<font color="yellow">You must not have heard that EELV costs have nearly doubled, so that an EELV Heavy launch, which still isn't enough rocket to handle CEV, now costs nearly as much as the horrendously costly Titan it replaced.</font><br /><br />You're right, I have not hear. Can you provide the link referencing the cost of EELV ?<br /><br />BTW, the CEV launch requirement is 25 MT. That is well within the EELV (DIV-H and future Atlas V heavy) capability. <br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">You must not have noticed that the EELV program cost the Pentagon $550 million last fiscal year, even though only ONE EELV launch was performed for the Pentagon during that time (the Delta 4 Heavy launch). </font><br /><br />Let's see if we can get some clarification on just what that $550 millions provide? Does all that money goes to the contractors, or does that support the DoD staffs/ NRO staffs, etc. as well? Does it support mission engineering for future launches? Does it support the Mission Assurance effort in the EELV program? Does pay for anything other than a single DIV-H launch?<br /><br />BTW, if you think a single CLV launch will cost anything less than $550 million you're gravely mistaken.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">You must not have read the reports that Boeing and Lockheed have been losing money on their EELV efforts. You must not have noticed that both companies were eager to dump their rockets into a consortium effort in order to attempt to limit the fiscal bleeding.</font><br /><br />Oh I can assure you that I am aware of this development quite well <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. As an engineer I hate to see this consortium happens. But from a business perspective I must grudgingly admit that both companies have no choice but stop the bleeding. Why continue to put money into a unprofitable operation? If the customer(s) want to have this product, then they should pay for it. Afterall, both companies are not in this busi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>