Return to moon: EELV or HLV? Let the market decide (or at least the buyers).

There have been a few discussions here over the merits of using a
Heavy Lift Vehicle to support the moon program.

To summarise the debate (in round numbers), the HLV is typically
mentioned as having a payload to Low Earth Orbit of 75-150 tons, and
could be made from Shuttle derived components. A single launch could
land a 10 cargo on the moon.

The alternative is to use existing EELVs, such as Delta IV-Large.
These typically have a payload of 20-25 tons, so three or four would
be needed for most moon shots. Advantage: Economies of scale, existing
technology, disadvantage: Earth Orbit Rendez-vous, launch capacity,
need for a back up.

Which way should NASA go?

I think NASA should not make the decision. It should lay out it's
launch requirements a few years ahead for two years, for example, in
2012, they would say "our moon programm requires in 2015 and 2016, 4
launches of 18 tons and 4 launches of 24 tons to Lunar orbit". Then
let the bidding commence.

Various groups would then be able to make proposals - so Boeing might
offer salvos of Delta IV-Large launches (28 launches in all), L-M
would offer an Atlas equivelant. Ideally, Arianne and Proton should
also be allowed to bid.

As a further spur to competiton, NASA should sell all Space Shuttle
hardware, production facilities, and IP to the highest bidder. A
bidder could probably buy this for a nominal sum, and develop this
into a Shuttle-C. But a private sector bidder would only do this if
they were sure they could beat Boeing etc on price and performance. If
a bidder miscalculated, they would lose.

NASA would then be out of the launch market, but would be the largest
buyer of tonnage, able to incentivise the market to produce lower cost
launch capability.

The EELV / HLV debate then becomes one of technology and economics (so
it can move to sci.space.tech), and no longer a policy question.