> A nonfunctional “mass simulator” will take its place. ... NASA had spent $450 million on VIPER, which is already fully assembled with its science instruments installed ... testing of the rover to make sure it would survive the shaking of a rocket launch and the harsh conditions of space has not been completed. The cancellation would save at least $84 million, as NASA would no longer need to pay to complete the tests or to operate the rover on the moon ... The agency is still planning to pay Astrobotic $323 million to [take the mass simulator to the moon].
If you've already built the rover and are paying to transport it to the moon regardless, why not skip the testing and send the rover instead of a "mass simulator"? Then if it works you have a functional rover on the moon and paying to operate it is worth it, and if it doesn't work then it's the same as if you sent something non-functional on purpose.
Wild guess: they know it’s likely not going to pass tests, so better stop it and save some instruments when the hole is ostensibly only $84m, not $300m or something when another $50m is spent.
The article talks about a descent stage built by a private space company* that won't be delivered on time. So even if the rover tested out perfectly, they can't land it.
(*which might just mean "contractor")
I knew this sounded too much like the "already finished rover" wasn't actually finished, which is a very reasonable explanation for not sending it yet.
That seems like the key point!
Assuming this is the case, is there some kind of meaningful penalty for a contractor blowing up an entire mission like that?
I mean... beyond just not getting another contract?
Unless they're very small, they'll still win other contracts. Failure is always an option for companies in the defense sector (NASA being defense adjacent, their contractors are almost all also defense contractors).
Sounds like it'd still cost something to operate it, however, I agree that you might as well send something up there if you already agreed to pay for the trip.
Unless something like a battery fire happens in your untested rover, that compromises other mission goals.
Back in the olden days of software, "testing" is where the money was spent to actually make something work.
Maybe the same is true of this Rover? That it's a pile of junk they were hoping to Change Request their way to fitness?
>Back in the olden days of software, "testing" is where the money was spent to actually make something work.
Much less so for space hardware. A large part of the engineering effort goes into testing, but you have a complete thing that gets tested. You don't just half ass the design and completely redo it in testing. These things are all planned for very early on. Hardware design isn't at all agile.
You might be right that there is a fundamental flaw that they realize would be extremely expensive to fix.
That wasn't true for the LM spacecraft and rockets was it (well, there was a complete thing there, but it was completely inoperable for years)
> Prior to disassembly, NASA will consider expressions of interest from U.S. industry and international partners by Thursday, Aug. 1, for use of the existing VIPER rover system at no cost to the government.
(from NASA's release)
I assume this doesn't mean "come take it for free" but something more like "you'd have to pay us the amount we think we could get back from salvaging stuff off the rover." Otherwise I'd just say, well Astrobotic should take it off their hands.
[flagged]