4 ms·

Outsider looking in, this article[1] published circa Jul 2022 appears to add some historical color to the status quo...it all seems related to CLPS[2] failures

Outsider looking in, this article[1] published circa Jul 2022 appears to add some historical color to the status quo...it all seems related to CLPS[2] failures surrounding a few involved primes[3][4]. In any case, sure does look like a nasty Nunn-McCurdy breach that NASA has on their hands. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/nasa-replans-clps-delivery-of-viper-to-2024-to-reduce-risk-2/ https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/nasa-replans-clps-delivery... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Servi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobotic_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobotic_Technology [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masten_Space_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masten_Space_Systems

philipwhiuk 2y ago
That's not the case. The rover itself, made by NASA, experienced cost growth. This is a longstanding problem in science missions and so, in an era of fiscal tightening, they chose not to add more money to VIPER. "Nunn-McCurdy" is weapons regulation. It doesn't apply here directly, but there are Congressional reporting requirements for it.
- 0xffff2 2y ago
  It's absolutely the case. The rover was built in the middle of Covid. Given the challenges that created, the cost growth on the rover itself was quite reasonable. The problem right now is that NASA HQ has no confidence in the CLPS contractor building the lander, but it's not politically correct to throw a private company under the bus.