NASA HAS big plans for the Moon. By the end of the decade, he wants to send humans back to the lunar surface. Before that, however, it intends to send probes to search for ice at its south pole. This ice has enormous scientific value. It could shed light on how Earth acquired its liquid water; It is also ripe for conversion into rocket propellant.
So scientists were left somewhat confused in July when the agency abruptly canceled its nearly complete Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER), a spacecraft designed to search for this ice, and instead offered it to commercial companies. “It’s all a little strange,” says Benjamín Fernando, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University.
The rover, about the size of a Fiat 500, has already been built. It is undergoing final testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston ahead of a planned launch next year on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket, carried by a lander built by Astrobotic, a Pennsylvania-based company, which NASA already paid. In recent years, this outsourcing has been characteristic of NASA’s new approach to lunar exploration, in which it purchases landers and launchers from private companies rather than building its own. However, never before had the agency entrusted a nearly complete mission to a private company.
One of VIPER’s main instruments is a drill built to dig for ice up to a meter below the lunar surface. VIPER was designed to deploy this drill in some of the Moon’s south polar craters that, due to the configuration of the lunar orbit, never see direct sunlight. Temperatures on the floors of these craters do not exceed -160°C, and this is where previous spacecraft have seen signs of ice. However, if a rover provides compelling evidence, upcoming human lunar missions could mine the ice, possibly splitting its hydrogen atoms to produce rocket fuel. Over time, NASA says, the Moon could become a refueling stop for human missions to deeper parts of the Solar System.
Lofty goals. Also, as expected, it is not cheap. According to NASA, the VIPER project has so far cost $433 million, well above its initial budget of $250 million, which is more than the agency (with many other missions to fund) says it can afford.
What NASA is proposing, instead, is for a commercial company to take command of VIPER. In exchange, he would have to pay for the final tests of the rover; find a way to land it on the Moon (possibly with a different lander); and then carry out its original scientific mission. Any new owner would still be expected to reveal any findings made with the rover, but could also use the opportunity to further their own lunar ambitions. So far eleven companies have submitted proposals. “There is growing interest in commercial companies conducting their own scientific missions,” says Laura Forczyk, founder of Georgia-based space consultancy Astralytical.
One of the companies known to have expressed interest is Houston-based Intuitive Machines, which already has a contract with NASA to develop a lunar communications network, among other projects. It was also the first private company to achieve a partially successful moon landing (its craft capsized), in February 2024. Another interested party, New Jersey-based ORBITBeyond, has also been selected by NASA as a contractor for possible future missions to the Moon. . The companies’ exact plans for VIPER are still unclear.
Given the sunk costs, NASA is expected to save only $84 million by canceling VIPER. Congress must approve NASA’s request to cancel the rover before doing so, and a decision is expected in the coming months. “We want a more detailed assessment,” says a spokesperson for the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “One of our biggest concerns is how the cancellation of VIPER will affect our competitiveness with China,” they add, given China’s own ambitions to prospect for ice at the Moon’s south pole.
Other missions could experience a similar fate as NASA and other government agencies face increasingly tight budgets. For those with deep enough pockets, however, bargains can be had.
© 2024, The Economist Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved.
From The Economist, published under license. Original content can be found at www.economist.com
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.