In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

The irony is he fell on is sword for nothing, since Boeing was
eliminated from the competition anyway!

This is all sad, really, because I personally believe that placing your
bet on the big orange rocket has far longer odds of winning than placing
your bet on distributed launch.

Jeff

I first misread your final paragraph as in support of SLS and it took me
aback.

But then I thought about it. If your "goal" is a flags and footprints
mission. Honestly, SLS is probably the way to go.
Overbuild a single-one off, spend lots of money on a barely marginal lander,
fly, land, get some rocks, come home and declare victory.

BUT, if you want anything sustainable, then yeah, any of the other options
are probably better.

In a sense, I think it's a set of competing goals. A certain person at 1600
Pennsylvania Ave wants a lunar landing in 2024. He doesn?t really care how
it's done. He's not a details man.
But, I think others, including many at NASA are starting to really move
towards a goal of a sustainable system.

So, Loverro I think was caught between both goals and suffered.

From what I've read, Loverro was *not* a fan of distributed launch. So,
he would have supported the Boeing lander which would have required SLS
1B (the version with the EUS) to launch it. You'd still need a separate
SLS to launch Orion, since SLS simply can't handle both at the same
time. But you need that with all of the other proposals too.

It's all pretty confusing right now. All the articles I've read are
speculating to some degree.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.