I should clarify–this isn’t a criticism of the engineers giving the presentation. I think they did a fine job, within the constraints LM gave them. But overall, it seemed more like a justification for building the Deep Space Gateway as a precursor and a desperate plea for Orion.

I’ve now had the opportunity to read the whole paper at Lockheed Martin Mars Base Camp, and am working my way through the 2016 resources. I think there may be a bit more to this than meets the eye. My sense is that LM is offering up some interesting technologies and infrastructure, but the management still won’t let them acknowledge that their concepts will be supporting rather than in the lead. Even the idea that some commercial entities will supply water to Mars orbit suggests they believe SpaceX is going to be a player; they’re just relegating them to the role of cargo supplier.

The primary problem with this entire concept is that it starts with the premise that everything should be reusable, and then proceeds to assume SLS and the ULA launchers for everything important. I count 12 expendable launches just taking MBC to MBC-Surface Ops (Figure 5) , which begs the question, "Why?" Never mind BFR, why aren’t any of those Falcon Heavies? You can’t argue Technology Readiness Level–FH will make its first flight this month, even if it blows to pieces. SLS won’t launch for at least another year, followed by a 3 year hiatus, and doesn’t even have its real second stage designed.

The only logical answer I can come up with is management not wanting to get ahead of their NASA patrons. The optimist in me says there’s an internal LM plan to make their equipment FH-compatible, to be announced as soon as NASA gives the go-ahead. The pessimist in me says LM management has ordered that using SpaceX vehicles in a leading role is off-limits. for planning. I hope that’s not the case, because I’m starting to think about how some of the SLS infrastructure could be utilized in a joint architecture–just not with SLS as the booster.