Hacker News Reader

Seems like at least 2 people on this reply thread didn't read the article. It could be 3, since OP wrote "an audit", if OP did the audit mentioned in the article they would've written "the audit".

View on HN

The audit discussed in the article was "several years" after 2011. The document I linked discusses, on page 17, a 2012 GAO report on 21 large NASA projects and discusses how its cost overruns are affecting other programs, which could be motivation to can the project or otherwise give the impression it will "never get off the ground"

I brought it up because it more closely fit GP's "2012" timeline and shows that even before the audit in the article, there was good reason to doubt the future of the mission.

Please also remember the HN commenting guidelines ("Please don't comment on whether someone read an article."):

You are assuming people only comment if they read the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com