heat shields, communications) and the platform has since shown more issues (valves, fuel, ...) that make it too dangerous even to schedule a test flight.
Meanwhile rockets from the Falcon 9 (Heavy) family have been launched 364 times, with 361 full mission successes, three failures, and
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason you can't modify your mission parameters to fit on a Falcon Heavy
I don't think the Orion capsule is going to fit into a FH, not without an unreasonable amount of modification and the Falcon Upper stage is nowhere near as capable as the ICPS or EUS so I have doubts even if it got Orion into orbit it would be bapable of a TLI, the entire Orion system weights around 56T, that's why years ago there was talk of combining Falcon with an Centaur upper stage.
So yes, while it's easy (and fun) to dunk on SLS the point stands, until Starship proves itself out SLS is how NASA does a
Re: (Score:2)
But the "icy" moon craters remain a key exploration goal. If it's that going there simply costs more than expected, then spending more may still be warranted.
Until somebody identifies a clearly cheaper alternative, I can't classify this under the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Exploration is not always cheap. The decision should be based on the value of the exploration and knowledge, not JUST the cost of machines.
Re: (Score:2)
But the "icy" moon craters remain a key exploration goal. If it's that going there simply costs more than expected, then spending more may still be warranted. Until somebody identifies a clearly cheaper alternative, I can't classify this under the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Yeah. Basically, they just returned to zero. There is no cheaper alternative identified.
NASA does have one upcoming mission to examine the physical state of ice in lunar craters, the Polar Resources Ice Mining Experiment-1 [nasa.gov] (PRIME-1), but this does not have a rover. Basically, it will drill down into the place it lands, and if that spot happens to be too rocky to drill, well, you're out of luck. Not to mention that since it drills where it lands, the measurement will be contaminated by the landing rocket exh
Jiiiihna! (Score:1)
I kinda hope China does an "ice rover", makes a breathtaking discovery, and NASA & Congress are then left with egg on their moons.
Plus, one learns more from difficult missions. Playing it safe isn't real exploration. Make probes sweat!
Re:Sunk Cost (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no. They are still going ahead with launching the rocket with a dummy payload instead of either not launching or giving their spot to some other satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the average tax contribution to NASA is like $40 a person per year I think it's actually quite the bargain.
real reason (Score:5, Funny)
The real reason the project was cancelled was acronym overload. The pushdown capacity of recursive and iterative acronyms was exceeded and the acronym stack crashed.
"Mass simulator" (Score:2)
Is it true what Scott Manley said, that they will launch a mass simulator (chunk of cement) instead? What a huge waste, why do that when there are tons of alternatives that would save taxpayer money?
Re: (Score:2)
From what I could find this was going to be a Falcon Heavy launch so I imagine it's just cancelled now.
Maybe thinking of the Vulcan launch that was supposed to carry Dream Chaser?
ULA could fly dummy payload on next Vulcan launch if Dream Chaser is delayed [spacenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A giant brick for mankind.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it true what Scott Manley said, that they will launch a mass simulator (chunk of cement) instead? What a huge waste, why do that when there are tons of alternatives that would save taxpayer money?
It is a huge waste.
Listen to the rest of Scott Manley's video. Delays caused it go to over budget, so statutory law automatically requires the only money spent now to go toward stopping the project, which means NASA will pay to disassemble the rover, and pay to send a mass simulator in its place. Coincidentally the project was cancelled just before the new NASA administrator, who is interested in this project, takes over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Oh no! (Score:1)
Now who will vipe my vindows?
Poaching (Score:1)