WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?

This contract is part of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the Moon and eventually send people to Mars. The SLS rocket requires a new mobile launcher because the existing one was built for a smaller configuration and cannot fully support the more powerful version of the rocket needed for future missions.

WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

NASA needs a safe and functional launch platform to send astronauts and cargo beyond low Earth orbit, including to the Moon. Without a mobile launcher designed for the upgraded SLS rocket, crewed deep space missions cannot move forward as planned.

WHO BENEFITS?

American aerospace and construction workers, particularly those employed by Bechtel National, benefit directly through jobs created by this contract. The broader public benefits if the SLS program succeeds in advancing human space exploration, scientific discovery, and U.S. leadership in space.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

Large construction contracts like this carry risks of cost overruns and schedule delays, which have already been documented in the broader SLS program. Oversight bodies like the NASA Inspector General have previously flagged concerns about contractor performance and budget management in related NASA programs.

WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?

If this contract were cancelled, NASA would lack the launch infrastructure needed to support the upgraded Block 1B configuration of the SLS rocket, likely delaying or halting planned crewed lunar missions. Work already completed would be abandoned, meaning some portion of the $1.5 billion could be spent with no usable result.

ARGUMENTS FOR

• •Building the ML2 is essential for NASA to carry out its next generation of crewed Moon missions using the more powerful version of the SLS rocket.
• •Investment in large aerospace infrastructure projects creates skilled engineering and construction jobs across the country.
• •Maintaining U.S. launch capabilities supports national security interests and keeps America competitive in space exploration.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

• •The SLS program as a whole has faced repeated cost overruns and delays, raising questions about whether this investment represents good use of taxpayer money.
• •Some critics argue that commercial rocket companies could provide similar deep space launch capabilities at a lower cost to taxpayers.
• •A seven-year contract of this size carries significant financial risk if the broader SLS program changes direction, is restructured, or is cancelled before completion.