![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/NSF-2020-03-17-17-17-44-862.jpg\")
<\/p>\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG) has published an extensive report on NASA\u2019s use of two Mobile Launchers for its Space Launch System (SLS). With the completed Mobile Launcher -1 (ML-1) way over cost and schedule, the OIG has called on NASA to implement several recommendations for the construction of the second Mobile Launcher (ML-2) that is required for the slightly taller Block 1B version of SLS.\n<\/p>\n
NASA has used MLs since the early days of the Space Program, allowing for integration inside a Vehicle Assembly Building and rollout to the launch pad.<\/p>\n
The initial contract was awarded in 2008 for a Mobile Launcher to be used by the Constellation Program (CxP) to host Ares I launches.<\/p>\n
The ML was also set to include a wild Emergency Egress System (EES) that was a literally a rollercoaster for pad crews or astronauts to use in the event of a serious anomaly with Ares I. The Rollercoaster won a trade study over alternatives such as a slide wire system that has since been implemented for the SLS version of the ML.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Ares I rollercoaster EES \u2013 via NASA<\/p>\n
The cancellation of the Constellation Program (CxP) resulted in the ML receiving its pink slip.<\/p>\n
Parked up near the VAB, rumors of what would happen to the ML ranged from pulling the structure apart for scrap, through to a joke that was circulated throughout the KSC workforce claiming there was interest from Disney for turning it into an amusement ride. Ironically, Disney engineers had already worked with the KSC team for designing the EES.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It was then reassigned as the ML for SLS, which required major modifications to elements such as the launch mount and the array of umbilical arms. A major test campaign of the arms and umbilicals took place at the Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF) inside the Kennedy Space Center grounds.<\/p>\n
Space tourism guides (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n The OIG noted a cost of at least $927 million \u2013 $234 million for the development of the original Ares I ML base and tower and $693 million for SLS-related design and modification projects \u2013 has been spent on ML-1 to date. This has caught the attention of the OIG during its audit.<\/p>\n \u201cNASA has greatly exceeded cost and schedule targets in developing ML-1. As of January 2020, modification of ML-1 to accommodate the SLS has cost $693 million\u2014$308 million more than the Agency\u2019s March 2014 budget estimate \u2013 and is running more than 3 years behind schedule. Looking ahead, the project faces a risk of further cost increases and schedule slippage,\u201d noted the extensive OIG report.<\/p>\n The OIG blamed NASA\u2019s acquisition approach for ML-1, which \u201clacked coordination and competition with design contractors, coupled with immature SLS requirements resulted in design errors and integration challenges that drove the project\u2019s cost increases and schedule delays.\u201d<\/p>\n The report cited numerous design errors during the outfitting of the tower, exacerbated by accepting unproven and untested designs from one of the project\u2019s contractors. NASA confirmed ML-1 was \u201cleaning\u201d, although within acceptable tolerances and mitigation hardware has since been implemented. Issues included problems with at least one of the contractors. The report noted Vencore was the original contractor for designing the ground support equipment to outfit ML-1 until 2017 when Kennedy chose not to renew the contract \u201cdue to Vencore\u2019s overall performance\u201d. NASA transferred the remaining design and testing work to industry stalwart Jacobs.<\/p>\n The use of ML-1 is specific to the Block 1 version of SLS, which is now expected to fly several times, as opposed to once or twice. This is \u2013 in part \u2013 due to the delay related to the Block 1B version of SLS, which will use the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), as opposed to the ICPS (Interim Cryogenic Propulsion System).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/NSF-2020-03-17-18-52-35-286.jpg\")
\u201cAdditionally, immature SLS requirements resulted in integration challenges that also contributed to increased costs and caused schedule delays. As a result of these issues, NASA incurred substantial unplanned costs for a system the Agency currently plans to use for three or four missions,\u201d added the report.<\/p>\n