ML-2 Updates and Discussion

[Chris Bergin]

[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

[D.L Parker]

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.

[woods170]

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.

[D.L Parker]

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.

[whitelancer64]

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.

[DanClemmensen]

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.

[Khadgars]

SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me 

[Redclaws]

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.

[Avatar2Go]

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.

[Khadgars]

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!

[Conexion Espacial]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1486775172552138755

[D.L Parker]

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.

[russianhalo117]

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.

[Conexion Espacial]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1486775172552138755

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/

[VSECOTSPE]

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:

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.

[Coastal Ron]

...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 

[Jim]

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

[Conexion Espacial]

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.

[whitelancer64]

... and this is why (among many other reasons) the ASAP is recommending NASA take a good hard look at its contracting procedures.

[Vahe231991]

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/