Hi Ken –

Once again a very insightful analysis, but here are the problems with it the way I see them.

Let’s look at your goals (regrouped together here for ease of comment):

>Again, why do we want to have cislunar Trans-LEO maneuvering capability?
-So we can fix $600.0Mn satellites like ADEOS instead of throwing them away.
-We can fix XM's Rock and Roll solar panels instead of writing off the satellites, <

But unfortunately the servicing costs are higher than replacement costs

>We can do servicing runs to EML-1 to upgrade SOHO or NGST or Genesis or others. <

Same thing: Replacement costs cheaper than servicing costs

>-We can refuel existing assets to extend their lives and utility (and because only humans have mastered the art of duct tape!), <

The ion/plasma engines being adopted for communication satellites are extending their lifetimes to the point at which their electronics become obsolete

>-So we can go to GEO to start cleaning out the garbage. Same with LEO <

Problem here is that that very same space junk makes this too dangerous for human crews – particularly unexpended hypergolics

>-So we can establish an early, orbital NEO watch capability (and EML-1 is really the best for that, LEO and GEO are just too darn crowded) <

Not too bad a reason, but not sufficient in and of itself for the infrastructure.

>-We can do all of the important work that needs to be done on the Moon such as:
*Detecting NEOs from a stable platform
*Crater counting and dating <

Absolutely right.

>Mining oxygen from the regolith for rocket fuel and life support<

Maybe this could be done cheap, but primary use of Moon is for man tended impactor detection. You don’t NEED a fixed base for that, but if fuel cycle can be done right, then an extension is possible… Al/LOX may be a contender…

>*Mining SPS materials from the regolith
*Mining industrial metals like titanium, aluminium, iron and so forth
*Looking for PGM asteroid remains so we don't have to tear up our own planet to get it<

Transportation costs outweigh production efficiencies.

>*Practicing for Mars<

While the “Mars Enthusiasts” are fixated on Mars and buy a lot of magazines and create a lot of noise, the general public does not give a s**t about sending their money to Washington to pay for sending men to Mars

>-So the ISS becomes more than just an isolated science outpost. <

We can do the man tended Moon impactor detection on an international basis for a lower cost, if the architecture is modular.

>It may turn out that a unique core element can be designed that proves adaptable to a number of missions. A core element (be it lifting body, capsule, or caplet [my name for an RV sized cylinder] that can be launched on a modified D-IV-H or A5) launched to ISS can then be fitted with a heat shield for Earth return, a propulsion unit for travel outbound to at least the Moon's surface distance-wise, or legs/skids/whatever for landing on a surface.
One supply assembly line with a few auxiliary feeders. One. <

Not bad. I tend to think in terms of existing production lines and technologies. We currently are building modules for ISS, and I see those same factories being used to build the components for the man tended Moon based impactor detection facilities after ISS is finished. I don’t want to see a further reduction of our capabilities in aerospace.

Our ISS partners also have their own production facilities for ISS, and you can call me cheap, but I’d like to see them returning to the Moon with us.

>Seriously, Mr. Aldrin's work in orbital mechanics over the last few decades is nothing short of astounding,<

Yeah, but since Dr Aldrin isn’t Bob Zubrin, look at how the “Mars Enthusiasts” are attacking him here… hoo boy…

Bottom line, we have a limited space budget, and a very pressing need. I suppose if you have enough money you can buy a Corvette instead of a Geo, but both will get you there...

You left manned travel to KY 26 or Phobos and Deimos off of your list of goals, and these probably take second priority after the Moon based impactor detection facilities…

Mark is upset that your analysis agrees well with those of many other serious professionals, but the problem is money...