NASA Evaluating 11 VIPER Proposals as Congress Asks Questions

NASA is evaluating 11 responses from organizations large and small that might want to take over the VIPER lunar rover project. NASA intends to cancel VIPER because of cost growth even though the rover is completely built. Meanwhile, the bipartisan leadership of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee is asking NASA questions about the decision and wants a reply by September 20.

NASA’s abrupt announcement of VIPER’s cancellation on July 17 caught everyone by surprise.

NASA has often heralded the information that the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover will provide about the location and quantity of water ice at the Moon’s south pole. The agency describes the water resource map VIPER data would produce as “a critical step forward for NASA’s Artemis missions to establish a long-term presence on the surface of the Moon.”

Equipped with three scientific instruments and a drill, the rover was to be delivered to the Moon by a commercial lander, Griffin, built by Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic as part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative. Astrobotic and several other companies have CLPS contracts to deliver NASA science and technology experiments to the Moon. NASA pays for delivery services for its payloads. The companies are expected to find non-NASA customers to close the business case.

NASA is paying Astrobotic $323 million for landing services on top of the cost of VIPER itself. NASA’s commitment to Congress was that VIPER would cost $433.5 million with landing in 2023. By the beginning of this year, that had become $505.4 million with landing in 2024.

Then Astrobotic’s first CLPS mission failed to reach the Moon in January because of a propulsion system failure. That was a different, smaller lander, Peregrine, and the NASA payloads that were aboard were extremely modest compared with the multi-million dollar VIPER.  NASA decided it wanted more tests of Griffin’s propulsion system, delaying the launch to September 2025 and increasing the cost estimate to $609.6 million.

Facing extremely constrained Science Mission Directorate budgets in the near-term and budget uncertainty after that, NASA called it quits on VIPER in part because they’re not sure Astrobotic will have Griffin ready to go by September 2025 despite Astrobotic’s assurances. Any further delays will raise the cost even more.

However, NASA will still pay Astrobotic to send Griffin to the Moon carrying whatever non-NASA payloads the company can obtain. NASA offered to provide a mass simulator to replace VIPER, but it is not clear if Astrobotic wants it. The lander belongs to Astrobotic, not the government.

The rover is completely built and going through testing right now. Acoustic and vibration testing is complete. Thermal vacuum testing is the final step and that will be done in October.

The agency has spent $450 million on VIPER already and cancelling the mission is only expected to save $84 million. Added to the $323 million they still are paying Astrobotic, the venture will cost taxpayers $773 million for no scientific return.

Many in the lunar science community are hoping Congress will overturn the decision, but NASA also is inviting companies and international partners to take over the program as long as no more NASA money is required. If no one steps forward with a credible proposal, VIPER will be disassembled.

NASA issued a Request for Information (RFI) on August 9 with replies due on September 2. The agency told SpacePolicyOnline.com on September 10 that 11 responses were received and they are currently being evaluated. There is no timetable for a decision.

“NASA received 11 responses to its RFI seeking interest from the U.S. communities in partnering with the agency to conduct a VIPER mission on the Moon. The responses came from organizations ranging from large companies to smaller collaborations.

“NASA is currently assessing the responses for merit of the mission’s proposed objectives, feasibility of the proposed mission, and expected NASA contributions.” — NASA

At least one company is interested. Intuitive Machines (IM), a commercial lunar lander company like Astrobotic that also has NASA CLPS contracts, is making no secret it wants VIPER. During a second quarter 2024 financial results telecon last month, IM CEO Steve Altemus said they’d already submitted an expression of interest, praising VIPER’s scientific importance and IM’s ability to get it to the Moon with their new heavy-class lander Nova-D. Nova-D can land 1,500 kilograms on the Moon. VIPER is 500 kg, so they could sell the remaining 1,000 kg of mass to other customers to get the money to fly the mission according to Altemus. IM Chief Technology Officer Tim Crain posted on X that they submitted their response to the RFI on August 30.

Just submitted our VIPER RFI response. VALOR: VIPER-Augmented Lunar Operations and Reconnaissance. We’ll see what happens next! #adlunam

— Tim (@CrainTim) August 30, 2024

IM landed their first Nova-C lander, Odysseus, on the Moon in February and while it was hardly trouble-free NASA and the company count it as a success. They have another mission coming up later this year and NASA just awarded them a third task order last month. All of those are separate from VIPER, but it is all part of CLPS.

Cancelling VIPER requires congressional acquiescence. The reason for cancelling it is money and Congress has the power of the purse.

The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the FY2025 Commerce-Justice-Science bill that includes NASA just after NASA’s announcement and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) called on her colleagues to find a way to repurpose the lander. West Virginia, Ohio, and Astrobotic’s home state of Pennsylvania established the Keystone Space Collaborative to support the space industry in those states.

In addition, on September 6, the bipartisan leadership of the House Science, Space, and Technology (SS&T) Committee and its space subcommittee wrote a five page letter to NASA Administrator Bill Nelson asking a series of questions. House SS&T is an authorization committee, not appropriations, so can’t provide any funding, but does set policy.

Full committee chair and ranking member Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Zoe Lofgren (R-CA), and subcommittee chair and ranking member Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) and Eric Sorensen (D-IL), want details.

NASA’s decision to terminate a nearly completed lunar rover and use the full value of the firm fixed price contract with the CLPS provider to launch dead weight in lieu of VIPER raises serious questions. Further, we must fully assess the strategic and scientific implications of NASA’s decision not to launch VIPER, complete its delivery to a site near the South Pole of the Moon, and gain important data on lunar volatiles. This is a critical time to demonstrate the United States’s commitment to leadership on lunar science and exploration, and any action taken with regards to VIPER must further that purpose. — excerpt from House SS&T Letter to Bill Nelson

The reference to “dead weight” is the mass simulator NASA offered to provide. The letter requests a reply by September 20.

The Planetary Society, a grass-roots organization that advocates for space projects, especially planetary science like VIPER, issued a statement on August 21 calling for NASA to find a way to complete the project even if it doesn’t launch in 2025: “We urge NASA to prioritize the mission’s continuation and to consider the full range of landing systems being developed for the Moon that could deliver VIPER to the surface this decade. Any opportunity at landing is preferable to disassembling an already-built rover and missing out on the scientific results.”

Finding money to continue VIPER would almost certainly mean taking it from something else in NASA, though. House Republican determination to reduce the national debt is taking its toll on non-defense discretionary spending like NASA. Last year’s Fiscal Responsibility Act set budget caps for both FY2024 and FY2025. Whether they continue after that depends in large part on the outcome of the congressional and presidential elections on November 5, but substantial increases seem unlikely.