Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA could do a lot towards researching lower cost engines.

Ahhh.... no. NASA's collective head would explode.

It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle
business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy
lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire.

No, it's a need. As in "mandated by Congress/President."

Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

Non sequitur. The Pres has said "get to the moon." That's the "need."
They cannot buy a launch to the moon, as there's no such product
available. So, they have to pay to have such a product developed.


If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to operate
due to economies of scale.

Well, Apollo cost a bucket of money as it was, and the bulk of that was
spent prior to going to the moon, and the program was killed prior to
going to the moon. So if EOR cost *more* to develop up front, it would
have been an even *bigger* target for the budget axe.

If you developed the R&D and manufacturing infrastructure and only
build a few things and then kill the program, the unit cost is
astonishing. EOR would have been no better off here. Perhaps one or two
moon flights that cost *more* than Apollo.