NASA's billion-dollar launcher is behind schedule and burning cash

Stop us if you've heard this one before

NASA is receiving yet another Moon-related kicking. This time, it is over the Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2) project, on which the agency plans to assemble and launch the beefier versions of its Space Launch System.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has described the cost and schedule of the structure as "not sustainable" despite the US space agency's efforts to improve matters.

"Not sustainable" is somewhat an understatement when reading the report. To rub salt into the wound, the OIG reported that the ML-2 contract was originally awarded to Bechtel National Inc in June 2019 for $383 million. Delivery was then expected in March 2023.

Sadly, this did not work out. By August 2022, the contract value had risen to over $1 billion, with delivery now set for May 2026. In December 2023, the ML-2 project was estimated to cost $1.5 billion with a November 2026 delivery, something NASA said it intended to keep Bechtel accountable for.

In June, NASA established an Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) for ML-2 with a cost of $1.8 billion and a delivery date of September 2027. A sensible bit of wiggle room when making commitments to US Congress.

However, even then, the OIG thinks costs could rise and delivery slip further due to the sheer amount of construction work that remains. The OIG wrote: "Our projections indicate the total cost could reach $2.7 billion by the time Bechtel delivers the ML-2 to NASA."

And delivery? "We project the ML-2 will not be ready to support a launch until spring 2029."

This blows a hole in NASA's published plans for its Artemis launch schedule, which, admittedly, looked increasingly ambitious as time passed. Artemis IV, ostensibly a mission to the Lunar Gateway space station, is due to launch in 2028 and requires ML-2. This would be possible, if a bit tight, if ML-2 were completed by November 2026. A substantial schedule slip moves a 2028 Artemis IV launch from merely unlikely to downright impossible.

NASA disagreed with the findings, and agency officials told the OIG that cost growth is expected to lessen over time. The OIG believes: "NASA has a history of unreliable cost and schedule estimates for the ML-2 project."

The OIG reported on the many factors behind the performance of the ML-2 contractor, Bechtel, including an underestimation of the scope and complexity of the project, but also highlighted the cost-plus nature of the contract, which has created uncertainties. The OIG found that there was an option to convert the contract into a fixed-price version, but said: "The Agency has opted to prioritize the mission schedule and maintain a cost-plus contract structure."

Alternatively, knowing what it knows now, the contractor might give a number so impossibly high that it would blow as big a hole in NASA's budget as the delays in ML-2's delivery stand to do to the Artemis schedule. ®