In a lot of contracts, the buyer lists the tests the object needs to pass prior to acceptance. Then there will be a chunk of money attached to passing that.
If it fails, then they don't get paid (that chunk).
After that, there may be more negotiation into who pays for the rework, but that's also typically in the contract.
Usually the acceptance payment can be a large fraction of the total contract (30-50%).
The same thing is done in just about every contract with a vendor. Even house renovations. I typically leave 30% riding on the final inspection passing.
There are certain launch windows for Mars where Earth and Mars are closer together [1] that you really need to be ready for. If you miss it, you might have to wait 2 more years for the next window. Sometimes you can't get the necessary refit time no matter how much money you spend.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_win...
Right. I'm asking what is the case here.
"The structure was originally tested in 2008 and was one of two heat shields manufactured in support of the Mars Science Laboratory mission, which successfully landed the Curiosity rover on Mars in August 2012."
It was a spare from a previous mission. I would expect the risk was Nasa's, and they are only out the cost of testing.
Though I know it's often a counterproductive pursuit, I am curious where blame lies here. Did Lockheed build to NASA specs? I assume so, but say that it was determined that a manufacturing misstep that Lockheed made. Does the contract for a piece of equipment like this include indemnification for Lockheed, the opposite (that is must pass the tests to get paid), or is there no explicit accountability? I know sometimes things happen, I'm more curious about the money trail and preventative measures like any postmortem.