NASA had only agreed to provide analysis and data downlink for this project.

Perhaps now that they won’t be chasing tax dollars they will find a new efficiency. With the advent of competitive commercial launch services slashing the on-orbit cost, I predict the era of satellites costing hundreds of millions of dollars will be coming to an end. (unless of course they are taxpayer funded)
The current cost is driven mainly by the desire to trim all extraneous mass so that every gram of material performs at least one critical function. The George Washington bridge would have been a different sort of incredible engineering feat had it been designed using the same paradigm. But then they would not have been able to add a second roadbed.

My point being, If B612 is not constrained by the cost of lifting excess mass they could probably have any university engineering department build the thing for the 1.6 million they have already raised as a senior class project. I know guys that could probably build an operational mock-up in their basement. (then they would probably then discover that it wouldn’t fit out the door)

Frankly, I’m surprised that NASA had not implemented a similar satellite program themselves considering congress passed legislation requiring them to locate 90% of all NEOs 140 meters or larger. I suspect the decision to comply with the law using mainly ground based assets was driven by a combination of bureaucratic territorialism and current program budget constraints. A pity because public awareness of the danger posed by NEOs seems to be renewed every few years and that interest drives approval for budget increases.

Please, Please, PLEASE don’t let this posting devolve into a NASA bash like the Dark Streaks posting did.