NASA lunar rover trundles to a meeting with Doctor Hacksaw and Mister Axe

NASA has hinted that its Lunar Resource Prospector rover won’t be going to the Moon anytime soon. Not in one piece at any rate. The American space agency's new administrator, Jim Bridenstine, pulled out his axe on his third day in the job, and tweeted out what hinted at confirmation of the rover’s cancellation. We’re …

[Notas Badoff]

Rocket sighings

“… all activities necessary to safely intergrate, accomodate, transport, and operate NASA Payloads using contractor provide assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander spacecraft, lunar surface systems”

intergrate

accomodate

provide

Perhaps they will use measurements in killomeeters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Rocket sighings

"They?" You mean the Federal Business Opportunities Agency? Why would they be measuring distances in space in any kind of units?

[IglooDude]

Another market for Lyft, looks like. Or maybe time for a cooperative venture (a la ULA): SpaceUberLyftX?

[LenG]

Opportunity

Sounds like a good place to test self drive cars. Let the motor industry fund the rovers in exchange for a chance to test their sofrware somewhere where it won't matter if it can't tell a truck from the sky.

[Chozo]

More prospectors. More commercial partners.

Somebody has been watching Moon Zero Two

[Francis Boyle]

Re: More prospectors. More commercial partners.

I, for one, am always up for a low-G bar fight.

[Dodgy Geezer]

He's looking,,,,

For a large supply of hardcore. For a wall....

[TrumpSlurp the Troll]

No explanation

As to why they can't contract a private firm to deliver the lunar rover.

Possible "getting it working" problem?

[Yesnomaybe]

I was hoping

for Robot Wars ON THE MOON! The content of the article was far less exiting.

[Nimby]

Re: I was hoping

to see a counter-punch to the ax using a low-g flipper on Robot Wars ON THE MOON!

Still, the idea of making scientific payloads to go onto a commercial rover that flies there on a commercial rocket is kind of interesting?

No, actually, it's pretty darn stupid. Even a commercial rocket to land on the moon is pretty nonsensical. Putting sats in orbit on commercial rockets? Sure! Makes perfect sense. Plenty of commercial sats in orbit, so makes sense to have commercial companies to get them there. So why have a space program to duplicate that effort? But a moon lander and a moon rover? Why exactly would a commercial company offer those for rent to NASA? I feel like surely I must be missing something, because that part fails a sanity check. Is there a thriving moon-mining industry that I somehow missed? So in that respect, the article is quite interesting. (If not depressing.) I weep for NASA.

[ravenviz]

launch vehicles, lunar lander spacecraft, lunar surface systems

It's going to get awfully messy up there.

[The Oncoming Scorn]

Mek Quake

Says it all really......

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55d9a2ebe4b090d1642480e9/t/57f6c6e9e3df28e37ff70408/1475790591400/?format=750w