Author Topic: ML-2 Updates and Discussion  (Read 19207 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« on: 11/04/2021 07:49 pm »
[FST edit: ML-1 thread is here]

ML-1 will only be used on three flights. ML-2 required for Block 1B, but that fourth mission won't be for another five years so they have time, as much as ML-2 is on hold as they've ran out of cash.

https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1456350883336396804
« Last Edit: 07/07/2023 05:48 am by FutureSpaceTourist »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline D.L Parker

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 11/05/2021 02:33 pm »
So spacex buids an entire launch tower and factory in less than a year and it takes years for NASA to build a launch tower, but they run out of funding before even finishing the thing. Wow.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12079
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18031
  • Likes Given: 12033
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 11/05/2021 03:38 pm »
So spacex buids an entire launch tower and factory in less than a year and it takes years for NASA to build a launch tower, but they run out of funding before even finishing the thing. Wow.

That's the difference between private funding and public funding. The former is a continuous stream of funding. The latter depends on the appropriations process in US Congress, which is an annual effort, further hampered in recent years by CRs due to the major US political parties not agreeing on quite a few things.

Offline D.L Parker

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 11/05/2021 03:49 pm »
Seems like they should get spacex to wack a launch platform out for them, shouldn't take them more than a few months judging by the speed they built their own.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 11/05/2021 03:55 pm »
Seems like they should get spacex to wack a launch platform out for them, shouldn't take them more than a few months judging by the speed they built their own.

That's not how NASA works. If SpaceX wanted to build the SLS launch tower, then they needed to submit a bid on it when the contract was originally open for bids.

*edit to add*

Also, SpaceX is not the end-all be-all of anything space launch related. Nor should it be.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2021 03:57 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5292
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4139
  • Likes Given: 1664
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #5 on: 11/05/2021 04:07 pm »
Seems like they should get spacex to wack a launch platform out for them, shouldn't take them more than a few months judging by the speed they built their own.

That's not how NASA works. If SpaceX wanted to build the SLS launch tower, then they needed to submit a bid on it when the contract was originally open for bids.
That's also not how SpaceX works. Unless a contract contributes to the development of Starship, I don't think they are interested. If NASA asked for a launch tower that can handle Starship and also handle other systems, SpaceX might bid. I speculate that SpaceX will continue to bid  for CRS and CCP and also for F9 and FH launches, because they have the products and infrastructure in place and they are profitable, but SpaceX will try to move as much as that business to Starship as soon as they can. That will probably but not certainly require a land-based tower on the Florida space coast, but SpaceX may prefer to use "mass-produced" sea-based platforms.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1748
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1131
  • Likes Given: 3149
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #6 on: 11/07/2021 02:06 pm »
SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me  ::)
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Redclaws

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
  • Liked: 857
  • Likes Given: 1047
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #7 on: 11/07/2021 02:20 pm »
SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me  ::)

Probably frustration at the utterly shambolic and spectacularly wasteful way the mobile launcher program has been run.  If you care at all about money being spent to useful ends in sane ways and in a timely manner, the ML program is incredibly frustrating and the contrast is obvious.

Offline Avatar2Go

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Illinois, USA
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #8 on: 11/07/2021 03:09 pm »
SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me  ::)

Probably frustration at the utterly shambolic and spectacularly wasteful way the mobile launcher program has been run.  If you care at all about money being spent to useful ends in sane ways and in a timely manner, the ML program is incredibly frustrating and the contrast is obvious.

This is a justification of the slam against SLS & components.  But I think Khadgar's point was, why is the slam necessary in the first place?   And why does it need to be inserted in every SLS topic or thread?

SpaceX has a vast number of threads on this site.  The superiority of their products, or the contrast between Starship and SLS, could be expounded there, without limit or complaint from the SLS advocates. 

I don't post in those threads, not because I agree or disagree, but because they are for SpaceX advocates.  They don't need me in there explaining the faults I perceive in Starship, or why I believe it shouldn't exist.  Which by the way, I absolutely do believe it should exist, and am all for other platforms being developed.  But there is not a compelling need for me to insist on any one option over another.


Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1748
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1131
  • Likes Given: 3149
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #9 on: 11/07/2021 05:47 pm »
SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me  ::)

Probably frustration at the utterly shambolic and spectacularly wasteful way the mobile launcher program has been run.  If you care at all about money being spent to useful ends in sane ways and in a timely manner, the ML program is incredibly frustrating and the contrast is obvious.

Well, if you actually cared about money being spent on useful ends in a sane way, anything NASA spends money on would not even be in your top 10!

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Conexion Espacial

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Liked: 3076
  • Likes Given: 2259
I publish information in Spanish about space and rockets.
www.x.com/conexionspacial

Offline D.L Parker

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #11 on: 01/28/2022 04:24 pm »
SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me  ::)

Probably frustration at the utterly shambolic and spectacularly wasteful way the mobile launcher program has been run.  If you care at all about money being spent to useful ends in sane ways and in a timely manner, the ML program is incredibly frustrating and the contrast is obvious.

Well, if you actually cared about money being spent on useful ends in a sane way, anything NASA spends money on would not even be in your top 10!

This a good attitude to have if you want to ignore waste with in NASA.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8740
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #12 on: 01/28/2022 05:03 pm »
SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me  ::)

Probably frustration at the utterly shambolic and spectacularly wasteful way the mobile launcher program has been run.  If you care at all about money being spent to useful ends in sane ways and in a timely manner, the ML program is incredibly frustrating and the contrast is obvious.

Well, if you actually cared about money being spent on useful ends in a sane way, anything NASA spends money on would not even be in your top 10!

This a good attitude to have if you want to ignore waste with in NASA.
This thread is solely about ML-2. There are other more appropriate threads in the Space Policy section to discuss your topic.

Offline Conexion Espacial

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Liked: 3076
  • Likes Given: 2259
I publish information in Spanish about space and rockets.
www.x.com/conexionspacial

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Liked: 4594
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 01/28/2022 06:17 pm »
Eric Berger has written in Arstechnica a more complete update on the development of the ML-2.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/nasas-second-sls-launch-tower-is-also-late-and-over-budget/

From that article:

Quote
NASA has issued a "second letter of concern" to Bechtel requesting an assessment of project risks and impediments, plus a corrective action plan, as well as an identification of opportunities to reduce costs and mitigate schedule disruptions while improving efficiency.

This is a cost-plus contract.  Doesn’t NASA have a project manager and civil servant team overseeing it?  Why don’t they know the risks and impediments?  Why don’t they have a corrective action plan?  Why haven’t they taken action to reduce costs and mitigate schedule before ML-2 got into such bad shape?

These questions are rhetorical, of course.  But there’s no point in a cost-plus contract if the agency isn’t going to actively manage it.  Otherwise, the contractor will rob the agency blind.  Sending letters to Bechtel is useless unless the PM and some of his team on ML-2 are removed to an overseas tracking station and replaced with empowered, capable, conscientious, and conscious managers.

The private sector builds structures like this every day without such gross delays and overruns.  If the agency can’t get a lousy launch tower built on something resembling budget and schedule — especially after the lessons learned on ML-1 — it has no business building highly energetic and much more complex launch vehicles.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2022 06:18 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8810
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10155
  • Likes Given: 11885
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 01/28/2022 08:21 pm »
...The private sector builds structures like this every day without such gross delays and overruns.  If the agency can’t get a lousy launch tower built on something resembling budget and schedule — especially after the lessons learned on ML-1 — it has no business building highly energetic and much more complex launch vehicles.

I just wanted to point the specific paragraph out because it deserves attention.

ML-2 is NOT something new!!!

Take ML-1 and stretch it. What is the complication here? How is it that this program could be in such bad shape within Bechtel, one of the premier global engineering companies?

And why is this a Cost Plus contract? What were the undefined requirements that lead NASA to think that a Firm Fixed Price contract could not work?

Geez  >:(
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37374
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21291
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 01/28/2022 08:29 pm »

Well, if you actually cared about money being spent on useful ends in a sane way, anything NASA spends money on would not even be in your top 10!


just stop with the idiocy

Offline Conexion Espacial

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Liked: 3076
  • Likes Given: 2259
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 01/28/2022 08:40 pm »

What disappoints me most about all this is that it happened with ML-1 at the time and now with ML-2 when it probably could have been avoided with the ML-1 experience.

I publish information in Spanish about space and rockets.
www.x.com/conexionspacial

Offline whitelancer64

Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 01/28/2022 09:12 pm »
... and this is why (among many other reasons) the ASAP is recommending NASA take a good hard look at its contracting procedures.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 03/19/2023 07:42 pm »
I found a recent article regarding the ML-1 that devotes a few paragraphs to the latest regarding the ML-2 mobile launch platform:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/12/09/repairs-and-upgrades-await-sls-mobile-launcher-before-crewed-lunar-mission/
« Last Edit: 03/19/2023 09:55 pm by Vahe231991 »

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0