http://rasc.larc.nasa.gov/rasc_new/rasc_fy01_top/CAPS_Top_page.htm

It is clear from this report that the lunar option requires much infrastructure and is only a practical fiscally sound program if it is part of a much larger effort. Orbiting telescopes are also mentioned and accurately noted as being cheaper. I'm sure Grondine will be quite happy to have yet another condensed version from a pro-lunar writer that fails to mention the far cheaper option.

It's really a hoot to hear all the psuedo economic BS spouted here about high NASA costs yet few seem to question cost effectiveness when it's their own pet projects. And yes I have addressed the issue with regard to mine although I'm sure GB can once again suffer a memory lapse and come up with some smartass remark.

Note for Tom.

We didn't just pay for an ISS truss. We paid for it's development and probably the facilities to construct it. The exhorbitant cost of one of a kind items come from huge costs normally defrayed in the form of depreciation over many items in industrial manufacturing. Most people here need to recall their elementary school lessons on Henry Ford and his use of the assembly line.

Regards,
Mark