Moon rover canceled?

[StarStreak2109]

https://www.space.com/40431-nasa-cancels-moon-mission-resource-prospector.html

First victim of the new NASA administration?!?

[Scotius]

Yeah, 90% sure it's about money. Looks like the white elephant called SLS is soaking more and more resources, and NASA is forced to shuffle them from other programs. Sad.

[YNM]

55 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Yeah, 90% sure it's about money.

How come could they cancel something that would only bring more of it ?

Is it Titan ?

[Canopus]

Maybe they saw it as a bit redundant since there seem to be alot of other robotic missions that want to go to the south pole.

[LordFerret]

You really shouldn't jump to such conclusions, you have no clue as to the funds shuffling that goes on ... unless of course you sit on the board?

Perhaps the funds slated for this project will instead be directed to figuring out why, and fixing, the heat shield of the Mars rover slated for 2020.
http://www.ibtimes.com/mars-2020-mission-heat-shield-nasas-next-rover-cracks-during-test-2676304

[tater]

It was never really fully funded as far as I can tell, had no launch date, or LV selected, etc.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

2 hours ago, LordFerret said:

Perhaps the funds slated for this project will instead be directed to figuring out why, and fixing, the heat shield of the Mars rover slated for 2020.

Instead of buying a new car they will spend money to tune the existing one.

 

[LordFerret]

@kerbiloid,

Well, kinda sorta, yea. As far as lineups go, from what I understand (could be wrong), this Mars rover was next on the list. And Mars seemingly more the focus than the Moon, with a target date already of 2020, then yes I can see focus going there.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Canopus said:

Maybe they saw it as a bit redundant since there seem to be alot of other robotic missions that want to go to the south pole.

I wonder about that south pole bit. The indication of water ice being there (Cabeus crater for instance) was considered a possibility, while water ice at the north pole was confirmed. The stated mission of this now cancelled rover was to check the feasibility of accessing said water ice. So why focus on a possible south pole while you've got a confirmed north pole?

I'm sure there's an answer there somewhere. I only caught light of this because of watching money and the post popping up here.

[Canopus]

11 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

@kerbiloid,

Well, kinda sorta, yea. As far as lineups go, from what I understand (could be wrong), this Mars rover was next on the list. And Mars seemingly more the focus than the Moon, with a target date already of 2020, then yes I can see focus going there.

 

 

 

I wonder about that south pole bit. The indication of water ice being there (Cabeus crater for instance) was considered a possibility, while water ice at the north pole was confirmed. The stated mission of this now cancelled rover was to check the feasibility of accessing said water ice. So why focus on a possible south pole while you've got a confirmed north pole?

I'm sure there's an answer there somewhere. I only caught light of this because of watching money and the post popping up here.

Wikipedia atleast says that the South pole is of greater interest because the total area that is shadowed permanently is greater than at the north pole.

Water does seem to be present there too as demonstrated by LCROSS.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Canopus

[Canopus]

http://spacenews.com/nasa-emphasizes-commercial-lunar-lander-plans-with-resource-prospector-cancellation/

[55delta]

I feel the need to point out that, although the rover has been cancelled, the latest article pointed to launching prospecting landers. Doesn't mean SLS is eating all the pies. Just seems more like a change from a rover to more landers.

Still, I suppose a rover mission is always more interesting than a lander mission, right?

[LordFerret]

“More landers. More science. More exploration. More prospectors. More commercial partners.” - NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine (from Canopus's link above)

To me this says more than just doing science. To me this says staking a claim on the moon, mining it, and profiting from it. Didn't the world in general (UN) have some manner of agreement this wasn't going to happen?... or has all that gone out the window.

[StarStreak2109]

Honestly? That just sounds like empty words... My faith in NASA actually achieving something tangible these days is pretty limited... I saw that tweet as well and thought: "Yeah, like that's gonna happen...". My guess is that at some stage private companies (not SpaceX or BO, they're just contractors in my view), probably some of the major corporations, will take to the moon (or elsewhere) to start mining resources and stuff. Necessary precursor missions will be also privately funded. NASA won't do this, because their funding only goes for four years and priorities shift with every new administration. Not like there's some superior goal there...

PS: However, with all this Mars hype, I feel it would be very much worthwhile to look at the Moon for resources, science and possible colonisation purposes.

Edited May 1, 2018 by StarStreak2109

[Canopus]

36 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

Honestly? That just sounds like empty words... My faith in NASA actually achieving something tangible these days is pretty limited... I saw that tweet as well and thought: "Yeah, like that's gonna happen...". My guess is that at some stage private companies (not SpaceX or BO, they're just contractors in my view), probably some of the major corporations, will take to the moon (or elsewhere) to start mining resources and stuff. Necessary precursor missions will be also privately funded. NASA won't do this, because their funding only goes for four years and priorities shift with every new administration. Not like there's some superior goal there...

PS: However, with all this Mars hype, I feel it would be very much worthwhile to look at the Moon for resources, science and possible colonisation purposes.

https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst

Missions funded by NASA could just use commercial lunar landers. And it seems they will. Entitys like Astrobotic and Moon express will most likely have to rely on NASA missions for a while.

[magnemoe]

On 4/29/2018 at 8:27 PM, Canopus said:

Wikipedia atleast says that the South pole is of greater interest because the total area that is shadowed permanently is greater than at the north pole.

Water does seem to be present there too as demonstrated by LCROSS.

South pole also has an area nearby with pretty constant sunlight and line of sight to earth. 
So you could put up base camp there and explore the shadow zone.