August 28th, 2024

NASA has to be trolling with the latest cost estimate of its SLS launch tower

NASA's mobile launch tower project for the SLS rocket has ballooned to $2.7 billion, delaying completion to September 2027 and the Artemis IV mission to mid-2029 due to underestimated labor costs.

Read original articleLink Icon
NASA has to be trolling with the latest cost estimate of its SLS launch tower

NASA's mobile launch tower project for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket is facing significant cost overruns and delays. The estimated cost has surged to $2.7 billion, nearly double the original contract awarded to Bechtel National, Inc. for $383 million five years ago. The project, intended to support the larger Block 1B version of the SLS rocket, is now projected to be completed by September 2027, with the Artemis IV mission launch date likely pushed to mid-2029. The inspector general's report indicates that Bechtel underestimated the labor hours required, leading to a doubling of overtime hours. NASA's current cost-plus contract limits its ability to hold Bechtel accountable for delays and budget overruns, as the agency has opted not to convert the contract to a fixed-price model. This decision raises concerns about future budget impacts, as any fixed-price proposal from Bechtel is expected to exceed NASA's budgetary capacity. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson has previously criticized the cost-plus contracting approach, emphasizing the need for fixed-price contracts to foster competition and reduce costs.

- NASA's mobile launch tower costs have escalated to $2.7 billion, significantly higher than initial estimates.

- The project is now expected to be completed by September 2027, delaying the Artemis IV mission to mid-2029.

- Bechtel has underestimated labor requirements, resulting in increased overtime hours.

- NASA's cost-plus contract limits its leverage over Bechtel, as it has chosen not to pursue a fixed-price contract.

- NASA Administrator Bill Nelson has expressed frustration with the cost-plus contracting model.

Link Icon 12 comments
By @glzone1 - 8 months
Wild. But it's a pattern with these contracts.

As a reminder, for SLS they decided to modify an exiting launch tower (ML-1). The original estimate to modify the tower was $54 million. Final cost will likely be $1 billion. And delayed of course. It's only going to get a few launches.

You can see where this is going.

Then they decided to do a new launch tower, ML-2. This tower is only 7 feet taller. They planned to incorporate lessons learned from the mess of ML-1 (haha). Started at $400M. Now going to be $2.7 billion (and delayed of course badly).

These cost+ deals especially with multiple contractors are like rotting fruit that attracts maggots that glom on and provide negative value. Something that would take a day to a week elsewhere could be literally months. Every incentive is to move slowly. The contractor layers and paperwork needs on even basic changes are totally massive. The other thing that really jumps out is usually speed - these things will take FOREVER.

I once even saw something about 8 track data recording in a govt contract, It's wild what is stacked into these things. The overhead to do anything can be wild. I once worked a govt job, and we needed an ipad for whatever reason (think something like foreflight on an ipad - most normal people would just buy an ipad to run foreflight). For all sorts of dumb and dumber reason, an ipad could not be purchased. I'd estimate $25K - $50K maybe went into trying to buy this damn ipad and coming up with workarounds. Can only go through central IT which wasn't even selected for price performance, has no customer service, and doesn't have apple SKU's. That's just the beginning. By the time you've wasted attorney time, contracting teams time on this ipad purchase and your own time, your managers time, all the downline folks time... the mind boggles. I think the final solution was to do a contract with a third party for a service, who could then buy the ipad and install the app on it as long as that part of the contract was less than some capital item threshold, and then that third party could enter into another agreement to make it available for their use. But the time to do this, then the time to come up with the agreement to use the ipad owned by this third party... total joke! I understood why teachers buy their own pencils. I'm sure a school can provide them, but a teacher probably doesn't want to deal with the headaches!

By @JCharante - 8 months
Why do governments allow cost follow pricing? Companies should bid a final price and pay for insurance that covers unexpected costs/delays.
By @NavinF - 8 months
>$2.7 billion. Such a cost is nearly twice the funding it took to build the largest structure in the world, the Burj Khalifa, which is seven times taller.

> NASA officials informed us they do not intend to request a fixed-price proposal from Bechtel

By @thot_experiment - 8 months
Someone who follows this stuff, how does this compare to the starship catching towers? Both in terms of complexity and cost. My gut says the starship towers are about as complicated (in an abstract "does a bunch of tricky things wrt spaceship support" even if they're different things way) and I'm betting it's 100x? 1000x cheaper? I don't know anything though so if someone is more knowledgeable I would love to learn more.
By @namlem - 8 months
SpaceX already built their launch/catch tower and didn't even bill the taxpayers for it.
By @devoutsalsa - 8 months
If SLS is only getting a few launches, and we’re planning to establish a permanent presence on the moon, what will replace SLS? Starship and New Glenn?
By @rdtsc - 8 months
> The report notes that NASA has declined to exercise an option to convert the contract to a fixed-price mechanism.

They know besides the unrealistic high price they’d get shoved in their face by Bechtel, it would seriously jeopardize their chances of “retiring” at Bechtel with a comfortable salary later on.

By @advisedwang - 8 months
Bechtel were the contractor for Boston's Big Dig too. Why do people keep hiring these guys
By @ChrisArchitect - 8 months
By @BurnGpuBurn - 8 months
I cannot fathom a world where this could happen without there being an enormous amount of fraud and corruption going on.
By @demondemidi - 8 months
Just a reminder that no one will ever know how much private company SpaceX spends on their platforms because they are not required to divulge this info, nor how much their investors subsidize their government contracts (paid for by taxpayers).
By @ungreased0675 - 8 months
NASA seems to be setting money on fire lately. It’s probably time to shutter the place and start over with the National Space and Air Administration.