NASA/Isaac Watson
Problems with the mobile launch tower that supports a larger version of NASA’s Space Launch System rocket are getting worse, not better.
According to New reports The tower, which is just a little taller than the length of a football field including the end zones, is estimated to cost $2.7 billion to build, according to NASA’s inspector general — nearly twice as much as it cost to build the Burj Khalifa, the world’s largest structure and seven times its height.
It’s a staggering cost explosion: Just five years ago, NASA awarded Bechtel engineering firm $383 million to build and deliver its second mobile launch vehicle, ML-2, with a delivery date of March 2023. That deadline has passed, and Bechtel had barely begun cutting metal.
According to NASA’s own estimates, the tower project is currently estimated to cost $1.8 billion, with completion scheduled for September 2027. But a new report released Monday concludes that NASA’s estimate is probably too conservative. “Our analysis indicates that costs could be even higher, in part because significant construction work remains to be done,” said the report, signed by Deputy Inspector General George A. Scott.
The bigger the rocket, the bigger the tower
With explicit direction from the U.S. Congress, NASA commissioned the construction of a launch tower to support a larger version of the Space Launch System rocket, known as Block 1B, which combines the rocket’s existing core stage with a larger, more powerful second stage (exploration upper stage) being developed by Boeing.
The space agency plans to use this larger version of the SLS rocket for its Artemis IV mission, which is set to put the crewed Orion spacecraft and part of the Lunar Gateway into lunar orbit. This will be the second time that astronauts will land on the moon as part of the Artemis program. The nominal launch date for the Artemis IV mission is 2028, but the new report confirms a widely held assumption in the space community that such a date is not feasible.
NASA has said that to achieve a launch date of 2028 for the mission, the ML-2 tower would need to be completed by November 2026. NASA and the new report agree that there’s zero chance that this will happen, so if the Artemis IV mission uses an upgraded version of the SLS rocket, launch will almost certainly not occur until mid-2029 at the earliest.
Why did costs and delays escalate so much? One reason the report cites is that Bechtel consistently underestimated the scope and complexity of the project.
“Bechtel significantly underestimated the labor hours required to complete the ML-2 project, resulting in more labor hours than anticipated. Estimated overtime hours from May 2022 through January 2024 have doubled to approximately 850,000 hours, reflecting the company’s efforts to meet NASA’s schedule targets.”
It’s hard to hold Bechtel responsible
One of the main takeaways from the new report is that there appears to be very little NASA can do to incentivize Bechtel to build the mobile launch tower more quickly or for a better price. Under a cost-plus contract structure, NASA has limited leverage over the contractor beyond withholding the award money. The report notes that NASA did not exercise its option to change the contract to a fixed-price structure.
“Although the option remains formally in the contract, NASA officials have informed us that they do not intend to solicit a fixed-price proposal from Bechtel,” the report states. “The (Exploration Ground System) Program and ML-2 Project Management have told us that, given the additional risks associated with a fixed-price contract, Bechtel would likely make a cost proposal that was well beyond NASA’s budgetary capabilities.”
In other words, because NASA did not originally request a fixed-price contract, any bid from Bechtel would likely blow a complete hole in NASA’s annual budget.
The spiraling costs of mobile launch towers have long been a thorn in NASA Administrator Bill Nelson’s side: In 2022, after cost estimates for the ML-2 structure approached $1 billion, Nelson blasted the cost-plus approach in testimony before Congress.
“We believe this is a plan that brings the value of competition to all of us,” Nelson said of the fixed-price contracts. “Working competitively will allow us to keep costs down and get us out of the cost-plus contracts that have plagued us in the past and into existing contract pricing.”
The epidemic continues to spread.
