Thursday, July 18, 2024

NASA Cancels VIPER Lunar Lander Mission

Over the last few years, NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program has been featured here several times, because, well, it's a rare smart program that does good things. The purpose of the CLPS program is to use private companies to send small- and medium-size landers to the Moon's surface for primarily science-based missions. That particular article references both the CLPS program and the particular example, the VIPER mission that has been cancelled. 

The accepted 50/50 risk of throwing the money away, and small budget probes starts to look different if the probe is bigger budget, and more important.  Then VIPER, the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover came to the top of the list of missions NASA really wanted, and Zurbuchen oversaw rewarding a start-up company called Astrobotic a $200 million dollar contract to design, build, and launch the probe to the south pole by 2023.  In a lunar lander they still haven't flown.  

This is an important scientific mission tasked with searching for ice at the south pole and using a one-meter drill to prospect for subsurface samples. The total value of the mission is $660 million, and it matters to scientists and NASA's human exploration division, which hopes to send astronauts to the south pole in the 2020s.

Note the reference to "a lunar lander they still haven't flown" was in April of '22.  The lander was Astrobotic's Peregrine lander which suffered a mission ending accident back in January.

The decision to axe the VIPER mission was announced Wednesday, July 17 in a teleconference; cancelling the program is expected to save the agency an additional $84 million in development costs. NASA has spent about $450 million on the program so far.  The last mentioned launch date for Viper was "in 2025". It appears VIPER will be scrapped for parts or potentially sold to industry. 

Despite the cancellation, NASA leadership stressed that the program was successful thus far and that the termination was solely a budgetary concern.

"We were very confident in the VIPER team. This really gets down to cost and a very constrained budget environment in the United States," said Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for exploration at NASA headquarters in Washington, during today's teleconference.

Reading between the lines a little gives me the perspective that Artemis and SLS are sucking up all the money available. It was only a week ago, after all, that we ran Yet Another Story of Congress lecturing NASA on getting costs out of the SLS program. Some bright morons in congress think if they can just get "other customers" to adopt SLS the system will magically get cheaper instead of bankrupting other agencies. "Misery loves company!"

NASA's VIPER robotic moon rover stands taller than ever after engineers integrated its mast in a clean room at the agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston.  (Image credit: NASA/Helen Arase Vargas)



15 comments:

  1. "...Artemis and SLS are sucking up all the money available." And that is pretty much the same thing that happened during the development of the Space Shuttle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the DoD and others (NSA) kept changing the mission parameters of the Shuttle, and eventually the Shuttle took flight, crippled by all the "gotta have" crap bolted to it!

      Delete
  2. Does NASA make engineers hold ladders? Steel four-legged untippable ladders? Or are they just killing time until payday?
    Either way, I think I've spotted the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget the three NASA folks needed to run the overhead crane. One to operate it and two observers. That was my experience at Goddard.
      CP

      Delete
  3. Yeah, die SLS, just die. We'll see how JD Vance handles being in control of the Space Council.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not optimistic, to say the least. The last VP that was knowledgeable on space was the widely derided Dan Quayle, who had the misfortune to work for the elder Bush.

      Vance, well...I've expressed my opinion of him elsewhere. I'll need to bone up on my Mandarin if he and Tramp win. Er, I mean Trump.

      Delete
    2. Vance seems cool, good background, done good work in the Senate. Speaks well off the cuff.

      Same with Trump.

      And both of them fight for the common man. Can't beat that.

      Delete
  4. Really, I'd like to see Elon Musk bring the project into SpaceX, but even he can't do everything, and his focus is on Mars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VIPER would be just light cargo for the HLS version of Starship. And it could be launched using Falcon Heavy. Reliance on SLS to launch it is criminally stupid waste of money.

      Delete
  5. No chance this Administration is doing anything like Goresat...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Even if NASA offered to sell the VIPER program, all the parts, spares, intellectual data etc for a dollar, I would have apprehensions about buying it. Even if I had some use that VIPER could potentially fill and it would cost tens of millions more to reproduce something else to fill the need. Spending $450 million and it is still not ready shows the project is cursed. Better to have your own team begin from scratch then hold them responsible. When the inevitable problems arise, your team will have some insight to solutions on their design. I am not sure I would even hire people that had been involved in the original project. Involvement being an indicator they do not know how to do the job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. Inheriting an incomplete, complex design and trying to finish it is a nightmare. You can bet the documentation is incomplete and/or inadequate, loss of institutional memory is a real problem, and the schedule gets thrown out the door as the new team tries to figure out what the original team was doing. Plenty of companies have learned the lesson you mention - better to start from scratch on your own design.

      Delete
    2. After 9 years at Rocketdyne I learned that the schedule(s) are thrown out EVERY year after Congress sets funding below what was requested from the previous year (where the schedule had to be reworked due to insufficent funding, etc.) It isn't a new team, it is trying to do 100% of the work with 70% of the resources.

      Delete
    3. I've never met anyone from any military or space background, including the DOD contractors, who didn't have stories like that. Every year, as the FY is winding down, they have to spend like crazy to use up their budget or else they're sure their budget will get smaller. A smaller budget is never considered OK.

      Delete
    4. I've worked in multiple federal departments; working with the military there was considerably less budget pressure at end of year than at "civilian" agencies.
      Jonathan

      Delete