That's the low cost estimate - from the NASA guy who's trying to sell the SLS program.
Any new LV is going to cost out the wazoo up front. Imagine if Venture Star or some other RLV were on the table--I guarantee
you it would be even more costly--and with less payload to boot. Compared to F-35 and other things this gov't does, it's a bargain
It won't be seven years. It'll probably be longer.
Based on what, again?
The problem is that NASA needs a larger budget
No, the problem is that NASA needs a cheaper rocket.
There is no "cheaper rocket. Musk looks to be trying to fund MCT by having his hyperloop usurp California's high-speed rail. Now talk about cost!
Even if you advocate for heavy lift, it needs to be cheaper, and it shouldn't be wasting precious payload and stack height on a big crew module.
I don't know why you are concerned so much about stack height. It worked perfectly well for Saturn, and will work perfectly well for SLS.
I don't want my astronauts to be in cramped Soviet craft. I want them to have room. Remember the Dragon circum-mars mission proposed? Imagine being cooped up in that thing. Even with the inflatable nose, similar to Soyuz sperical compartment, it would get to be un-livable fast. That's why we need high volume cyclers to go to Mars, like these:
Too large even for Falcon Heavy.
What I want everyone to understand is this. We are in a very critical time period right now. I am trying to use the same institutional inertia behind STS to go over to SLS while there is still momentum.
If things peter out--it will be impossible to get momentum started for any new project for BEO missions. The current path is just the price of doing business. Musk seems to be interested in too many things. Solar city, hyperloop, his Tesla car--safe, but maybe not quite what he claims:
If entirely left up to him, there may be no MCT, or heavy lift in humanities future at all.
That's why I support SLS. It has institutional inertia behind it--and I am thankful Congress suports it for once. SD-HLLV advocates have been pushing this for years when it was ALS, NLS, Magnum, CaLV, etc. We should be happy that they are no longer on the outside looking in.
Here is a nice quote: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...657#msg1086657
"Why not just launch the lunar lander on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy thereby cutting costs significantly.?"Falcon Heavy can't get the 25-35 tons to LLO required for a Lunar Lander. I'm not even sure it can get more than about 10 tons in LLO.
Then there was Ed Kyle's remark
Human lunar exploration requires mega-funding, regardless of rocket
And another nice quote:
A "2XJupiter lunar architecture was supposed to be good and efficient...but a 2X launch with a similar LV in SLS will be horribly unaffordable?
Some other salient points
Lastly, this video gives me hope for the future: