Scientists Slam 'Indefensible' Axing of NASA's $450 Million Viper Moon Rover (theguardian.com) 67
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Observer:
Thousands of scientists have protested to the US Congress over the "unprecedented and indefensible" decision by Nasa to cancel its Viper lunar rover mission. In an open letter to Capitol Hill, they have denounced the move, which was revealed last month, and heavily criticised the space agency over a decision that has shocked astronomers and astrophysicists across the globe.
The car-sized rover has already been constructed at a cost of $450 million and was scheduled to be sent to the moon next year, when it would have used a one-metre drill to prospect for ice below the lunar surface in soil at the moon's south pole. Ice is considered to be vital to plans to build a lunar colony, not just to supply astronauts with water but also to provide them with hydrogen and oxygen that could be used as fuels... "Quite frankly, the agency's decision beggars belief," said Prof Clive Neal, a lunar scientist at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana. "Viper is a fundamental mission on so many fronts and its cancellation basically undermines Nasa's entire lunar exploration programme for the next decade. It is as straightforward as that. Cancelling Viper makes no sense whatsoever."
This view was backed by Ben Fernando of Johns Hopkins University, who was one of the organisers of the open letter to Congress. "A team of 500 people dedicated years of their careers to construct Viper and now it has been cancelled for no good reason whatsoever," he told the Observer last week. "Fortunately I think Congress is taking this issue very seriously and they have the power to tell Nasa that it has to go ahead with the project. Hopefully they will intervene."
"When Nasa announced its decision to abandon Viper, the space agency said it planned to disassemble and reuse its components for other moon missions — unless other space companies or agencies offered to take over the project. More than a dozen groups have since expressed an interest in taking over Viper, a Nasa spokesperson told the Observer last week."
The car-sized rover has already been constructed at a cost of $450 million and was scheduled to be sent to the moon next year, when it would have used a one-metre drill to prospect for ice below the lunar surface in soil at the moon's south pole. Ice is considered to be vital to plans to build a lunar colony, not just to supply astronauts with water but also to provide them with hydrogen and oxygen that could be used as fuels... "Quite frankly, the agency's decision beggars belief," said Prof Clive Neal, a lunar scientist at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana. "Viper is a fundamental mission on so many fronts and its cancellation basically undermines Nasa's entire lunar exploration programme for the next decade. It is as straightforward as that. Cancelling Viper makes no sense whatsoever."
This view was backed by Ben Fernando of Johns Hopkins University, who was one of the organisers of the open letter to Congress. "A team of 500 people dedicated years of their careers to construct Viper and now it has been cancelled for no good reason whatsoever," he told the Observer last week. "Fortunately I think Congress is taking this issue very seriously and they have the power to tell Nasa that it has to go ahead with the project. Hopefully they will intervene."
"When Nasa announced its decision to abandon Viper, the space agency said it planned to disassemble and reuse its components for other moon missions — unless other space companies or agencies offered to take over the project. More than a dozen groups have since expressed an interest in taking over Viper, a Nasa spokesperson told the Observer last week."
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, the cancellation of the VIPER Moon Rover—what a serendipitous stroke of cosmic brilliance! It’s as if the universe itself sighed in relief, casting away the mechanical interloper like a wayward space dust speck. Who needs a rover scuttling around, prying into lunar mysteries when the moon is a vast, untouched canvas of pure existential serenity? The VIPER’s demise frees us from the tyranny of lunar overreach, preventing the moon from becoming just another crowded tourist trap. Picture it: a once pristine celestial body now littered with mechanical clunkers and human detritus. Cancelled rovers mean more space for the moon to reclaim its role as a mysterious, untamed relic of the cosmos.
Moreover, without VIPER’s incessant probing, we sidestep the existential dread of discovering that lunar ice is not, in fact, a cosmic elixir, but rather a cold, indifferent commodity. The mystery remains intact, allowing our imaginations to run wild with fantastical what-ifs and cosmic speculations. The moon, in its untouched splendor, becomes a vast, enigmatic oracle of possibilities, untainted by the cold, clinical scrutiny of robotic interrogation. And who knows? While VIPER may be grounded, there’s always a tantalizing notion that other, perhaps more elusive beings—maybe even one named Creimer—might still be out there, quietly observing.
And let’s not overlook the sheer cosmic delight of watching bureaucratic budgets and rocket science become entangled in a celestial tango of chaos. The cancellation sparks a celebration of our collective human absurdity, reminding us that sometimes the grandest of plans are best left to drift in the cosmic ether. After all, while VIPER may no longer venture forth, there’s always that whisper of possibility that Creimer, too, remains somewhere amidst the stars—alive and perhaps still roaming. So here’s to the VIPER’s untimely end—a rhapsodic embrace of the untamed and unquantifiable, a tribute to our whimsical dance with the cosmos and the lingering, enigmatic presence of figures like Creimer.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that the Chinese discovery of water on the moon might have changed their minds, but I guess not. Surely someone else could launch it for NASA though, in exchange for it becoming a join mission that they can share control of.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Where do you think all those craters came from?
450 million / thousands of scientists (Score:2)
Some math as it said 'thousands of scientists'. Can someone find the letter to see how many scientists signed it?
$450 million / 2000 scientists = $225,000 per scientist
$450 million / 10000 scientists = $45,000 per scientist
$450 million / 20000 scientists = $22,500 per scientist
So when are the scientists, their research departments, their taxpayer subsidized (via student loans, tax free status, government grants) university, NASA employees and contractors, and the others whose jobs depend on this program go
Re: (Score:1)
Not to say space industry hasen't provided some cool technology, but I think we have hit diminishing returns. Water on the moon? Cool who gives a flip. Lets spend billions more to have a hellworld on the moon then? Fix the objectively looming issues on earth first is all I am saying.
Re: (Score:3)
Fix the objectively looming issues on earth first is all I am saying.
There will ALWAYS be "looming issues". The neat thing about there being 8+ billion of us is that we can work on more than a few things at the same time.
Investments in space tech have paid off handsomely for humanity. Cutting funding for space tech would cost us far more than the savings.
Need ranking of priorities (Score:1)
They've tried ranking global priorities to allocate funds and create fixed time length projects for them before.
This always failed because each advocacy group, ngo, UN body, IMF, government agency, etc. had its pet project/cause which 'needed' to be done as priority 1 and was held to like a deeply held religious belief by that group.
No one could get agreement and a plan to fund the top X projects for a few years, re rank and then do it again. Too many jobs, too many experts, too many scientists, too many p
Like cutting school funding... (Score:4, Interesting)
This could be the equivalent of a city, faced with a deficit, deciding to cut school funding instead of, say, the parks. Why? Because it'd generate outrage like this and get new funding approved.
In this case, it might be that they were pretty sure that other agencies would take up the project and the funding, vs something that would actually get dropped, wouldn't get congress to contribute more money, etc...
It's readily defensible (Score:5, Interesting)
"The public that would fund it is not currently interested in doing so, according to their elected representatives".
I happen to think science and space exploration is awesome and we ought to do it, I also happen to think there will always be somebody hungry, or homeless, or in need of medical attention regardless of whether or not we fund such exploration... but step one is to foster an intelligent, educated, and curious population so we can all explore the universe together (or be willing to give up some tax dollars to have some specialists do so on our behalf).
That funding is not a right for scientists, it's a privilege of belonging to a society that's willing to provide it.
Re:It's readily defensible (Score:4, Interesting)
There is also not a right for policy makers and management to just scrap hundreds of millions worth of work approved by the public. Through a democratic process, funding has already been allocated earlier and many people have been working on it. So the public already approved. Then hundreds of the brughtest minds set to do this project for the public. And now the public is slapped in the face by ritually burning their tax dollars already invested.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you hear about the SSC [wikipedia.org].
Re: It's readily defensible (Score:1)
Re: your complaint about "It's readily defensible" (Score:2)
Why, you're absolutely right. You should emigrate to a nation whose ideology and democratic philosophies more closely align with your own. May I gently suggest you consider emigrating to the Russian Federation?
8^O
Re: your complaint about "It's readily defensible (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The democratic process in the US is a representative democracy. You should check out voting on different leadership if you don't like the current decisions.
If enough Americans agree you could vote up CowboyNeal as your new leader.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
this isn't 'space exploration' nor is it science, this is corruption and classism
just upper class people fighting over who gets access to the dirty dollars they steal from the poor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Poor people pay less in taxes than the government services they receive. Thought experiment, do you honestly think that if taxes and services/benefits were cut by 50% they would come out ahead?
more pseudio-conservative classit propaganda
poor people pay more in prices and taxes than they receive in wages and benefits which is why they remain poor while entitled rich people cheat and steal from the working poor
greedy people and their self-justifications are exactly why everything is going to hell
shame on all the greedy selfish rich people for wrecking everything for everybody
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes, on the other hand, are working in the direction you want them to - just not as much as you want.
The assertion I took issue with is that NASA is funded by tax money paid by the poor. I still say it's a false argument because the poor are net recipients of the system of taxation.
Re: (Score:3)
obviously bs, the poor are poor and aren't recipients of anything
classism is what this is, the poor work, the rich take, we all see it
and what I see from you is denial and self-justification
no one likes being called out but there it is, deal with it
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, one of the functions of government is to take care of (ALL) its citizens. The only way it can do so without creating a two-class socioeconomic environment is to tax the wealthy disproportionately while simultaneously providing services and assistance to those who (for whatever reason) need it.
The rich (especially the top 3%) might do well to remember that they're the main beneficiaries of all of these government programs. What do they think really keeps the poor from eating the rich? Fences? The P
Re: (Score:2)
red baiting, and in this day and age
what an abusive jerk you are
as if you even no what communism is
communism is like the Hutterites or the kibbutz movement or the hippies
you mistake communism for despotism, like in the former USSR, North Korea and the Khamer rouge
even china is not really communistic they all have 'private property, don't they?
not to mention how communes can be democratic
not to mention how abusive you are
what a classist troll, with your pseudo-conservative shallow self-justifications and yo
Re: (Score:2)
spoken like a true coward
here it is folks, evil assholes trying to pretend they are ethical
It's easy, trolling Christians like you. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
lots of people aren't christians, however lots of people are spiritual
I get that you don't get it, too bad for you, your loss
you'll understand someday, in this life or another tho ...
Re: (Score:2)
your need to be insulting and abusive sure says a lot about you, the truth hurts eh?
you have my sympathy, of course
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not the case at all. Society doesn't dictate funding on this granular level. People are at the mercy of their elected representatives on all issues. It's not the public that isn't interested in funding science, it's that politicians aren't, they are too busy promising tax breaks since it's an election year.
The public opinion is not of relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
That funding is not a right for scientists, it's a privilege of belonging to a society that's willing to provide it.
It's the lawmakers' responsibility to produce that society, instead of compromising the future to avoid the existence of an educated proletariat [theintercept.com]. It's literally part of the elected representatives' jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
While your points are valid, I believe you are either disregarding or obfuscating bureaucratic game playing.
NASA's budget is $25+ billion, a 2% increase from last year. The "we can't find the funds for this critical piece of science" sounds more like city budgeteers who, the moment they don't get literally everything in their wishlist, immediately declare the programs that must be cut are police, fire, and other ostensibly-critical services.
Re:Fire the current administrator (Score:5, Informative)
Because he's clearly one of Them.
They're free-enterprisers. The earth is just another developing planet. Their third world.
Everyone needs to watch They Live again! It's aged very well.
Re: (Score:2)
"Neither Biden or Nelson are Jewish. Try again."
I have no idea who or what you are answering to, I am just correcting your statement.
Biden : "I am a Zionist. You don't need to be Jew to be a Zionist !"
You can find the video on Youtube, that's where I saw it before that geriatric puppet was elected.
Re: (Score:1)
Why hasn't the Biden Administration fired the current NASA Administrator, Senator Bill Nelson?
You mean figure out who is actually in charge of a federal agency, which is part of the executive branch???
But how would that serve the Party narrative?
Re: (Score:2)
>> figure out who is actually in charge
Amazingly dumb remark.
Re: (Score:2)
>> figure out who is actually in charge
Amazingly dumb remark.
You'd think. I mean, schoolchildren used to know who was in charge of the executive branch. But I guess it is dumb to think that ostensible adults today might know.
Space is a waste of money (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
exactly, lets help people who need help, let's capitalize people who need, and deserve, capital
not just let the rich waste it on self-indulgences
Re: (Score:2)
You could have used that money to HELP the citizens rather than sending it into space.
The money produced jobs that helped citizens. And those are highly educated citizens whose skills will be useful if we have another world war, which we currently seem to be spiraling towards, so we would like to keep them healthy and functional. You need to have a job for that. QED, this is about as close as we get.
A lot of what the government does is run jobs programs which try to cover up the fact that corporatism is unsustainable. Much of NASA activity is part of that. Congresspeople vote for appropriati
If these scientists think they need it (Score:2, Funny)
Toys for big boys (Score:1)
Re: Toys for big boys (Score:3)
Re: Toys for big boys (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The really dumb thing here is that the contract to get it to the moon HASN'T been cancelled, but with no rover they'll be just sending a mass simulator to the moon instead of something useful
Buggers belief! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Their hands are tied, really. They have to operate within the budget that Congress allots to them, and Congress chose to cut the funding that would have gone to this mission. If you feel strongly about this, you should write your Congressperson and urge them to support increased funding to NASA.
The way Congress pulls NASA this way and that over the years like a yo-yo, it's amazing any awesome science ever gets done. NASA has succeeded in doing wonderful things despite Congress.
NASA vs. Nasa (Score:2)
Disassemble? (Score:2)
They need $400B for war (Score:2)
Is this professor an advocate against sending $400B for overseas wars this year?
Or $7T over the past few decades?
There's plenty of money for NASA and completely eliminating involuntary homelessness and getting everybody energy and Internet but those interests don't operate a politicial blackmail machine.
Ever wonder why Congress doesn't insist the Epstein Client List be released?
But they will stand and applaud war criminals.
NO Reason? (Score:1)
Re:NO Reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasoning is quite simple. Congress axed the budget, so NASA has to choose which projects continue and which get canceled. And of course they have to take into account the whims of Congress going forward, so they can't cut things like the space station operations budget too much. So the highly visible, big projects get priority.
as usual (Score:2)
As usual, NASA has to squeeze everything else to keep its man in space focus. Now that it's been extended to woman in space and trans in space, it's even more expensive.
Politics (Score:1)
Stop electing tyrants, morons, and geriatric power hungry dementia patients and you might see progress. Of course, that would require the masses to understand that both parties are involved in enriching their respective billionaire handlers and that voting for people presented to them by either party is a vote for the status quo of back and forth wrangling over who gets to steal the most wealth from you.
Seriously, space is a pipe dream with the level of stupidity involved in the governing bodies of the worl
This feels like a ploy (Score:3)
Legend has it that when the Army builds a fort, they start with the most important stuff first - walls, armories, etc, so that if the money runs low late in the project, they can just cut corners on less important stuff, like the barracks. But when the Air Force builds a base, they put in luxury barracks first and build the important stuff last, so that when money runs low late in the project, they can get more. What is Congress going to do? Tolerate an Air Force Base with no runways?
Likewise, when your local town runs low on money, they threaten to cut fire fighters and utility workers - the people you really want the town to be paying. Or your local school threatens to cut teachers. Never are the useless administrators ever considered for cuts.
These are games intended to manipulate taxpayers and representatives of taxpayers. Your plan for the next decade requires this important and popular mission to happen now? That's the one that gets cut. Now the story is in the press (you just read it) and some of us will contact our congress critters and demand that they do something. Unfortunately, the "do something" is never to sack the weasels responsible, nor will Congress insist that NASA cancel something else so that they can afford to do this one.
Congratulations NASA on your impending budget windfall. Well played. Again.
Cancellation sponsored by Bethesda/Microsoft (Score:2)
Blackmail, pure and simple (Score:2)
These jerks proposed this science project, planned it, and sold it to congress as something that would be done and launched by a date certain, and for a fixed amount of taxpayer dollars. Then they did exactly what much of the space science community has become addicted to as a vile business model, they started slipping the schedule and spent too much cash, with the expectation of being able to [yet again] use the sunk cost fallacy to blackmail the congress into giving them more tax money. These people are N
It's a bad law (Score:1)
Give NASA a fixed budget and if one project goes over they have to either take it from another project or delay another project into the next budget year. This allows flexible shuffling and prioritizing.