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.
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]
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
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