Gee isn't it obvious that Lockhead and Boeing who have kept launch costs high for years will build a cheeper and safer rocket? Weren't they in part responsible for the Shuttles sterling safety record and the success of the mars polar lander and climate orbiter? I actually think common sense indicates a liquid booster would be more easy to reuse, but I have high confidence that Griffen and Horowitz picked what they thought was the best design based on a far more technical analysis and am more skeptical of private enterprise's grasp for profits at any cost than NASA. I do not believe Lori Garver has the engineering expertise to evaluate this issue. However, if objective outside engineers prefer the EELV's and the supposed benefits are truly likely I'm all for dumping Ares 1 and moving on to Ares 5. I'm betting Musk will make all three smaller rockets obsolete eventually.

Regards,
Mark