NASA’s problems with the mobile launch tower that will carry a larger version of its Space Launch System rocket are getting worse rather than better.

According to a new report from NASA’s inspector general, the estimated cost of the tower, which is slightly taller than the length of an American football field with its end zones, is now $2.7 billion. That cost is almost double the amount needed to build the world’s tallest structure, Burj Khalifa, which is seven times taller.

This is a remarkable cost explosion, as only five years ago NASA awarded engineering firm Bechtel a $383 million contract to build and deliver a second mobile launch vehicle (ML-2) with a delivery date of March 2023. But the deadline passed when Bechtel had only just started metalworking.

According to NASA’s own estimate, the tower’s project cost is currently $1.8 billion, with construction set to begin in September 2027. However, the new report, released Monday, concludes that NASA’s estimate is likely too conservative. “Our analysis suggests that costs could be even higher, due in part to the significant amount of construction work that remains to be done,” said the report, signed by Deputy Inspector General George A. Scott.

Bigger rocket, bigger tower

Following specific instructions from the U.S. Congress, NASA commissioned the construction of the launch tower to carry a larger version of the Space Launch System rocket, called Block 1B. This combines the rocket’s existing main stage with a larger and more powerful second stage, called the Exploration Upper Stage, currently under development by Boeing.

The space agency expects to use this larger version of the SLS rocket starting with the Artemis IV mission, which will launch both a crewed Orion spacecraft and an element of the Lunar Gateway into orbit around the moon. This will be the second time astronauts have landed on the lunar surface as part of the Artemis program. The nominal launch date of the Artemis IV mission is 2028, but the new report confirms a widely held belief in the space community that such a date is unrealistic.

To set a 2028 launch date for that mission, NASA says the ML-2 tower must be completed by November 2026. Both NASA and the new report agree that the probability of that happening is zero percent. So if the Artemis IV mission uses the upgraded version of the SLS rocket, it will almost certainly launch no earlier than mid-2029.

Why have costs increased so much and delays occurred? One reason, the report says, is Bechtel’s continued underestimation of the scope and complexity of the project.

“Bechtel significantly underestimated the number of work hours required to complete the ML-2 project and therefore had to work more hours than expected. From May 2022 to January 2024, estimated overtime doubled to nearly 850,000 hours, reflecting the company’s efforts to meet NASA’s schedule goals.

It is difficult to hold Bechtel accountable

One of the key findings from the new report is that NASA appears to have very limited options to motivate Bechtel to build the mobile launch tower faster or at a more reasonable price. The cost-plus contract mechanism gives the space agency limited leverage over the contractor beyond retaining contract fees. The report notes that NASA has declined to exercise an option to convert the contract to a fixed-price mechanism.

“Although the option officially remains in the contract, NASA officials told us they do not intend to request a fixed-price bid from Bechtel,” the report said. “The (Exploration Ground Systems) program and ML-2 project management told us they believed Bechtel would likely submit a cost bid well beyond NASA’s budget capacity to account for the additional risk associated with a fixed-price contract.”

In other words, since NASA did not originally require a fixed-price contract, it now sounds like any offer from Bechtel would put a real hole in the agency’s annual budget.

The rising cost of the mobile launch tower has been a source of frustration for NASA Administrator Bill Nelson before. In 2022, when cost estimates for the ML-2 structure reached nearly $1 billion, Nelson sharply criticized the cost-plus mechanism in testimony before the U.S. Congress.

“I believe this is the plan that gives us all the benefits of competition,” Nelson said of fixed-price contracts. “That competitive spirit gets it done. You get it done cheaper, and that allows us to get away from what has plagued us in the past, which is a cost-plus contract, and move to an existing contract price.”

The epidemic continues to spread.