Phil Bagust writes:

Leaving aside [important] questions of marginal costs, amortisation, man
rating etc etc. what I want to know is this:

WHY? Without those questions you don't get any decent answers.

Will the *hardware* cost per flight of 'a stick' putting 25MT on orbit
be significantly less or significantly more than that of an equivalent
EELV? If this stick is significantly cheaper, then perversely, does
this mean that NASA has a Lockmart-beating launch vehicle for commercial
applications (lets forget the Russians for a moment, and the fact that
the stick would need a 3rd stage for GTO work?)??? And if that is the
case, then:

Well, I suspect they'll only give a marginal cost of a "stick's" flight,
with a big whopping line item for infrastructure costs that doesn't get
included in that, and a severe inability to increace the flight rate without
either spending more for infrastructure costs or without the marginal cost
of a stick flight going up.

Also remember, the G loading and vibration loading of something like the
stick is going to be much higher than that for the Delta-IVH or Atlas-5H.

This translates to less reliability or lifetime for the satellites being
carried.

1) EELV Heavy at least is seen to be a dead end?
2) How could (could?) the stick be 'farmed out' to private operation as
a cargo carrier?

Oh, it's a dead end right now, because NASA's going to go with the shaft, I
mean stick, regardless of what makes economic sense, and declare it to be
economically sensible.

Just like the shuttle.

Phil