NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) are bringing us closer than we’ve been in decades to regular lunar exploration and scientific discovery. As a scientist, I admire what these companies have achieved and support their continued efforts.
Yet, beyond landing safely, it’s crucial to remember that these missions exist to deliver critical scientific payloads that will enable groundbreaking research. CLPS has notably ushered in a new era by embracing higher risks in exchange for lower costs. But before we rush into discussions about expanding the CLPS model for commercial lander companies, we should consider something equally important: applying the same iterative, multiple-attempt mindset to low-cost scientific instruments and missions themselves. After all, scientific discovery is one of the key reasons to go to the moon in the first place.
All NASA science instruments and missions, regardless of their cost and risk profile, are selected based on their scientific merit. In other words, the science questions themselves aren’t inherently low- or high-cost, the cost primarily factors into the way the mission is implemented. Low-cost missions or instrument opportunities are offered through NASA’s PRISM (Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon), PRISM SALSA (Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon: Stand Alone Landing Site Agnostic) and the SIMPLEx (Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration) programs.
Investigations proposed to these calls must address critical scientific questions identified by the planetary science community itself, outlined in guiding documents like the Planetary Decadal Survey or community-defined science exploration objectives. The evaluation of instruments and missions proposed to higher-cost, more risk-averse programs, like New Frontiers or Discovery (typically Class A) is no different from a low-cost mission. Whether it’s a small Class D mission or a large…
Read the full article here