Kennedy wanted to build a big launcher anyway and so Johnson classified the final report and kept every copy in his safe. When they were eventually declassified in the 1990s Kantrowitz says NASAs only reason for then not pursuing that path then was that “it would be embarrasing to us” – Perhaps that’s the only reason they’re pushing heavy launch now.

I want to see numbers before I believe NASAs case, and they have to refute (with numbers) the analysis made by the Gardner Commission.

That’s not how I read it, Jim (or at least, it’s not the whole story). What concerns me is that it reads as though it’s a fait accompli that there shall be heavy lift. The only issue is whether it’s SDV, EELVDV, or clean sheet. That’s what the SecDef and Administrator have to sort out and recommend to the President. This is one of the things I have heartbutn with, because I don’t think we need heavy lift, period, and to develop it would be a step backward and a waste of funds that could be spent on something useful.

1. The Department of Defense (DoD) will be the lead agency for improvement and evolution of the current U.S. expendable launch vehicle (ELV) fleet, including appropriate technology development.
2. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will provide for the improvement of the Space Shuttle system, focusing on reliability, safety, and cost-effectiveness.
3. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be the lead agency for technology development and demonstration for next generation reusable space transportation systems, such as the single-stage-to-orbit concept.

I don’t see the same language in the new transportation policy. I note also that the X-37 was transferred to DARPA last summer.

Note the context of that “joint heavy lift” issue. NASA does not get to decide whether or not it needs heavy lift for exploration. NASA and the SecDef jointly make recommendations to the President and the President decides.

Very very interesting.

– Jim