The development of the VIPER lunar rover, which until recently was due to launch for the Moon in November, has been discontinued.

Update (February 4, 2025):

NASA has announced that it intends to press forward with the VIPER mission in collaboration with industry partners. A call for proposals has gone out, with a deadline of March 3rd for responses. More detailed proposals will follow with a decision expected by this summer. Read more in NASA's press release.

The original story on VIPER's cancellation, published July 17, 2024, appears below.


Viper rover art
Artist's concept of the VIPER rover on the Moon.
NASA Ames / Daniel Rutter

The Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) was originally designed to search for ice as well as other resources in the cold, dark, and rugged conditions that exist at the south polar region of the Moon. It would have ridden and touched down on the lunar surface aboard the Griffin lander, developed by the aerospace company Astrobotic as part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program. The team was aiming to drive it some 20 kilometers (12 miles) on the lunar surface over 100 days, going in and out of permanently shadowed regions.

But now, it won’t be doing any of those things. In a press conference held on Wednesday, July 17th, NASA announced it was canceling its part in this otherwise commercial mission.

While praising VIPER team members for their persistence and ingenuity in building the scientific instruments and the bulk of the vehicle, Joel Kearns (NASA HQ) notes that the rover, originally scheduled to launch in late 2023, was haunted by supply chain issues. “The delays occurred over and over for several key components,” he adds. Those delays in turn pushed back the assembly, integration, and testing of the golf cart–size vehicle. While the assembly was ultimately finished, the rover is only now beginning environmental testing.

While NASA had negotiated with Astrobotic to delay launch until no earlier than November 2024, so that Astrobotic could test Griffin's propulsion system, the supply-chain issues were about to necessitate a push back by another year, to September 2025. (That timing is in part constrained by VIPER itself, which needs to operate during the lunar south pole “summer,” when there’s more sunlight available.) That could have set a chain reaction of delays for subsequent commercial missions, says Nicola Fox, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate.

VIPER rover, assembled
NASA’s VIPER rover sits assembled inside the cleanroom at the agency’s Johnson Space Center.
NASA

Cost overruns were another primary reason for cancellation. Let’s go through the numbers: The original cost had been $433.5 million, with launch due in 2023. That budget increased to $505.4 million to encompass the delay to 2024. A 2025 landing would have entailed another budget increase to $609.6 million. About $450 million has already been spent, and the rover itself is actually fully assembled. But there was also a risk of unknown future costs, such as further delays or fixes required if testing revealed problems, as often happens.

“We are in a highly constrained science budget environment at NASA,” Kearns says. “Science at NASA was $1 billion less in the current fiscal year than what was requested from Congress . . . and we’re getting indications that the environment will also be constrained in the next fiscal year coming up.”  

VIPER may see a second life, though. NASA is opening up the use of VIPER — including its scientific instruments and/or the vehicle itself — to U.S. industry and international partners. NASA’s press release notes where to send expressions of interest, which are due by August 1st. Meanwhile, the Griffin lander, which will carry some smaller payloads, is currently due to launch for the Moon in the fall of 2025. Before then, Firefly Aerospace and Intuitive Machines are planning for launches later this year.


Editorial note (July 24, 2024): This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Joel Kearns as well as to add details about the delay from 2023 to 2024, which was due to Astrobotics' propulsion testing rather than supply chain issues. (Supply chain issues played a role in further delays.)

About Monica Young

Monica Young, a professional astronomer by training, is News Editor of Sky & Telescope.

Comments


Image of Andrew James

Andrew James

July 18, 2024 at 4:45 am

For China, this is really good news. The minerals and water on the Moon is up for grabs. Investment will give rewards. America looks to its navel. Loco.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Ludovicus

Ludovicus

July 20, 2024 at 5:12 pm

What I do not get is that this is basically done. So I can see them delaying the unit at this point for say a year or so more, but if you look at the numbers, it was almost $1/2B, then only maybe $120M the following year, and less again this past year. So, for almost NOTHING left to spend per se, it's ready to go! Bizarre - Loco as Andy put it!

SO now that all this work is basically done on this rover, what are they going to do with it? Take it apart and use components for a future mission that is different? re-task for Mars operation in 10 years? What?!

When the (now AI assisted) bean counters are allowed nearly carte blanche control over projects this is what happens. It is amazing we still go to space anymore. Wow. The age of austerity reigns supreme!

The US could have asked for maybe additional contributions from other countries, such as Canada, UK, Spain, France, Germany etc., to finish this project, as it benefits all in many ways. Even if a primarily commercial-oriented mission, we still need to know what and where to figure the best place(s) to put bases...

But I bet there's extra $$$ to run a drone program to monitor CIA targets for new activities!

Hmph!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Ludovicus

Ludovicus

July 20, 2024 at 5:16 pm

Oh! I bet any future costs now are basically the launch ($100-130M sounds right?). Maybe they can sell it to SpaceX or Boeing and make some money back... 🙂

Darren

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Monica Young

Monica Young

July 22, 2024 at 3:40 pm

Hi Darren,
I believe integration and testing make up the bulk of the remaining costs in the budget; launch costs are usually listed separately. As JWST showed us, this stage can in some cases be unexpectedly time-intensive and expensive. My understanding is that this is the unknown costs that NASA was seeking to allay. I've added a line to the story to clarify this!
~ Monica

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Andrew James

Andrew James

July 23, 2024 at 4:16 am

It sounds a very strange way to develop a space mission. Did someone misplaced one of the manual that talked about integration and testing? Any project manager or project engineer with this so would not make such a mistake. Moreover, a more likely explanation would be to do with budgets, with NASA intending to preserve as much monies to use with other projects. There is probably a fear with the upcoming US election, that the general anti-science / anti-climate rhetoric from Republican representatives may have something to do with it. [What's also worrying is that the potential of the Moon has great economic benefits, but governments are cutting back to mitigate against the weakened economy.] Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) clearly said: "The inadequate amount included for our landers undermines prior years’ investments in deep space exploration... Flat funding for NASA reveals a deliberate effort to undercut our path to renewed American space dominance... I think this is very shortsighted, to say the least." Monica, I think your appraisal that is unlikely IMO. In my working life, not allowing for integration and testing would have terminated my employment immediately.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Monica Young

Monica Young

July 25, 2024 at 1:57 pm

I'm not sure what you mean by a misplaced manual? I'm not sharing my opinion as to larger motives here, just drawing from the press conference. Joel Kearns said: "And that assumes that the testing does not uncover problems, which I will tell you, in general, spacecraft development, system level environmental testing does uncover problems that need to be corrected, which would take more time and money." (Note that JWST similarly, and notoriously, experienced problems in integration and testing that increased its cost.)

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Andrew James

Andrew James

July 26, 2024 at 5:14 am

Monica. I have no motive here. I'm just stating generally how projects are developed. When you set out in expensive program, the higher the cost the more detailed the operational criteria are documented for implementation. Four large projects this is usually a set of manuals that detailed the steps that go towards implementing the project. For example, the first manual which set out the aims and goals of the project. The second might be the material costs and accessing component parts. A third would be, say assembly, etc. The last manual would normally be about integration and testing. Combined, they make a procedural method of implementation, construction, testing and finally, as in this case, a launch. The biggest problem of course is going over budget, due to inflation or unseen problems that weren't anticipated. Mostly, at least in my experience, is that if the budget blows above a particular value, which is already specified in the development manuals, there are options to either scaled-down, or in some cases, discard the project entirely. My argument is, after reading this article, is by not proceeding with the mission, both waste money and opportunity - opportunity to gain resources to expand space exploration. As the Republicans have stated their interest in science, and the desire to reduce fiscal spending , it is more likely that NASA has decided to sacrifice this mission in favour of promoting more other stronger priorities. You may be correct in what you're saying here, but often, organisations will obfuscate around issues, and hide their agendas to favour other priorities. In some cases, this makes shareholders in corporations nervous, so it's better not to expose them to much to things like out blowing costs or some undisclosed priorities.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Andrew James

Andrew James

July 26, 2024 at 5:20 am

Error: I said: " As the Republicans have stated their interest in science...". I meant "As the Republicans have stated their strong disinterest in science." Sorry.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of John Schnupp

John Schnupp

February 8, 2025 at 12:31 pm

This is sad news for sure. Unfortunately, I think this is just the first in what is likely to be a long line of cancellations and/or major reductions, not just for NASA but across all STEM related fields. The current POTUS and administration has no understanding of what has truly made America great, they are currently too busy tearing us apart and lining their own pockets. China will quickly surpass USA (and even EU) is it's space missions and technology. It will be a long 4 years.

p.s. This is not meant to be a political comment. There are agenda items of the current administration that I both disagree and agree with.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment.