NASA's second mobile launcher is too heavy, years late, and pushing $1 billion:
Three years ago, NASA awarded a cost-plus contract to the engineering firm Bechtel for the design and construction of a large, mobile launch tower. The 118-meter tower will support the fueling and liftoff of a larger and more capable version of NASA's Space Launch System rocket that may make its debut during the second half of this decade.
When Bechtel won the contract for this mobile launcher, named ML-2, it was supposed to cost $383 million. But according to a scathing new report by NASA's inspector general, the project is already running years behind schedule, the launcher weighs too much, and the whole thing is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The new cost estimate for the project is $960 million.
"We found Bechtel's poor performance is the main reason for the significant projected cost increases," the report, signed by Inspector General Paul Martin, states. The report finds that Bechtel underestimated the project's scope and complexity. In turn, Bechtel officials sought to blame some of the project's cost increases on the COVID-19 pandemic.
As of this spring, NASA had already obligated $435.6 million to the project. However, despite these ample funding awards, as of May, design work for the massive launch tower was still incomplete, Martin reports. In fact, Bechtel now does not expect construction to begin until the end of calendar year 2022 at the earliest.
The report cites a litany of mistakes by the contractor, Bechtel, but does not spare NASA from criticism. For example, Martin said that NASA awarded the contract to Bechtel before the specifications for the Space Launch System rocket's upper stage were finalized. (The major upgrade to the rocket will come via a more powerful second stage, known as the Exploration Upper Stage, or EUS). This lack of final requirements to accommodate the EUS hindered design of the mobile launch tower, which must power and fuel the rocket on the ground.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2022, @10:04PM (16 children)
I don't understand why these contracts don't have fixed prices. whats the point of a contract even if the provider can just change the price at will?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2022, @10:23PM (2 children)
Rocket Science is hard. So is Ken. - Barbie
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2022, @11:09PM
Have you seen Ken? Smooth as a girl. No wonder Barbie needs her dream house etc cause Ken is never going to get hard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday June 13 2022, @02:07AM
Space is hard. SpaceX makes it look easy. And routine. And reusable.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by captain normal on Sunday June 12 2022, @10:44PM (12 children)
I don't understand why they can't just fire Bechtel.
Ah...after RTFA, I see it was a Cost Plus contract. That is a sure way to get overruns on large projects. Bechtel also blames the pandemic and supply line problems. There is no mention off how many and how much lining of the pockets of officials and legislators took place either.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday June 12 2022, @10:49PM (4 children)
Also not to mention the failure of NASA to supply accurate specifications. In other words poor project management.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 12 2022, @11:33PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @02:19AM (2 children)
But as implied earlier, fixed price REQUIRES upfront complete requirements.
The govt is famous for dithering around and not committing to a hard plan. It's the way govt works. Their job is to throw money at the contractor, not give the contractor what it says is necessary to complete the job from the customer, and then blame the contractor for the completely foreseen (by the contractor) "failure." But, the customer is always right! He's paying the bills, after all, and therefore ultimately call the shots. You cannot fire the customer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @04:42AM (1 child)
Why would you fire a customer that throws money at you regardless of performance (or lack thereof) so long as your campaign contribution checks clear? Because that's what's going on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @09:42PM
I'm just pointing out that this is the way that big govt contracts traditionally pan out. The govt always pisses and moans about getting ripped off, but never notes that it's a partner in the project and shares some blame (usually most of it, in my opinion). At least this time the investigation gave some blame to the govt, too.
Rest assured that 10 years from now, you will read an identical story full of righteous outrage where only the details of the participants and the system being developed change.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by corey on Sunday June 12 2022, @11:39PM (6 children)
It seems common in the US to do cost plus. I think it enables more risky stuff to go on with development programs. But here in Australia they’re uncommon even in defence. For R&D, there are some but normally it’s a series of fixed price phases contracts. At the end of each, the next phase is priced up and a new contract started. Means there’s an off-ramp for the customer and lower risk. I guess we don’t like risk much.
It can be hard and fraught with risk to try to fixed cost contract a R&D program, they can end in failure or success and take half or three times as long.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @12:27AM
Cost plus has its place but the US Congress uses it to feed money to their campaign contributors. NASA and DoD contracts are rife with it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 13 2022, @02:07AM (3 children)
Half or three times as long as what? What are we comparing fixed cost to? Cost plus is notorious for not doing a thing about the risks except to guarantee that it takes as long and costs as much as the contractor can manage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @04:13AM (2 children)
I think corey means 'half or three times as long as expected'. That kind of unpredictability is what makes cost plus attractive for green field R&D. Assuming you can strictly limit the scope and keep a tight lid on the budget then it usually works out. This, of course, is the opposite of how Congress likes to do it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 13 2022, @10:05PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @10:46PM
The problem is that the cost of cost plus grows without bound without strict oversight by the client, and oversight cannot be effective when the contractor knows that Congress will always side with them.
(Score: 2) by dalek on Monday June 13 2022, @11:30PM
This is a valid criticism. I understand that there are situations where the contractor couldn't have anticipated additional costs. With adequate documentation to support the increased costs and adequate oversight, this isn't a problem. But I don't understand why more contracts aren't restricted the way federal research grants are.
With federal research grants, it's commonplace for grant awardees to take a one year no-cost extension. This means that you get an extra year to complete the work, but that no additional funds are allocated. The reasons for this could be as simple as the work being completed within the original timeline, but journal papers discussing the work are still under review, and page charges need to be billed to the grant when the review process completes. Sometimes the work just takes longer than expected. While some agencies do allow supplemental funding, it is generally for a very small amount, and for a very short time to finish work that is mostly completed. Anything beyond a no-cost extension or a small supplement typically has to be in the form of a new grant, which is subject to the same review process as the initial grant.
The review process is very long in many cases, and the paperwork can be quite onerous. However, this seems like a better way to do things. It won't necessarily avoid the situation where the grant awardee spends the money unwisely and doesn't complete the work for the initial grant. The awardee could submit proposals for additional funding, but failing to complete the work successfully will make it significantly harder to obtain future funding.
I would support applying many of the same standards for research grants to other forms of contracts with government agencies. It probably would reduce a lot of the fraud and waste that occurs.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 13 2022, @12:05AM (5 children)
What's interesting about the present SLS (Space Launch System) hubbub is the lack of support in the space advocacy/fans for this project. Back when the predecessor to SLS, the Constellation program was formed in 2005, there was a lot of support because the Constellation component - the Ares rocket was considered the only way to get large payloads to space. Since, Constellation ended in 2009 and its replacement the SLS is foundering in the same way with massive cost overruns and schedule slips.
The only defense of SLS currently is the half-hearted assertion of a need for a competitor to SpaceX's Superheavy. Well, given that they're going to blow $1.5 billion just on a launch tower that will be five or more years behind schedule, we'll need to look elsewhere for that competitor.
My take is that SLS will be the last orbital launch vehicle NASA designs. Congress will have to look elsewhere for its pork barrel white elephants. Fortunately, NASA has plenty of room for those at higher levels (such as lunar and martian outposts).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @01:07AM (4 children)
Some support Constellation, but the day they did their 'public input' campaign was the day the fire went out and I lost interest in space. It was obvious even then that it only existed for pork and would be a millstone around NASA's neck. It wasn't until I saw a Falcon 9 crash and burn trying to land that I got it back.
The problem with SLS (and Ares before) is that NASA didn't design it. Congress did, parcelling out the work by political district. Everything that's wrong with the entire Artemis program can be traced back to that. This mobile launch pad contract is simply more of the same, and it shows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @02:21AM (1 child)
So, business as usual for the govt.
It has always worked this way since I have been alive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @04:39AM
It's often attributed to Lyndon B Johnson since he was a such strong supporter and helped it become entrenched in Congress, but it actually started with corrupt military officers manipulating purchasing contracts for their own gain. The other half of the system was forced mergers of successful companies with failing competitors that the officers were invested in, usually with the failed company's management taking over. That's what Eisenhower's warnings about the military industrial complex were about, and unfortunately his warnings weren't heeded so here we are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @12:29PM (1 child)
Bechtel is not a failed company. They are a company that does what you ask.
You just have to know what you want before you ask, or have a big check book.
Big pork from years of doing things the government way didn't help, but NASA lost their edge when they stopped doing things themselves with in-house contractor's help.
Some say that happened in the late 60's when union shop rules made the old way impossible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2022, @05:02PM
I never said that Bechtel is a failed company.
Speaking from experience dealing with wealthy wafflers, a big check book cannot ever substitute for knowing what you want.
NASA has always done things through outside contractors and it worked well until Congress started meddling.
It had nothing to do with unions and everything to do with Lyndon Johnson selling NASA up the river for political points.