<br />I agree with you about "different opinions" so I suggest that all users may give "his own" opinion about "costs" and avoid to turn any discussion to a "battle"<br /><br />about CEV/CLV costs... 70% of "my" final $1 billion CEV/CLV price come from well known costs (SRB, SSME, ready available half-CLV-payload rockets, etc.) and NASA claims (like the shared R&D costs)<br /><br />of course, it's impossible to know the real (2015) launch cost, but the discussion about it is not useless<br /><br />in my early posts here, I've proposed the CREWLESS Space Shuttle (not the unexisting Shuttle-C but a reuse of the existing Shuttle for 25 tons cargo launches) and, instead to discuss of my proposal, I've received lots of critics and some insults<br /><br />the main critic was that "Shuttle is too expensive while capsules are cheap"<br /><br />I've accepted as "true" the critics about costs and I've explained why, despite its costs, a new shuttle is better than a new capsule<br /><br />but, after reading some articles and further info about CEV, etc., I've found that "capsules" (and, expecially, the new CEV capsule!) will have MANY LIMITS but NOT a "low cost" per launch<br /><br />I've found that the real cost of a CEV launch "may be" like MORE than one Shuttle launch... but without the incredible advantages of a Shuttle (25 tons payload, assembly, twice the crew, 30+ times reusable, runway landing, giant cargo return, etc.)<br /><br />and now, after weeks of posts and evaluations, I understand the TRUE reason of critics and insults received in reply of my posts about Shuttle advantages, CEV costs, etc.<br /><br />THE MAIN ARGUMENT TO RETIRE THE SHUTTLE AN BUILD THE CEV IS THAT THE LATTER IS <font color="yellow">VERY CHEAP</font><br /><br />this is THE BASE of the entire new plan...<br /><br />no one want to talk about prices... many prefer to IGNORE the real prices for ideal reasons but (probably) some prefer that (perfectly known...) real prices MUST BE ignored<br /><br />I've a qu