R National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

October 11, 2024

Reply to Attn of: OLIA/2024-00300:AR:leg

The Honorable Frank Lucas

Chairman
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Lucas:

Thank you for your letter of September 6, 2024, seeking further information regarding
NASA’s decision to discontinue development of the VIPER mission. As you know in mid-
July NASA identified cost increases, delays to the launch date, and the risks of future cost
growth as reasons to stand down the mission. Along with that determination, NASA has
announced a call for expressions of interest from U.S. industry and international partners to
launch, land, and operate the existing VIPER rover system at no cost to the government. We
later issued a Request for Information (RFI) to U.S. industry about potential partnerships to
transport VIPER to the moon and accomplish some or all original VIPER science objectives.
NASA is now reviewing the information provided, and submittals are under panel review.
We look forward to updating you on the progress of that effort.

Please find attached responses to your specific questions.

Thank you for your continued support of NASA.

Sincerely,

Alicia Brown
Associate Administrator
for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosures
 R National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

October 11, 2024

Reply to Attn of: OLIA/2024-00300:AR:leg

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren

Ranking Member
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congresswoman Lofgren:

Thank you for your letter of September 6, 2024, seeking further information regarding
NASA’s decision to discontinue development of the VIPER mission. As you know in mid-
July NASA identified cost increases, delays to the launch date, and the risks of future cost
growth as reasons to stand down the mission. Along with that determination, NASA has
announced a call for expressions of interest from U.S. industry and international partners to
launch, land, and operate the existing VIPER rover system at no cost to the government. We
later issued a Request for Information (RFI) to U.S. industry about potential partnerships to
transport VIPER to the moon and accomplish some or all original VIPER science objectives.
NASA is now reviewing the information provided, and submittals are under panel review.
We look forward to updating you on the progress of that effort.

Please find attached responses to your specific questions.

Thank you for your continued support of NASA.

Sincerely,

Alicia Brown
Associate Administrator
for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosures
 R National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

October 11, 2024

Reply to Attn of: OLIA/2024-00300:AR:leg

The Honorable Brian Babin

Chairman
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Babin:

Thank you for your letter of September 6, 2024, seeking further information regarding
NASA’s decision to discontinue development of the VIPER mission. As you know in mid-
July NASA identified cost increases, delays to the launch date, and the risks of future cost
growth as reasons to stand down the mission. Along with that determination, NASA has
announced a call for expressions of interest from U.S. industry and international partners to
launch, land, and operate the existing VIPER rover system at no cost to the government. We
later issued a Request for Information (RFI) to U.S. industry about potential partnerships to
transport VIPER to the moon and accomplish some or all original VIPER science objectives.
NASA is now reviewing the information provided, and submittals are under panel review.
We look forward to updating you on the progress of that effort.

Please find attached responses to your specific questions.

Thank you for your continued support of NASA.

Sincerely,

Alicia Brown
Associate Administrator
for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosures
 RR National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

October 11, 2024

Reply to Attn of: OLIA/2024-00300:AR:leg

The Honorable Eric Sorensen

Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Sorensen:

Thank you for your letter of September 6, 2024, seeking further information regarding
NASA’s decision to discontinue development of the VIPER mission. As you know in mid-
July NASA identified cost increases, delays to the launch date, and the risks of future cost
growth as reasons to stand down the mission. Along with that determination, NASA has
announced a call for expressions of interest from U.S. industry and international partners to
launch, land, and operate the existing VIPER rover system at no cost to the government. We
later issued a Request for Information (RFI) to U.S. industry about potential partnerships to
transport VIPER to the moon and accomplish some or all original VIPER science objectives.
NASA is now reviewing the information provided, and submittals are under panel review.
We look forward to updating you on the progress of that effort.

Please find attached responses to your specific questions.

Thank you for your continued support of NASA.

Sincerely,

Alicia Brown
Associate Administrator
for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosures
Enclosure

1. For the VIPER project, an updated estimate of:

a. The cost and schedule to complete spacecraft development.

NASA Response: In addition to the $33M already requested in the FY 2025 budget
submission, VIPER would need an additional $84M in total to be ready for a late 2025
launch. In the event that the VIPER mission were to be continued but for a flight later
than end of 2025, substantial additional funding in FY26 and later years would be
required. Estimates of this additional funding range from $235M to $611M for a landing
in 2026 to 2028. Those increases would lead to total VIPER plus lander costs of $1.1 to
$1.5 billion.

b. The cost and schedule of integration and testing (broken out separately within the
development cost) for the spacecraft.
NASA Response: In May 2024, the VIPER project’s proposed revised estimate to
deliver an integrated and tested rover for a 2025 end of year lunar mission start was
$145.9M.

c. The cost to operate the spacecraft if it was completed.

NASA Response: The VIPER project’s proposed revised estimated cost to complete the
proposed 2025 end of year lunar mission start to perform VIPER’s 100-day mission
operation was approximately $39.2M.

d. NASA’s level of confidence in each of the foregoing cost and schedule estimates in a-c.

NASA Response: Based on delayed progress from design through rover assembly,
programmatic analysis projects significant cost, schedule, and technical risk to finishing
development. NASA also anticipates high-cost risk for the need to maintain an
operational team to address potential additional multi-year mission start delays. For a
short lunar operational period of approximately 100 days, the operations costs are
foreseen as not having high-cost risks.

e. If the project is to be terminated, the estimated project closeout and shutdown costs.

NASA Response: The Agency anticipates VIPER project shutdown costs to be $33.0M.

2. A list of all steps NASA has taken thus far to cancel VIPER, and any steps planned for the
remainder of FY24.

NASA Response: NASA has not begun an orderly shutdown of the project as we are still
evaluating responses to the RFI.
 The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) conducted the formal Continuation/Termination
SMD Directorate Program Management Council (DPMC), which resulted in the July 16,
2024, NASA notification that the Agency had determined to cancel the VIPER mission.
NASA announced the determination on July 17, 2024, along with a call for expressions of
interest from U.S. industry and international partners to launch, land, and operate the existing
VIPER rover system. NASA later issued a Request for Information (RFI) to U.S. industry
about potential partnerships to transport VIPER to the moon and accomplish some or all
original VIPER science objectives. NASA is now reviewing the information provided and
determining a path forward.

3. A copy of the NASA-Astrobotic CLPS agreement, a copy of Task Order 20A, and any
documents related to contract modifications or exercised task order options.

NASA Response: The Task Order (TO) and associated materials are Controlled Unclassified
Information (CUI) and will be provided under separate cover.

4. For the CLPS agreement and Task Order 20A—

a. If the VIPER spacecraft was launched as a payload on the Griffin lander—

i. A description of additional modifications to the task order or agreement that

would be necessary to complete the mission, if any.

NASA Response: For Astrobotic’s Griffin lander, an update to the CLPS TO will
be necessary to extend the period of performance past 2024, for a launch in 2025,
regardless of whether VIPER is flying on it or not. NASA may consider other
modifications to the contract that focus payments on key technical risk reductions,
but NASA will seek to prevent or minimize further cost growth.

Under a scenario where VIPER was maintained on TO 20A, there is a possibility

that future failures or anomalies in the NASA independent assessment team’s
(IAT) recommended propulsion tests might mandate risk reduction changes to the
TO to ensure greater reliability of the Astrobotic landing.

NASA does not have cost or schedule impact estimates for modifications to the
TO for such a scenario, which would be necessary to reduce risks identified by
the second NASA IAT, or improvement measures from the Griffin Failure Modes
and Affects (FMEA) analyses conducted by Astrobotic as part of the Astrobotic
Peregrine Mission-1 Failure Review Board. Either would be in addition to the
existing TO price.

ii. An updated cost estimate and schedule for services under the task order.

NASA Response: NASA does not have a cost estimate beyond what is formally
on contract for the delivery and does not intend to allow for costs to increase past
$322.8M. For schedule, NASA will monitor Astrobotic’s performance, as it does
 with other contracts, but NASA has no schedule estimate separate from
Astrobotic’s schedule for a September 2025 earliest delivery.

b. A description of benefits to NASA and the Federal Government of paying the full
remaining value of the CLPS 20A task order to receive data from Astrobotic for
“testing” and “demonstration” of the Griffin lander, and the impact to those
benefits if the test schedule for Griffin is further delayed.

NASA Response: As presently contracted, TO 20A would show that 500 kg class
landers can land in the lunar polar region, which would benefit all NASA space mission
directorates. NASA is also interested in the technical viability of a pulse modulated
bipropellant propulsion system used on the vehicle. Completion of the TO would help to
demonstrate vendor capability for future CLPS missions and, potentially, reduce risk to
future CLPS awards.

5. A copy of the results and recommendations from Astrobotic’s Failure Review Board for
Peregrine Mission One, and a description of whether NASA accepted or agreed with
such results and recommendations.

NASA Response: Enclosed is the Astrobotic publicly released a summary that included parts
of the Failure Review Board (FRB) presentation. NASA leadership and staff attended the
FRB outbrief by Astrobotic and agreed that Astrobotic’s process was consistent with industry
standards. NASA was not asked to agree or to certify results of the process.

6. A copy of NASA’s FY24 reprogramming request to Congress for VIPER.

NASA Response: Just as NASA would not share communications to the Committee on
Science with another Committee, NASA cannot share communications to the Committee on
Appropriations. However, NASA’s July 16, 2024, notification to the Committee on Science
regarding NASA’s proposed cancellation of the VIPER mission is substantially the same as
our notification to the Committee on Appropriations.

7. An accounting of FY24 unobligated and unallocated funds for—

a. The VIPER spacecraft.

NASA Response: With regard to the accounting of FY 2024 unobligated and unallocated
funds for the VIPER spacecraft, the unobligated total is $0.456M. The unallocated total
is $0.736M.

b. The CLPS task order to deliver the VIPER spacecraft.

NASA Response: With regard to the accounting of FY 2024 unobligated and unallocated
funds for the CLPS TO to deliver the VIPER spacecraft, the unobligated total is $0 and
the unallocated total is $0.
8. An estimated FY25 funding request, if the VIPER mission were to be continued.

NASA Response: The FY 2025 President’s Budget Request for VIPER is $33.0M, which is
now planned to be applied toward orderly closeout of the VIPER mission. If VIPER were to
be continued, preliminary estimates suggest a minimum additional funding requirement of
$45.0M, for a total of $78.0M, would be needed in FY2025 to continue VIPER. Additional
FY2026 funding of $39M million would also be required. If VIPER were to be continued
rather than cancelled, additional costs would likely be identified during testing. If the VIPER
mission were to be continued but for a flight later than end of 2025, substantial additional
funding in FY26 and later years would be required.

9. A copy of records related to NASA’s initiation of any non-advocate review related to

the VIPER project or Astrobotic CLPS services for the VIPER project, the results of
the non-advocate review, and any documentation related to NASA’s assessment of the
results of the non-advocate review, including records related to the VIPER Review
Team in 2020 and the Astrobotic Independent Assessment Team in 2021.

NASA Response: This material is Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and will be
provided under separate cover.

10. A description of lessons learned—

a. From the cancellation of Resource Prospector and how NASA has considered such
lessons learned in its assessment of whether to cancel VIPER.

NASA Response: NASA has not identified Resource Prospector lessons learned
documentation that would be applicable to the VIPER cancellation.

b. From VIPER that NASA will apply to future CLPS missions.

NASA Response: NASA intends to compile lessons learned from VIPER and the CLPS
TO20A contract and will share with the Committee once complete.

11. A detailed comparison of the estimated savings associated with terminating VIPER and
flying Griffin with a mass demonstration payload versus completing VIPER and
landing it with Griffin, and carrying out mission operations.

NASA Response: At the Continuation/Termination review for VIPER, it was projected that
cancellation of the VIPER project and replacement with a mass simulator would avoid costs
of at least $104.0M across both VIPER and Griffin projects assuming that a September 2025
lunar landing was achievable. Cost avoidance could be greater if other higher schedule risk
scenarios for VIPER were considered, as discussed below.

Cost avoidance could be estimated from several VIPER scenarios –

 (1) September 2025 on Astrobotic’s Griffin lander: Assuming the current schedules held for
September 2025 delivery, it was estimated that $124.0M in additional funding would
likely be needed across both VIPER and CLPS project for the Griffin lander.
Specifically, VIPER would require an additional $104.0M to meet a September 2025
delivery date, which included a $20.0M increase in FY 2024 to support the workforce
through the end of FY 2024. On the Astrobotic lunar lander side, NASA also foresaw a
cost risk of additional risk mitigation activities for the Griffin lander that might be needed
to accomplish a projected September 2025 landing, with internal estimates, based on
proprietary data, of an additional $20.0M. NASA estimated that these additional funding
requirements would lead to cancellation of one CLPS delivery and delay of another
delivery by a year.

(2) September 2026 on Astrobotic/Griffin lander: Under a scenario where VIPER or Griffin
were not able to complete lunar delivery by November 2025, and VIPER were delayed an
additional year to launch for the correct lighting conditions at the Moon, NASA estimated
additional costs of $50.0M associated with VIPER and additional costs of $40.0M
associated with Astrobotic, beyond the $104.0M in Scenario 1 costs, for a total additional
cost of $194.0M. NASA assessed that funding this within the Lunar Discovery and
Exploration Program would likely lead to two additional CLPS delivery cancellations or
delays.

(3) Alternative Lander Options. NASA assessed alternative delivery means for the VIPER
rover outside of the Griffin lander, some of which are highly proprietary, and might have
involved slipping to 2026 or later dates. Reviewing a range of highly tentative and
optimistic alternative delivery approaches showed that a new lander system cost $220-
350M, above the $104.0M in additional VIPER costs noted in Scenario 1, plus further
continued storage costs that NASA estimated would be more than $36.0M per year.
Total cost risks associated with this scenario could be $350.0-$550.0M and would still
include significant uncertainty about the reliability of delivery success. Across all these
impacts, NASA estimated a need to cancel four, and delay an additional three to four,
CLPS deliveries.

Given this, NASA foresees significant cost avoidance by focusing on alternative methods
to accomplishing VIPER’s science goals.

The following table shows the projected number of CLPS TO cancellations and delays per
each of these scenarios, adding up the projections shown above.
Scenario Cancelled CLPS task orders Delayed CLPS task orders
1: Sept 2025 on Griffin 1 1 (1 year delay)
2: 2026 on Griffin 2 2 (1 year delay)
3: Alternative Lander 4 3 (delayed by 2 years)
Options for 2027 or later

12. An estimated cost and timeline to 1) disassemble, 2) store, and 3) remanifest on other
missions the VIPER instruments, and an assessment of how remanifesting the VIPER
 instruments on other lunar landers would affect completion of VIPER’s science
objectives.

NASA Response: At the time of the cancellation decision, NASA used as a rough planning
estimate that maintaining VIPER rover and associated critical workforce could cost more
than $3.0M per month. If only a minimal workforce was maintained, SMD assumed that
$18.0M per year in total storage cost would be needed for VIPER.

Costs for storing de-integrated instruments from VIPER would likely be comparably small.
Monthly storage costs for other lunar instruments that NASA has developed, such as the
Neutron Spectrometer System (NSS), are on the order of $20K per month.

As VIPER project creates its shutdown plans, NASA has set targets to the project to remain
within currently planned FY 2024 and FY 2025 budget marks (including the recently
approved additional $20M for the FY 2024 operating plan funding profile for VIPER). This
should envelope disassembly costs alongside orderly shutdown costs. NASA budgets $254M
per year for CLPS and every year makes two TO selections. Actual cost and price for future
CLPS deliveries always depends on technical requirements and complexity of future TO
requirements as well as evolving CLPS vendor costs. The recent CS-3 delivery price to
NASA was $112M whereas the original awarded price of Griffin lander was $199.5M.

Costs associated with remanifesting and using VIPER instruments on future CLPS missions
could vary, ranging from little to no-cost based on adding them to currently planned
instrument suites or rovers, or it could involve additional payload development costs needed
to prepare the instruments for lunar operations. NASA will examine flying VIPER’s
instruments on Artemis crewed platforms, e.g., the Lunar Terrain Vehicle or JAXA’s
Pressurized Rover, both of which would be projected to have minimum development cost
impacts to NASA. There are also international partner-led missions that could potentially
use the instruments. For best science return, NASA would prefer to manifest the instruments
on missions to explore Permanently Shadowed Regions if possible.

13. A summary of NASA’s “alternative methods to accomplish many of VIPER’s goals and
verify the presence of water ice at the lunar south pole”, including estimated cost and
schedule, and a comparison of scientific objectives completed using such alternative
methods with the scientific objectives the VIPER mission planned to accomplish.

NASA Response: While VIPER’s dataset would have contributed to our knowledge of the
extent and form of volatiles on the lunar surface, it does not represent the only investment in
NASA’s overall science strategy for addressing volatiles and resource characterization on the
lunar surface. NASA is currently investing in multiple areas to derive volatile information
from the lunar surface. These investments are spread across multiple CLPS deliveries,
uncrewed roving assets, and Artemis crewed elements that enable volatile science campaigns
focused on sample return infrastructure required to preserve the nature of the volatiles
collected.
The instruments that have been developed include mass spectrometers to determine volatiles
species, drills to access the subsurface, imaging spectrometers to determine volatile presence
and form, neutron spectrometers to determine presence of volatiles in the subsurface, and
freezers/extraction techniques employed by crew to return pristine samples from permanently
shadowed regions. While all of these investments are not designed to return VIPER’s exact
dataset, NASA expects to gain insights over time into the majority of VIPER’s original core
science objectives.

South Polar CLPS missions have already begun with Intuitive Machines-1 lander in January
2024 and will continue in early 2025 with IM-2 conducting the PRIME-1 mission, a drill and
mass spectrometer aimed at looking for subsurface volatiles on the Connecting Ridge
between Shackleton Crater (South Pole) and de Gerlache Crater. Additional CLPS deliveries
to the south polar region already on contract include the Griffin Mission-1 (NET 2025,
Astrobotic), CT-3 (2025, Blue Origin), CP-22 (2027, Intuitive Machines), and CS-6 (lander
to be awarded in 2025, flown in 2028). Coupled to crewed instrument deployment and
sample return on crewed Artemis missions in 2026 and beyond, these missions aim to
establish norms of behavior across the board with respect to operations, open science/data
policies, and communication/transparency.
14. For FY24 as planned, prior to the decision proposing to cancel VIPER, for each of the
next five fiscal years, provide –
a. the number of NASA civil servants, number of contractors, and number of FTEs
associated with the VIPER project, including development and operations, as
appropriate; and
b. the number of NASA civil servants, number of contractors, and number of FTEs
associated with the Task Order 20A.

NASA Response: With regard to workforce associated with VIPER, please see breakouts
below prepared for the 2025 lunar delivery revised plan forward.

FY24 FY25 FY26 TOTAL

TOTAL WORKFORCE 335.6 238.3 100.5 674.4
Civil Service
103.3 83.5 38.1 224.9
Workforce/FTE
ARC 45.0 37.7 21.1 103.8
GRC 0.5 1.3 0.9 2.6
GSFC 0.5 1.3 1.8 3.5
JSC 45.0 31.1 9.7 85.8
KSC 10.2 10.9 4.7 25.8
LaRC 0.1 - - 0.1
MSFC 2.0 1.3 - 3.3
Contractor
232.3 154.8 62.3 449.4
Workforce/WYE
APL 1.0 0.8 0.8 2.5
ARC 81.8 74.4 35.7 191.9
GSFC 1.0 0.8 0.7 2.5
JPL 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0
JSC 140.0 68.1 19.6 227.7
KSC 6.5 9.1 4.6 20.2
MSFC 1.0 0.7 - 1.7

In addition, TO 20A is managed by an SMD CLPS Integration Manager, with total part-time
effort likely less than the equivalent of two FTEs.
15. A description of NASA efforts to seek international partnerships on the VIPER mission
before making the decision to cancel the program.

NASA Response: NASA did not seek international partners to land VIPER on the Moon
before the cancellation decision, as NASA knew that the only robotic lander in development
by an international partner that could land a payload as large as VIPER on the Moon was the
European Space Agency’s (ESA) Argonaut. ESA’s Argonaut is in early definition and not
planned to land until 2031, years later than volatiles science would be performed by other
CLPS mission or Artemis human landing system missions.

After initial outreach from 11 international partners around the globe after the cancellation
decision, NASA reached out to each to gauge interest in partnering with NASA on
completion of the VIPER mission. Four space agencies responded, and NASA expects to
enter into one-on-one discussions with the agencies to determine feasibility. The
agencies/countries that have expressed interest thus far are the German Aerospace Center
(DLR), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the Israel Space Agency (ISA),
and the Australian Space Agency (ASA).

16. A summary of interest expressed by U.S. entities to acquire VIPER or any of the
instruments, including a description of offers has NASA received in response to its
Request for Information (SMD-VIPER-01).

NASA Response: With regard to expressions of interest in future uses for VIPER, on July
17, NASA announced its intent to discontinue the VIPER mission due to overall Science
Mission Directorate funding constraints, future budget risks, and lander delays. At that time,
NASA requested expressions of interest from potential partners interested in conducting
VIPER mission concepts that maximize value to the Agency through innovative mission
ideas and arrangements. A total of 52 responses were submitted from the broad community
that ranged from domestic companies and international agencies to backyard/garage
enthusiasts. After analysis, 23 parties were determined to have enough spaceflight
experience and technical abilities to conduct the VIPER mission.

A subsequent Request for Information (RFI) was released to domestic entities to gather more
information about a VIPER partnership that would come with little to no additional cost to
NASA. Responses were to include cost structure, science/other goals for the mission,
teaming arrangements, technical acumen for completing the mission on the lunar surface,
landing and operational plans, and adherence to open science policies for data collected with
NASA instruments. NASA received 11 responses total from the community and has formed
a committee to assess and validate the information provided and potential partnerships to
determine best path forward. This assessment was shared with SMD senior leadership in late
September. No decisions have been made on follow-on actions, and the Agency is currently
evaluating next steps.

17. An assessment of the impact of cancelling VIPER to the United States’ international
competitiveness and leadership role in establishing any potential norms of behavior
regarding operations on the surface of the Moon.
NASA Response: The United States’ investments in lunar missions, including funding to
advance science, are critically important to our country's competitiveness and leadership role
in establishing potential norms of behavior. Through NASA’s lunar science initiatives,
NASA will be exploring more of the Moon than ever before.

South Polar CLPS missions began in January 2024 and will continue in early 2025.
Additional CLPS deliveries to the south polar region already on contract include the Griffin
Mission-1 (NET 2025, Astrobotic), CT-3 (2025, Blue Origin), CP-22 (2027, Intuitive
Machines), and CS-6 (lander to be awarded in 2025, flown in 2028). Coupled with crewed
instrument deployment and sample return on crewed Artemis missions in 2026 and beyond,
these missions aim to perform important science objectives tied to lunar volatiles. NASA
further anticipates that its activities will help establish norms of behavior for responsible
exploration.
 September 6, 2024

The Honorable Bill Nelson

Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters Building
300 Hidden Figures Way, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear Administrator Nelson,

On July 17, 2024, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced its decision
to cancel the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) project. As leaders of the
authorizing committee of NASA, we request that you provide further information regarding NASA’s
decision to cancel the VIPER project.

VIPER Spacecraft

NASA seeks to search for and characterize water ice and other volatiles on the Moon, including water
ice located in permanently shadowed regions near the lunar south pole. NASA initially planned to
achieve this goal using the Resource Prospector mission, a rover with a target life cycle cost of $250
million and an initial operating capability of late 2022, but cancelled the mission concept in its early
stages in 2018 as its scope was deemed too limited to meet NASA’s needs. 1 Following the cancellation
of Resource Prospector, NASA initiated the VIPER project and expanded the size of the rover so that it
could operate for longer time periods in permanently shadowed regions and move to multiple
locations. VIPER’s objectives would also contribute to NASA’s lunar exploration activities and serve
as a precursor to NASA’s crewed Artemis missions. Water ice has long been identified as an important
resource that could be collected and used in-situ to enable lunar operations. Data gathered by VIPER
will inform plans for United States-led exploration of the Moon, which will ultimately prepare NASA
to send the first humans to the surface of Mars.

The VIPER project was confirmed in 2021 with a development cost of $336 million and a life cycle
cost of $433.5 million, later revised during a May 2023 project replan to a development cost of $405
million and a life cycle cost of $505 million.2 NASA and the American taxpayers have obligated $453
million of the total $505 million life cycle cost for the VIPER project. A June 2024 Government

1
Jeff Foust, NASA Argues Resource Prospector No Longer Fit Into the Agency’s Lunar Exploration Plans, SPACENEWS (May
4, 2018), https://spacenews.com/nasa-argues-resource-prospector-no-longer-fit-into-agencys-lunar-exploration-plans/
2
Government Accountability Office, NASA Assessments of Major Projects (June 2024).
Accountability Office report found it likely that the final VIPER life cycle cost would exceed the
approved $505 million, 3 and NASA now estimates a life cycle cost of $609.6 million, an increase of
over $176 million from the estimated 2021 life cycle cost. 4 While the project has experienced
significant cost growth, with additional cost increases anticipated, the assembled and integrated rover
is in the final phase of development, undergoing environmental and other system-level testing. NASA
estimates that the cancellation of VIPER would save, at minimum, $84 million. 5

Commercial Lunar Payload Services Provider

NASA selected Astrobotic as the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) provider in June of
2020, awarding Astrobotic a task order worth $199 million to deliver VIPER to the surface of the
Moon in late 2023 using the Griffin lander. 6 Because the VIPER spacecraft was a high-value CLPS
payload, NASA later modified this task order to reduce its risk exposure, paying Astrobotic $91
million to perform additional testing and provide NASA with augmented insight into lander
development. These and other modifications resulted in significant task order cost increases and a one-
year delay to late 2024.

In January of 2024, Astrobotic experienced a failure on the propulsion system of its Peregrine Mission
One lunar lander, which shares some design similarities with the larger Griffin lander. NASA now
projects a Griffin Mission One launch date of no earlier than September 2025. 7 According to a June
2024 NASA Inspector General Report, NASA’s total contracted cost for VIPER commercial lunar
delivery services is $323 million, which includes three contract modifications (representing a total
increase of $123.5 million from the original $199.5 million task order value). As part of its decision to
end the VIPER project, NASA plans to honor the full value of the firm fixed price contract with
Astrobotic for lunar delivery services that NASA has spent significant resources tailoring specifically
to accommodate the VIPER mission, to launch a mass simulator in place of VIPER.

Evaluation

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.

We understand that the fiscal environment for NASA is challenging and that NASA must make
difficult decisions when programs are significantly over budget and behind schedule. Given the
investments made on VIPER to date, the status of the assembled and integrated rover, and the national
importance of our civil and commercial lunar exploration activities, it is imperative that Congress fully
evaluate NASA’s proposed decision to terminate VIPER. We, therefore, request that you provide
detailed cost and schedule information regarding NASA’s proposed termination of VIPER and

3
Id.
4
Jeff Foust, NASA Cancels Viper Lunar Rover, SPACENEWS (July 17, 2024), https://spacenews.com/nasa-cancels-viper-
lunar-rover/
5
Id.
6
Office of Inspector General, NASA’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) Mission (April 2022).
7
Jeff Foust, NASA Cancels Viper Lunar Rover, SPACENEWS (July 17, 2024), https://spacenews.com/nasa-cancels-viper-
lunar-rover/.
information regarding alternative options for the rover going forward, including the option of
proceeding with the launch and landing of VIPER on the Moon.

To assist our evaluation, please provide the following information by September 20, 2024. If you
have any questions, please contact Charlie Scales at (202) 225-6371 or
[email protected].

1. For the VIPER project, an updated estimate of—

a. The cost and schedule to complete spacecraft development.

b. The cost and schedule of integration and testing (broken out separately within the
development cost) for the spacecraft.

c. The cost to operate the spacecraft if it was completed.

d. NASA’s level of confidence in each of the foregoing cost and schedule estimates in a-c.

e. If the project is to be terminated, the estimated project closeout and shutdown costs.

2. A list of all steps NASA has taken thus far to cancel VIPER, and any steps planned for the
remainder of FY24.

3. A copy of the NASA-Astrobotic CLPS agreement, a copy of Task Order 20A, and any documents
related to contract modifications or exercised task order options.

4. For the CLPS agreement and Task Order 20A—

a. If the VIPER spacecraft was launched as a payload on the Griffin lander—

i. A description of additional modifications to the task order or agreement that would

be necessary to complete the mission, if any.

ii. An updated cost estimate and schedule for services under the task order.

b. A description of benefits to NASA and the Federal Government of paying the full
remaining value of the CLPS 20A task order to receive data from Astrobotic for “testing”
and “demonstration” of the Griffin lander, and the impact to those benefits if the test
schedule for Griffin is further delayed.

5. A copy of the results and recommendations from Astrobotic’s Failure Review Board for Peregrine
Mission One, and a description of whether NASA accepted or agreed with such results and
recommendations.

6. A copy of NASA’s FY24 reprogramming request to Congress for VIPER.

 7. An accounting of FY24 unobligated and unallocated funds for—

a. The VIPER spacecraft.

b. The CLPS task order to deliver the VIPER spacecraft.

8. An estimated FY25 funding request, if the VIPER mission were to be continued.

9. A copy of records related to NASA’s initiation of any non-advocate review related to the VIPER
project or Astrobotic CLPS services for the VIPER project, the results of the non-advocate
review, and any documentation related to NASA’s assessment of the results of the non-advocate
review, including records related to the VIPER Review Team in 2020 and the Astrobotic
Independent Assessment Team in 2021.

10. A description of lessons learned—

a. From the cancellation of Resource Prospector and how NASA has considered such lessons
learned in its assessment of whether to cancel VIPER.

b. From VIPER that NASA will apply to future CLPS missions.

11. A detailed comparison of the estimated savings associated with terminating VIPER and flying
Griffin with a mass demonstration payload versus completing VIPER and landing it with Griffin,
and carrying out mission operations.

12. An estimated cost and timeline to 1) disassemble, 2) store, and 3) remanifest on other missions the
VIPER instruments, and an assessment of how remanifesting the VIPER instruments on other
lunar landers would affected completion of VIPER’s science objectives.

13. A summary of NASA’s “alternative methods to accomplish many of VIPER’s goals and verify
the presence of water ice at the lunar south pole” 8, including estimated cost and schedule, and a
comparison of scientific objectives completed using such alternative methods with the scientific
objectives the VIPER mission planned to accomplish.

14. For FY24 as planned, prior to the decision proposing to cancel VIPER, for each of the next five
fiscal years, provide –

a. the number of NASA civil servants, number of contractors, and number of FTEs
associated with the VIPER project, including development and operations, as appropriate;
and

b. the number of NASA civil servants, number of contractors, and number of FTEs
associated with the Task Order 20A.

15. A description of NASA efforts to seek international partnerships on the VIPER mission before
making the decision to cancel the program.

8
NASA, NASA Ends VIPER Project, Continues Moon Exploration (July 17, 2024), https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-
ends-viper-project-continues-moon-exploration/.
 16. A summary of interest expressed by U.S. entities to acquire VIPER or any of the instruments,
including a description of offers has NASA received in response to its Request for Information
(SMD-VIPER-01).

17. An assessment of the impact of cancelling VIPER to the United States’ international
competitiveness and leadership role in establishing any potential norms of behavior regarding
operations on the surface of the Moon.

Sincerely,

Frank D. Lucas Zoe Lofgren

Chairman Ranking Member

Brian Babin Eric Sorensen

Chairman Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics