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.
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.
Quote from: D.L Parker on 11/05/2021 03:49 pmSeems 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.
SpaceX has absolutely nothing to do with ML-2, why people insist on inserting into the conversation is beyond me
Quote from: Khadgars on 11/07/2021 02:06 pmSpaceX 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.
Quote from: Redclaws on 11/07/2021 02:20 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 11/07/2021 02:06 pmSpaceX 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!
Quote from: Khadgars on 11/07/2021 05:47 pmQuote from: Redclaws on 11/07/2021 02:20 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 11/07/2021 02:06 pmSpaceX 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.
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/
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.
...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.
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!
Found this update regarding the ML-2 mobile launch platform:https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/12/09/repairs-and-upgrades-await-sls-mobile-launcher-before-crewed-lunar-mission/
Sidus Space started 2023 with the announcement of a new contract from Bechtel Corporation to manufacture cables for the NASA Mobile Launcher 2 project. Sidus announced the contract award, Jan. 3. Mobile Launcher 2 (ML2) is the ground platform structure that will launch Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B and Block 2 configurations to the Moon, allowing the agency to send astronauts and heavy cargo to the lunar surface as part of NASA’s Artemis program. ML2 is the primary interface between the ground launch control system and the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft flight hardware.Sidus was previously awarded a contract to fabricate custom cables and populate unique electronics cabinets supporting the launch control subsystem and ground special power subsystems.
Wild, man. House budget legislation for 2024 provides $501 million for that year, alone, to fund development of the second mobile launch platform for the SLS rocket. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP19/20230714/116251/BILLS-118--AP--CJS-FY24CJSSubcommitteeMark.pdf
The mobile launcher was originally supposed to cost $383 million. If this funding goes through it will push the money allocated to date above $1 billion, and construction has yet to really begin. Insane, really.
📹 Timelapse: Watch from the mobile launcher 2 parksite as teams from @Bechtel begin to set in place the first 'super assembly' onto the temporary mount mechanism. The Vehicle Assembly Building at @NASAKennedy, where the @NASA_SLS rocket will be assembled, can be seen in back.Teams will assemble the first pair of 43 trusses and girders that make up the base of the mobile launcher 2, which will support future @NASAArtemis missions starting with #Artemis IV.
twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1679500542245064705QuoteWild, man. House budget legislation for 2024 provides $501 million for that year, alone, to fund development of the second mobile launch platform for the SLS rocket. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP19/20230714/116251/BILLS-118--AP--CJS-FY24CJSSubcommitteeMark.pdf*yeet tweet*QuoteThe mobile launcher was originally supposed to cost $383 million. If this funding goes through it will push the money allocated to date above $1 billion, and construction has yet to really begin. Insane, really.
Checking in on NASA's huge Mobile Launchers for SLS, NSF's Nathan Barker (@NASA_Nerd) spoke with David Sumner, Senior Project Manager for NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems (EGS).
Tug and barge have arrived at KSC to unload the second delivery of steel trusses for SLS Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2).ML-1 in the background at 39B for testing ahead of Artemis-2. nsf.live/spacecoast
https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1701648719609794959QuoteTug and barge have arrived at KSC to unload the second delivery of steel trusses for SLS Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2).ML-1 in the background at 39B for testing ahead of Artemis-2.
Tug and barge have arrived at KSC to unload the second delivery of steel trusses for SLS Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2).ML-1 in the background at 39B for testing ahead of Artemis-2.
NASA’s Mobile Launcher-2 costs have rocketed over $1b—nearly three times the original contract estimate. Our team will examine what NASA is doing to contain future cost growth and schedule delays.Catch up on our previous ML-2 work:
Back in June, teams received the first truss for the mobile launcher 2 and last month, they started assembling its base. But what happened between then?In July, teams at @Bechtel blasted the steel and coated it in zinc inside one of the facilities at @NASAKennedy before using it for assembly. Coating the steel in zinc helps protect the material from rust and corrosion. From here, teams will continue to assemble the mobile launcher 2 base in support of future Artemis missions, starting with #Artemis IV.
The next delivery of steel to construct the SLS Mobile Launcher 2 sailed through Port Canaveral before sunrise this morning - heading up to the KSC turn basic for unload.This is delivery #3 by my count, and first from Louisiana.nsf.live/spacecoast
Party never stops at the KSC turn basin! SpaceX hardware departed yesterday, SLS mobile launcher 2 steel arrives today.Live: nsf.live/spacecoast
More steel for SLS Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2) is arriving at the Turn Basin at KSC.nsf.live/spacecoast
The next delivery of steel to construct ML-2 for future SLS missions arrived at Kennedy Space Center a short while ago. Many more to come...nsf.live/spacecoast
Crawler Transporter 2 (CT-2) is on the move ready to pick up the initial build of Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2).You can also see ML-1 in the background on 39B.nsf.live/spacecoast
I am going to show my ignorance here but how close are we to ML2 to be ready? From the above pics and update it seems like we are close. It should be less than a year right?
Quote from: c4fusion on 06/24/2024 10:26 pmI am going to show my ignorance here but how close are we to ML2 to be ready? From the above pics and update it seems like we are close. It should be less than a year right?Sorry, but no. Structural assembly of the ML-2 and its tower will continue for another year, at least. After that, outfitting starts, which will take another year, at least. Including testing ML-2 is at least 2.5 years away from being ready to support a launch campaign.Which is OK because it supports only block 1B of SLS, which in itself won't be ready for another 2.5 - 3 years.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/25/2024 01:05 pmQuote from: c4fusion on 06/24/2024 10:26 pmI am going to show my ignorance here but how close are we to ML2 to be ready? From the above pics and update it seems like we are close. It should be less than a year right?Sorry, but no. Structural assembly of the ML-2 and its tower will continue for another year, at least. After that, outfitting starts, which will take another year, at least. Including testing ML-2 is at least 2.5 years away from being ready to support a launch campaign.Which is OK because it supports only block 1B of SLS, which in itself won't be ready for another 2.5 - 3 years.Does anyone know how this compares with the build time for ULA's corresponding platform-2 for Vulcan?...or is this like comparing apples with peanuts?(NOT wanting to start a ULA discussion here!)
Quote from: litton4 on 06/26/2024 08:59 amQuote from: woods170 on 06/25/2024 01:05 pmQuote from: c4fusion on 06/24/2024 10:26 pmI am going to show my ignorance here but how close are we to ML2 to be ready? From the above pics and update it seems like we are close. It should be less than a year right?Sorry, but no. Structural assembly of the ML-2 and its tower will continue for another year, at least. After that, outfitting starts, which will take another year, at least. Including testing ML-2 is at least 2.5 years away from being ready to support a launch campaign.Which is OK because it supports only block 1B of SLS, which in itself won't be ready for another 2.5 - 3 years.Does anyone know how this compares with the build time for ULA's corresponding platform-2 for Vulcan?...or is this like comparing apples with peanuts?(NOT wanting to start a ULA discussion here!)That is indeed comparing apples to peanuts. The two mobile launch platforms for Vulcan and SLS Block 1B are vastly different in size, mass, complexity, mode of transport, cost, etc. They don't compare to each other in every metric except basic function.Even trying to compare them on anything would be utterly absurd and pointless IMO.
Teams with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems at Kennedy Space Center in Florida set mobile launcher 2 on top of its permanent mounts using the spaceport’s beast-mode transporter – the crawler. This marks the completion of the jack and set milestone for the new mobile launcher.The mobile launcher serves as the primary interface between the ground launch systems, SLS (Space Launch System) rocket, and Orion spacecraft that will launch the SLS Block 1B rocket to the Moon. With its enhanced upper stage, the new rocket will allow NASA to send astronauts and heavier cargo into lunar orbit than its predecessor, SLS Block 1. With Artemis, NASA will land the first woman, first person of color, and its first international partner astronaut on the lunar surface, establish long-term exploration for scientific discovery, and prepare for human missions to Mars.Credit: NASA
NASA is developing a second mobile launcher (ML-2) to support larger variants of the Space Launch System. NASA estimates the ML-2 will cost $1.8 billion, over three times more than planned, despite efforts to improve project performance. Read the full report:
Some context:Mobile Launcher -1 (ML-1) was converted from the canceled use with Ares into the ML for SLS Block 1. With the addition of the EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) for the Block 1B SLS, the option was to convert ML-1 to accommodate the height increase of the vehicle or build a new one.A new one was cited at around $450m, and the option was taken based on the expected downtime of ML-1 during conversion, which would have meant no SLS launches for a few years during this period.ML-2 is currently being constructed but has suffered from delays and contractor issues. The OIG now estimates it at $1.8 billion, which is some cost rise.ML-2 articles over the years:nasaspaceflight.com/?s=ML-2
NASA projects the ML-2 will cost over three times more than planned. In 2019, NASA estimated the entire ML-2 project from design through construction would cost under $500 million with construction completed and the ML-2 delivered to NASA by March 2023. In December 2023, NASA estimated the ML-2 project would cost $1.5 billion, including $1.3 billion for the Bechtel contract and $168 million for other project costs, with delivery of the launcher to NASA in November 2026. In June 2024, NASA established the Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC)—the cost and schedule baseline committed to Congress against which a project is measured—for a ML-2 project cost of $1.8 billion and a delivery date of September 2027. Even with the establishment of the ABC, NASA intends to keep Bechtel accountable to the cost and schedule agreed to in December 2023.Despite the Agency’s increased cost projections, our analysis indicates costs could be even higher due in part to the significant amount of construction work that remains. Specifically, our projections indicate the total cost could reach $2.7 billion by the time Bechtel delivers the ML-2 to NASA. With the time NASA requires after delivery to prepare the launcher, we project the ML-2 will not be ready to support a launch until spring 2029, surpassing the planned September 2028 Artemis IV launch date.
7x cost growth in five years is impressive, even by SLS program standards.
NASA has to be trolling with the latest cost estimate of its SLS launch tower"NASA officials informed us they do not intend to request a fixed-price proposal."by Eric Berger - Aug 27, 2024 8:18pm GMTNASA's problems with the mobile launch tower that will support a larger version of its Space Launch System rocket are getting worse rather than better.
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1828464158326538441QuoteSome context:Mobile Launcher -1 (ML-1) was converted from the canceled use with Ares into the ML for SLS Block 1. With the addition of the EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) for the Block 1B SLS, the option was to convert ML-1 to accommodate the height increase of the vehicle or build a new one.A new one was cited at around $450m, and the option was taken based on the expected downtime of ML-1 during conversion, which would have meant no SLS launches for a few years during this period.ML-2 is currently being constructed but has suffered from delays and contractor issues. The OIG now estimates it at $1.8 billion, which is some cost rise.ML-2 articles over the years:nasaspaceflight.com/?s=ML-2
As stated in the report, NASA recently set the Mobile Launcher 2 (ML2) Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) of $1.873 billion. ESDMD disagrees with the OIG-projected ML2 cost estimate of $2.7 billion. Simply using a straight-line extrapolation, as the OIG did, does not accurately reflect the current development situation. EGS has transitioned to a different phase of the project (i.e., construction) than what was in place at the beginning of the audit (i.e., the design phase). Application of a straight-line projection misses this key advancement, overlooks recent performance improvements, and does not provide a credible estimate of what we can expect in the future. For example, the OIG states its concern for the increased cost associated with equipment, minor subcontractors, and estimated management reserves, which includes costs related to the procurement and fabrication of steel, aluminum, wiring, and other construction-related material. Prior to the release of this draft report, contracts were put in place for 90 percent of materials and sub-contracts and 60 percent of all steel was delivered, with 70-80 percent in process to be delivered by October 1, 2024.ESDMD values the OIG’s commitment to updating cost and schedule data during the audit to incorporate the latest ML2 information. However, the extended duration and pace of the audit created challenges and resulted in a misrepresented performance profile. The OIG projected a linear performance whereas the actual performance is nonlinear in nature. Cost reports through April 2024 further reinforce NASA’s cost estimate. ESDMD calculates that the current OIG estimate would be reduced by 15 percent based on recent reports provided by the prime contractor, Bechtel National, Inc. (Bechtel), further illustrating the nonlinear relationship.
The OIG states that by its projections, the ML2 will not be ready in time for the September 2028 Artemis IV launch readiness date. The ML2 ABC was established to reflect the most current position of the project taking into consideration that the ML2 has transitioned from design phase into construction phase. In prior estimates, the complete scope of the ML2 was underestimated but is now fully understood and risks associated with uncertainties have been included in NASA’s estimate. NASA also worked with Bechtel to establish and negotiate an incentive plan to motivate cost and schedule performance. To date, these changes have shown a positive effect. ESDMD continues to closely monitor Bechtel’s progress and remains confident in NASA’s ABC to complete ML2 by 2027.
It should be noted that conversion of ML-1 would have resulted in the ML/loaded stack being way overweight for the crawlerway and pad. A new ML(2) designed from the get-go for EUS weighs significantly less than a converted ML-1.
Simply using a straight-line extrapolation, as the OIG did, does not accurately reflect the current development situation.
The project was started in 2011, and the 2010 NASA Authorization Act required SLS to launch by 2016. It is now four years later, and the likely launch date for EM-1 has slipped to 2018 or later, a slip of two years in the first launch of SLS. That’s one year of schedule slippage for every two years that the project has existed. If the SLS schedule continues to slip at this rate over the next four years, the date of the first SLS launch will slip from 2018 to 2020. And then from 2018 to 2020, SLS will slip one more year or so before finally launching for the first time somewhere in the 2021-2022 timeframe.
Quote from: NASA's response on pages 32 and 33 of the IG ReportSimply using a straight-line extrapolation, as the OIG did, does not accurately reflect the current development situation. It’s possible that the IG used the wrong slope when projecting ML-2’s final cost and delivery date. But I’d bet dollars to donuts not, for a couple reasons:1) The IG is independent of the program while Koerner or whoever wrote the NASA response is on the hook for the program. Independent authorities like the IG have no incentive to oversell or undersell a program’s problems. Their incentive is to deliver as accurate a picture of a program’s problems as possible, including projecting where the cost and schedule will wind up. They want as reliable a track record on these projections over as many of these projections as they can get, not to kill or save a any particular program. Program management, however, is in the business of selling the program, which includes underselling its problems. They have every incentive — managing workforce morale, avoiding attention from senior leadership or independent authorities or OMB or Congress, avoiding cancellation, sometimes saving their salary bonuses, sometimes even just going home on time or saving their vacations — to come up with arguments that make the program look healthier than it actually is.2) Program outcomes are almost always set in stone during formulation. Despite the best intentions, once the contractor is on board and development is underway, it’s very hard to change where a program will wind up. Once the slope is set, it rarely changes, if ever. To give a couple examples from my own experience...— Back in August 2014, SLS manager Todd May was publicly claiming that SLS would launch in 2017 using the same “we’re about to turn the corner” arguments that Koerner is making for ML-2. I called baloney on May’s “projection” and wrote this:QuoteThe project was started in 2011, and the 2010 NASA Authorization Act required SLS to launch by 2016. It is now four years later, and the likely launch date for EM-1 has slipped to 2018 or later, a slip of two years in the first launch of SLS. That’s one year of schedule slippage for every two years that the project has existed. If the SLS schedule continues to slip at this rate over the next four years, the date of the first SLS launch will slip from 2018 to 2020. And then from 2018 to 2020, SLS will slip one more year or so before finally launching for the first time somewhere in the 2021-2022 timeframe.As we all know, SLS launched towards the end of 2022, not in 2017. My simple observation about the rate of SLS schedule slippage — something my 5th grader could do — was more accurate in predicting when SLS launched than the PM’s complex schedule argument by four years. More importantly, my straight line projection was actually accurate. So I would not discount a straight line projection from the IG on ML-2. I would, however, discount Koerner’s contention that the ML-2 project will behave differently than it has in the past.— I joined OMB the year after NGST (now JWST) was added to the budget. I inherited the space science portfolio from my new boss. Unlike him, I had half a degree in astrophysics and had access to papers on the relationship between the main mirror diameter and the cost of ground-based segmented telescopes. NGST was way off (the wrong way) the straight-line slope for that cost-estimating relationship (or CER). Told my boss that NGST was going to come in for billions over budget. He said it was too late. Listened to Weiler, Seery, and others bend over backwards to argue why NGST would be different. It wasn’t. The stupidity on the cost-estimating was baked into the project from the start, could never be fixed, and doomed the project to massive overruns when someone could have just used a straight line CER and much more accurately projected the final cost. Again, I’ll take a straight line analysis from an independent authority over a convoluted explanation from a program in sales mode, any day.FWIW...
While officials expect cost growth to lessen over time now that Bechtel has started construction of the launcher, it is too soon to tell if these developments will have an impact on the overall cost growth and schedule delays.
Although it took a long time, even James Webb eventually turned a corner.
NASA awarded Bechtel the contract for ML-2 in August 2019 valued at $383 million, with the platform scheduled for delivery to NASA by March 2023. However, costs have grown significantly while schedules slipped. A previous OIG audit of the project in 2022 found that the official cost had grown to $960 million, with independent projections estimating the cost would reach nearly $1.5 billion.The OIG report noted that NASA established what is known as the agency baseline commitment for the ML-2 project in June, setting a cost of $1.8 billion and delivery date of September 2027. That cost includes $168 million in NASA’s own costs for ML-2 outside of the Bechtel contract. NASA, though, said it would hold Bechtel to an estimate made the previous December of $1.3 billion and delivery in November 2026.However, an independent review done as part of development the agency baseline commitment estimated that the project will instead cost $2.1 billion and not be delivered until January 2028. That review, as well as a separate assessment done by NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) program, “both found a zero percent likelihood of Bechtel delivering the launcher by November 2026,” OIG stated in its report. [emphasis added]The OIG report also estimates that cost growth in Bechtel’s contact will continue, reaching $2.5 billion by 2027. That would be 6.5 times the original value of the contract when awarded five years ago.“Our projections are based on the substantial cost growth that the Bechtel contract has incurred over the last 3 years, past performance issues observed during design with the production of detailed drawings for steel fabrication and management of the launcher’s weight, and the significant amount of construction work that remains,” the report stated... “Bechtel has yet to demonstrate the sustained level of performance needed to reduce overall costs.”The report added that the overall cost of the ML-2 project could reach $2.7 billion, counting NASA’s contributions that have grown from $96 million at the project’s inception to $168 million today. Part of that growth involves work removed from the Bechtel contract, such as development of 6 of the 11 umbilical arms for the launch tower that NASA will instead build and provide to Bechtel as government-furnished equipment.
The cost growth, OIG added, could strain NASA’s budget. NASA, in its fiscal year 2025 budget request, projected spending $415.5 million on EGS development projects, including ML-2, in fiscal years 2025 through 2027, a 72% increase from the 2024 request. However, that would not be sufficient to cover the OIG’s projected costs of ML-2 development in that time span, with a projected shortfall of nearly $400 million.
There is little NASA can do, the report concluded, to encourage Bechtel to reduce its costs. The cost-plus contract does include an option to convert it into a fixed-price contract, but NASA is unlikely to use that option, the report concluded, since it would require Bechtel to approve that change. “Bechtel would likely provide a cost proposal far beyond NASA’s budgetary capacity to account for the additional risk that comes with a fixed-price contract,” the report stated, citing discussions with NASA officials.
One might expect the audit to come up two days later at a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s human exploration and operations committee, given the long-running concerns about the ML-2 project. Instead, NASA officials and committee members focused not on the auditors’ report but on the auditors themselves.
The committee was sympathetic to Koerner’s concerns. Later in the meeting, they started drafting a recommendation that the NASA administrator “seek relief from the burden of multiple external audits” by asking the White House and Congress to limit such audits unless required by law.“We all absolutely agree with and, quite frankly, support independent assessments,” said one committee member, Kwatsi Alibaruho, “but the level of audits that have been requested have now grown to the point where it’s becoming a significant portion of the team’s overall work.Another committee member, Paul McConnaughey, was worried that when OIG or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) releases audits, “the press takes that and sensationalizes it, and inappropriately so.
One audit, she estimated, took about 1,100 hours.
NAC-HEO ends early. Artemis is behind schedule, over cost, uncertain path forward on Orion heat shield, big problems w/ML-2 and Block IB, and their draft recs/findings are there should be fewer audits and they want to know more about NASA's 2040 plan.
Mobile launcher 2 now stands approximately 240 feet tall and will grow another 150 feet as teams continue stacking...
NASA’s mobile launcher 2 team, led by contractor Bechtel National Inc., integrated Module 7 onto the mobile launcher under construction near the Vehicle Assembly Building at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. Each module is 40 feet tall and once complete will rise to 390 feet to provide ground support to launch for the SLS (Space Launch System) Block 1B variant rocket during launch of the Artemis IV mission.Date Created:2025-04-23
The tower of NASA’s mobile launcher 2 continues to rise with the addition of two new 40-foot-tall modules on April 22 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The mobile launcher 2 team, led by Bechtel National Inc., has integrated modules 6 and 7, which are the third and fourth of seven sections that will form the mobile launcher’s almost 400-foot-tall tower structure. The mobile launcher currently is under construction next to the spaceport’s iconic Vehicle Assembly Building.Module 6 is designed to support the vehicle stabilizer, an interface that helps reduce motion of the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket during rollout to the launch pad, in high wind events, and during launch countdown. The stabilizer will drop away from the larger SLS Block 1 B rocket at liftoff and is designed to support future SLS configurations and their varying load requirements.Module 7 is the tower’s payload accommodation subsystem which will serve as the interface between SLS payloads and NASA Kennedy’s Launch Control Center, allowing the launch team to monitor, test, and issue commands to the SLS rocket and Orion flight hardware. Located within an air-conditioned steel shell and protected by launch-rated shock isolators, this subsystem also will provide payload access for personnel during pre- and post-launch operations.Once complete, mobile launcher 2 will reach 390 feet and provide the support needed for the addition of the SLS Exploration Upper Stage for the Block 1B configuration of the rocket that will launch beginning with the Artemis IV mission.
16:48back at KSC mobile launcher 2 Primecontractor Becttel lifted the fifth ofseven umbilical tower modules into placethis past week module 8something that was also noted but wedon't have any way of showing is thatBecttel also lifted the core stageforward skirt umbilical arm for thissecond mobile launcher into place on thetower
Why is Bechtel going faster all of a sudden?
Bechtel was initially contracted to design,build, and test the ML-2 for $383 million and deliver it to NASA by March 2023. However, the contractvalue has nearly tripled to $1.1 billion and the delivery date has been delayed by more than 3 years toMay 2026.Cost and schedule estimates from both NASA and Bechtel for the ML-2 contract have changed severaltimes and increased significantly over time. NASA’s lack of an official baseline for the first 5 years of theML-2 project has limited visibility into its potential total cost and the information needed for Congressand others to better hold the Agency accountable. In June 2024, NASA established a commitment toCongress for a total ML-2 project cost of $1.8 billion and a delivery date of September 2027. We project,however, that the ML-2’s total cost could reach $2.7 billion by the time Bechtel delivers the launcher toNASA in 2027.NASA officials are encouraged by recent progress as ML-2 project management reports the design isnearly complete and the frame of the base structure and first tower module are complete. Whileofficials expect cost growth to lessen over time now that Bechtel has started construction of thelauncher, it is too soon to tell if these developments will have an impact on the overall cost growth andschedule delays.
NASA will close out Mobile Launcher-2 development, as ML-2 will not be needed to support SLS due to the orderly shutdown of the SLS Block 1B upgrade. NASA proposes to use previously appropriated unobligated balances to support the termination of these activities, including but not limited to, ongoing administration, oversight, and monitoring
The FY26 PBR cancels ML-2.QuoteNASA will close out Mobile Launcher-2 development, as ML-2 will not be needed to support SLS due to the orderly shutdown of the SLS Block 1B upgrade. NASA proposes to use previously appropriated unobligated balances to support the termination of these activities, including but not limited to, ongoing administration, oversight, and monitoring [Pg. EXP-19 / Sheet 45]
Quote from: AndrewM on 06/01/2025 03:21 amThe FY26 PBR cancels ML-2.QuoteNASA will close out Mobile Launcher-2 development, as ML-2 will not be needed to support SLS due to the orderly shutdown of the SLS Block 1B upgrade. NASA proposes to use previously appropriated unobligated balances to support the termination of these activities, including but not limited to, ongoing administration, oversight, and monitoring [Pg. EXP-19 / Sheet 45]what a shambolic waste of time and money... they are going to waste further millions just to cancel and this structure will be left rotting in the elements. this current govt administration is truly a disaster.
NSF - NASASpaceflight.com@NASASpaceflightThere's Mod-10, the final section for the SLS Mobile Launch 2 (ML-2), as required for the taller SLS Block 1B.When lifted at the Parksite, it will begin a massive commissioning and system startup process. The project is fully funded through the end of FY25http://nsf.live/spacecoast
NASA's Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2), designed and built to support SLS Block 1B, completed stacking earlier this morning with its 10th and final module being lifted into place. Now at its full height, work will continue on ML-2's internals and umbilical structures.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) establishedcost and schedule baselines for the ML2 project in June 2024. The costbaseline is about $1.9 billion, and the schedule baseline is September2027 for the delivery of ML2 from Bechtel, the prime contractor, toNASA. Bechtel is working to a delivery date of November 2026, and itscontract was modified in March 2024 to incentivize an earlier delivery.The schedule baseline does not include ML2 verification and validationactivities planned for after the delivery and prior to Artemis IV, whichNASA is tracking as the project’s top risk. To mitigate this risk, theproject plans to concurrently test the ML2 at the launch pad whileArtemis III hardware is processed in the Vehicle Assembly Building.The project completed its critical design review. NASA and Bechtelcontinue to assess the design implications of higher-than-anticipatedArtemis I launch-induced loads. The analysis is ongoing, so they havenot yet determined the full cost implications.Construction on the ML2 structure is underway. Bechtel installed the firsttower module on the ML2 base in January 2025. Officials said there issome schedule risk for remaining modules but NASA expects thecontractor to be able to support a November 2026 delivery of the tower.
Cost and Schedule StatusIn June 2024, NASA established cost and schedulebaselines for the ML2 project based on a 70 percent jointcost and schedule confidence level, as required by NASApolicy. The joint cost and schedule confidence level is anintegrated analysis of a project’s cost, schedule, risk, anduncertainty, which indicates a project’s likelihood ofmeeting a given set of cost and schedule targets. Theschedule baseline is September 2027 for Bechtel’sdelivery of ML2 to NASA. The cost baseline ofapproximately $1.9 billion includes all prime contractorefforts through delivery, as well as government furnishedequipment and government provided projectmanagement and design support.As of February 2025, NASA is working with the contractorto support a November 2026 delivery date of the tower.NASA modified its contract with Bechtel in March 2024 toincrease the available award fee and add a new awardfee component based on schedule milestones, amongother things. The change is meant to motivate earlierdelivery—the contractor will receive the highest singleschedule milestone fee payment if it delivers ML2 by May2026, but will not receive a schedule milestone award feepayment for the delivery if it is after November 2026. Asof February 2025, project officials expect the contractor tobe able to support a 2026 delivery, which is well inadvance of the project’s schedule baseline.NASA’s top risk for ML2 is that there may be insufficientschedule margin for ML2 verification and validationtesting between the Artemis III and IV missions. Thetesting is largely planned to occur after Bechtel’s deliveryof ML2. However, some of the testing activities requireaccess to the launch pad or a modified Vehicle AssemblyBuilding and cannot take place until Artemis III launches.Artemis III is planned for mid-2027, and Artemis IV iscurrently planned to launch no earlier than September2028. That schedule provides less than 18 months tocomplete testing and first-time integration of ML2 withSLS Block 1B and Orion. As of February 2025, projectrisk documentation states that this testing could exceedthe time allocated by 8 months, which could delay theArtemis IV mission. To mitigate this schedule risk, NASAofficials said that they plan to conduct simultaneous ML2verification and validation at the launch pad while ArtemisIII is processing in the Vehicle Assembly Building.
DesignNASA successfully completed both steps of the ML2project’s critical design review: step one for hardware andprogrammatic content in January 2024, and step two forsoftware and verification and validation plans in June2024. As of February 2025, ML2 officials reported that thedesign is complete for all but one subsystem.NASA is currently tracking a top risk that an ongoingloads analysis may drive cost and schedule growth.According to project officials, the blast from the SLSboosters during launch created loads, or forces, on theML1 structure that were higher than anticipated. NASA and Bechtel are taking a three-phase approach toexamine the implications of the changed loads for theML2 design. They completed phase one and theengineering design work for phase two, which identifiedML2 modifications needed to withstand the greater loads.They then executed engineering design work toimplement those modifications.Phase three is underway as of February 2025 and willinclude engineering analysis of any calculations notaddressed in earlier phases. Project officials said thatphase three will be complete by the fourth quarter of2025. According to NASA, the challenge with the loadsanalysis has been keeping the construction work goingsince the same employees are needed to support bothefforts. As of February 2025, the project is working onestimates for the cost increases associated with thephase three analysis and modifications.
ConstructionConstruction of ML2 continues, with work underway onthe base and assembly of portions of the tower occurringon the ground. The tower modules will be installed, orrigged and set on top of the base, after which NASA andthe contractor will work to install umbilical arms. Thesearms will connect the tower to the rocket and spacecraftto provide electrical support and propellant, among otherthings. The contractor installed the first tower module onthe ML2 base in January 2025, within the timeframe for aschedule milestone award fee payment. Project officialsreported that as of May 2025, another three moduleshave been installed on the tower. They said that they planto install the final three modules after they complete theirconstruction and equipment installations by the end ofJune 2025, which they said is within the targeted rangefor one of the major milestones. Officials also reportedthat the first of several umbilicals was installed on thetower in May 2025, meeting the early schedule milestonedate.Project risk documentation states that electricalequipment deliveries are behind schedule, which couldaffect plans for installing future tower modules. Projectofficials said that electrical equipment is easier to installprior to the rig and set of a module because it is easier toaccess and install on the ground than other types ofequipment
