First off, while like most here I don't much care for Keith's reporting, you have to admit that he got this story, and he got it early on by spotting the study Griffin did with the former astronaut (whose name escapes me. Sorry, Elliot? Garriot?).

Politically, what has happened here is a trade off between the political forces backing the EELV manufacturers and those backing the manufacture of the shuttle. On political grounds, it's a good trade, since the manufacturers of the new shuttle derived systems will be the same corporations which manufacture the EELVs. The advantage comes in gaining the backing of those politicians whose districts manufacture the shuttle components. I this regard, the trade appears to be quite a brilliant piece of work.

Technically, while generally solid rockets lack the abort systems necessary for manned flight, in this case you have the launch escape rocket sitting right on the nose of the CEV. While Klipr may have better operating costs, the CEV probably will have better thermal capabilities, those necessary for Moon flights.

The propulsion systems of the shuttle seem to be the most capable we have. You also keep your skill base by using this architecture, rather than using EELVs and multiple docks in space.

The two big problems, as I see them are:

1) Given the economic problems caused by the "Mid-east", and Iraq, and oil, will sufficient funds be available to keep 3 launch system production lines in operation? If its only 2, which 2?

Minimally, by keeping the shuttle production lines in operation, you raise the marginal cost of the EELV production. The EELVs meet DoD requirements. Can DoD payloads be shifted to the new solid launcher? The stand alone solids may offer lower costs for DoD payloads, assuming no g force constraints. What about the comsats?

While I can't see how shutting down manufacturing plants would improve the national economy, I am sure that people in the midwest and northeast are really tired of seeing their tax dollars shipped to the south and west of the country. The only NASA program that they are likely to back may be CAPS, as they understand the impact hazard. However, their backing for CAPS is also likely to be dependent on an international program to share its costs, and if you use heavy lift for CAPS, what role will international medium lift manufacturers play?

2) The aluminum used in the fuel of solid boosters has been implicated as a catalyst in the freon reaction which is destroying Earth's ozone layer. Despite what a certain radio commentator claimed while bombed on pain-killers, these ozone holes are serious, and are resulting in deaths from skin cancer. The two (south and now north) holes' effects on climate are unknown, but possibly also quite serious. The chemistry and residual freon levels are not well known, and the behaviour of ozone depletion during the recent Columbia caused shuttle flight suspension will be interesting to observe.

In closing, these problems are being worked, and the answers will be available in September. My guess is that Griffin is smart enough to have a small B team working on a backup plan as well.