The NASA OIG has released a report that throws a lot of cold water on the agency’s expansive launch growth ambitions – for both government and commercial launches: “NASA’s launch infrastructure is dated and lacks the capacity to meet the growing demands of the Agency and government and commercial partners.” The findings are summarized below:
The number of launches supported by Kennedy and Wallops has increased dramatically since 2020 and is projected to grow even further by 2030 due to a surge in commercial launches. The growing number of projected launches from Kennedy and Wallops could eventually outpace each site’s capacity to support the launches.
Based on current launch projections, Kennedy and Wallops are expected to operate near capacity in the 2028 to 2029 time frame. At Kennedy, demand for super heavy-lift launch vehicles for NASA and Department of Defense missions is driving the need for additional launch pads that can accommodate these vehicles, but locations for new launch pads are limited and will require extensive time and resources to develop. Wallops is pursuing upgrades to enhance operational efficiency, which could increase launch capacity, while conducting a study to assess the impact of increasing the number of annual launches at the Facility.
At Kennedy, common use launch infrastructure that the Center and government and commercial partners use to provide electrical power, gas supply and distribution, and transportation to launch pads is in poor condition and lacks the capacity to support growing needs. Critical electrical power distribution infrastructure is being used beyond its design life and needs to be upgraded.
A failure of any portion of the electrical power distribution system could severely impact launches and lead to delays that could last for extended periods of time. In addition, existing infrastructure for the provision of nitrogen and helium gases to the launch pads is insufficient to simultaneously support multiple users leading to major scheduling challenges and potential delays.
Lastly, Kennedy’s roadway and bridge infrastructure was largely constructed in the 1960s and was not designed to accommodate the volume, frequency, and weight of modern heavy transport operations. Roadways and bridges are in marginal to poor condition and are expected to receive further strain as launch rates increase and generate approximately 19,000 additional truck trips annually to transport flight hardware, propellants, and related materials. Wallops does not face the same challenges with its common use launch infrastructure due to recent upgrades.
NASA has struggled to maintain and upgrade the Agency’s launch infrastructure due to declining construction and maintenance budgets, as well as statutory funding barriers and cost recovery practices that prevent commercial partners from contributing equitably to infrastructure projects. Over the last 5 years, the budgets NASA uses to fund construction projects and perform maintenance on launch-related infrastructure have decreased between 11 and 47 percent, when adjusting for inflation, delaying maintenance and upgrades to infrastructure.
In addition, while approximately 70 percent of launches supported by NASA since 2020 have been commercial missions, significant statutory funding barriers prevent the Agency from receiving money directly from commercial partners for use of the Agency’s launch infrastructure.
NASA initiated efforts a decade ago to establish an Infrastructure Investment Fund that would allow the Agency to accept contributions from public and private entities for long-term, large-scale shared infrastructure projects. However, legislation authorizing such a fund has yet to pass. While Kennedy received $250 million for infrastructure improvements through the H.R.1 reconciliation bill, officials estimate the Center would need at least $1 billion to completely upgrade its launch infrastructure.
Lastly, NASA’s cost recovery practices have limited the amount of funds collected from commercial partners for their use of the Agency’s launch infrastructure. In some instances, the Agency’s choice of agreements has limited the amount of funds that could have been collected for rent. In other instances, rates charged for indirect costs are often not sufficient to maintain or upgrade launch infrastructure.
While NASA policy permits Other Approved Indirect Rates to be charged to commercial partners, Kennedy does not utilize this rate for common use launch infrastructure. In contrast, Wallops utilizes this rate for operational support and maintenance of facilities.
Full report: “NASA’s Launch Infrastructure“
