NASA cancels $450-million mission to drill for ice on the Moon -- surprising researchers

[sl8]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02361-1

NEWS
18 July 2024

NASA cancels $450-million mission to drill for ice on the Moon — surprising researchers

The already-built rover could now be scrapped for parts.

By Alix Soliman



The completed Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) sits in a cleanroom at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.Credit: NASA

NASA has terminated an ambitious mission intended to map ice and then drill into it at the Moon’s south pole. The space agency announced the cancellation of the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) yesterday, citing budget woes, rising costs and several delays in construction on the rover and its lander. Now, it is seeking partners interested in using the rover — which is already assembled — or components of it, for future lunar missions.

The agency has already sunk US$450 million into building VIPER, and reports that it would need to spend millions more to complete testing. This would threaten funding for other launches it is planning as part of its Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) programme, in which the agency partners with private US aerospace companies to transport scientific instruments to the lunar surface. Before the mission delays, VIPER was intended to be the first-ever mission to scout for ice on the ground at the Moon’s south pole.

“This has been a really tough decision, which we make in an uncertain budget environment,” said Nicola Fox, associate administrator for NASA’s science mission directorate when announcing the cancellation. “But we do believe that this is a way for us to continue to support the entire CLPS portfolio.” The US Congress reduced NASA’s budget for 2024 compared with 2023, and the budget proposed for 2025 by the US House of Representatives is only about a 1% increase from this year, which is lower than the current rate of inflation.

[...]

[Faux pas]

1. WTF?

Why do we need moon ice anyway? And how do we get the $450 million back?

[getagrip_already]

3. Ughhh, spoken like a true believer....

Ice on the moon would solve a key problem for any long term habitation. Namely a water source for farming and life support.

Yes, it is an important scientific objective.

[Faux pas]

5. I find it quite disheartening

that the world governments would rather WASTE money on looking for something out "there" than spending it on saving OUR PLANET.

[thatdemguy]

6. The Nasa budget is 24 billion dollars, which is 1/2 of 1% of the total US budget

Its basically a drop a in the bucket or a rounding error on the US budget. Then you need to realize Nasa does a lot more than looking for something out there. That work also goes to things that look down here, weather stuff, and lots of human research for health reasons etc.

Edit that money also does not float out in to space, its keeps people here employed and for the most part stays in the US economy.

[getagrip_already]

7. And it also LEADS the us efforts in climate change research

Without NASA, we would know far less globally about climate change and global warming, which is why the magats and billionaires want it eliminated.

Things like space exploration literally get crumbs for funding. But it is all important.

[getagrip_already]

8. What if that something is an asteroid hurtling toward your bedroom?

And there isn't a NASA, with all its fancy telescopes and radar gear looking into deep space to see it, and all those fancy computer models and missiles to nudge it out of the way?

Sucks to be us, eh?

[eppur_se_muova]

13. False either/or proposition. Neither is dependent on the other. nt

[getagrip_already]

2. Science is not a word used in the presence of maga....

And certainly would not be funded in any future budget unless it involves male sexual pleasure, longevity, or the ability to control woman like robots.

[DFW]

4. That doesn't sound like it was well thought-out

I’m sure there were expectations of findings in lunar ice that would have provided significant info, but there’s not much of a pipeline set up to bring back much water from the moon, even if they do find any.

Why don’t they look for iridium, or something like that? It is apparently found in pieces of asteroids, many of which have hit the moon, and it is worth something like $5000 an ounce, so even small quantities found can make such an undertaking able to pay for itself.

[getagrip_already]

9. The goal wasnt to bring it back, it was for colonization

Any colony or long term research station would need a source of air and water.

Ice could provide both, as well as hydrogen for fuel.

China is also searching for ice, and has plans to try to claim the entire moon for itself. Why? Reasons.

[DFW]

10. Colonization would make senae

They would need to find a substantial amount of water/ice to sustain a colony, though. Current assessments of the moon’s geology seem to rule out any large bodies of water, although there sre only a few parts that have been mapped out thoroughly enough to rule it out entirely.

[xocetaceans]

12. This article explains why mining ice would be useful for astronauts.

Here’s how we could mine the moon for rocket fuel
The Artemis program is supposed to usher in a new age of lunar mining, especially for water ice. But how, exactly?

By Neel V. Patel | May 19, 2020

The moon is a treasure trove of valuable resources. Gold, platinum, and many rare earth metals await extraction to be used in next-generation electronics. Non-radioactive helium-3 could one day power nuclear fusion reactors. But there’s one resource in particular that has excited scientists, rocket engineers, space agency officials, industry entrepreneurs—virtually anyone with a vested interest in making spaceflight to distant worlds more affordable. It’s water.

Why? If you split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then liquefy those constituents, you have rocket fuel. If you can stop at the moon’s orbit or a lunar base to refuel, you no longer need to bring all your propellant with you as you take off, making your spacecraft significantly lighter and cheaper to launch. That’s important because Earth’s atmosphere and gravitational pull necessitate use of tons of fuel per second when rockets launch. Creating a sustainable source of fuel in space could reduce the costs and hazards associated with heavy liftoffs. One NASA estimate suggests there might be 600 million metric tons of lunar ice to harvest, and other higher-end estimates say one billion metric tons is a possibility.

...

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/19/1001857/how-moon-lunar-mining-water-ice-rocket-fuel/

[hunter]

11. It's doubtful natural born humans will ever have a significant presence in space.

China will probably land humans on the moon, they'll hang out there for a little while, and then that will be that for humans in space, possibly for hundreds or thousands of years.

If our modern world civilization continues (which is in some doubt) space will belong to out intellectual offspring, beings designed specifically to live there, creatures who can walk naked on places like the surface of Mars. Maybe if we treat them well they'll invite us along for a ride someday.

Humans such as ourselves are just too damned fragile for space. It's a tremendous waste of resources to keep us alive there.

I don't think it matters if there are "exploitable" quantities of water or any other resource on the moon. In general the political and commercial exploitation of space requires heavy subsidy and does not make our world a better place.

My grandfather was one of the many engineers who worked on the Apollo Project. Bits of metal that he made, metal that he touched with his own hands, took men to the moon and back. That was his pride and joy. (He never ever talked about the World War II or Cold War metal bits.)

It was a grand adventure then, like climbing Mount Everest.

These days climbing Mount Everest is something else.