Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA's 'Rocket to Nowhere'? (op-ed at SDC)

[93143]

There is a mission for SLS.  Congress has made it clear that the immediate goal is the moon, same as with Project Constellation and the previous NASA Authorization Acts.  The international partners have made it clear that they're on board with this.

Or rather, that NASA is not on board with them, because Obama said we're not going back to the moon and the Administration refuses to discuss it (and spouts nonsense about how we'd be going "back to square one" if a lunar mission were announced, as if SLS and Orion weren't blatantly two of the three pieces necessary for such a mission).

Under these circumstances, naturally none of the mission-specific hardware is on any sort of fast track.  And of course there's not money for it, because Congress can't exactly appropriate money for a project that the White House refuses to let NASA do.

And without an agreed-upon, funded mission, naturally it is impossible to come up with a plan to fly more often.  SLS isn't all that expensive to launch if you already have the system in place, and the current manifest is nowhere near the maximum flight rate that could be supported even with the minimal infrastructure they're setting up.  But if you don't have something to launch, why would you launch?  A solid near-term mission and some decent funding for it would make SLS a lot less useless.

Hopefully this situation changes in a useful way after 2016...  or sooner, though I wouldn't hold my breath...

Critics of the SLS are critical of it not because of the fact that it is a heavy lift LV but because it is a very expensive heavy lift vehicle.

Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs - so we're still working with old STS and CxP numbers.  For those to be valid, one would have to assume that the entire "affordability" push will come to nothing.  So it isn't really fair to say that SLS is a "very expensive heavy lift vehicle" because we don't know what it will cost.

ATK is talking about efficiency improvements on the order of 40%, and if I recall correctly that's implemented, not projected for the advanced boosters (which would be another 40-50%, assuming something like the Dynetics boosters don't prove even cheaper).  Plus the recovery and refurbishment costs are deleted.  Aerojet Rocketdyne is talking about consolidating production lines by 60%, and using new technology like selective laser melting to manufacture parts for 35% of the traditional cost and in a few days instead of a month.  Not to mention the SSME Block III manufacturability improvements, which were quite dramatic and never implemented, but which are no-brainers for RS-25E.  The core manufacturing process is far beyond what was used for the ET, with much more sophisticated automation and massively reduced part counts.  These are not small improvements, even leaving aside the draconian "right-sizing" that limits the flight rate to a couple of launches a year in order to save on fixed costs.

Even NASA management is trying to (or says they're trying to) minimize overhead and red tape.

The marginal cost to launch SLS Block 1 wouldn't be much more than $300M in modern dollars even if no affordability improvements were implemented; the actual system should be less.  This doesn't rely only on my calculations from the 2011 budget availability scenarios document; it also roughly agrees with what simple deltas on DIRECT's Jupiter numbers show.  (Make no mistake - SLS, leaving aside the advanced boosters, is a Jupiter.  It's just one of the bigger ones.  DIRECT produced estimates for what they called "Stretched Heavy" configurations, but never publicized them.)

That infamous $500M per launch target number was never said (at least not by NASA) to be a marginal cost.  It's actually not entirely impossible that it was supposed to be a total cost.  The statement was simply launch cost in the context of a flight rate - one flight per year, IIRC - and followed by a comment about this "more efficient flight rate" being necessary to achieve the cost goal...

...

Even if you're talking about development costs, the numbers aren't quite as stark as people are making out.  SLS Block 1B is not $20B; it's probably closer to $12B if I understand correctly (though that might be a couple billion low if I don't understand correctly).  But that's including the $4B or so that has already been spent on it, and the billions more that would be spent before a cancellation and switchover could be got through Congress and implemented.

If you include currently-projected ops costs during several years of doing nothing with Block 1 while trying to develop Block 2, yes, you'll get past $20B pretty easily...

As for the competitors, I'm pretty sure the $2.5B number from SpaceX didn't include the main engine (another $1B or so), and I know it didn't include a high-energy EDS or its engine.  The number was for a frankenrocket that used ganged crossfed cores with a Falcon 9 upper stage.  And their stated $300M launch cost probably didn't include fixed ground infrastructure costs at LC-39, which is where they wanted to launch from (and apparently still do).  A real BEO HLV would be more, even leaving aside costs incurred by NASA to cancel SLS and switch horses.

Regarding ULA, last I checked you couldn't get even Phase 2 for $5.5B, because you need ACES (ie: Phase 1) first, which is a $4B project by itself even without the depot option.  (Phase 2 should be only a few billion on top of Phase 1; I honestly don't know where he got $5.5B, unless he just added together the historical development costs for the Atlas V and Delta IV.)  And that takes you to the end of the low-hanging fruit; to get a real SLS-class HLV you need to do Phase 3, which is much more expensive.  IIRC SLS Block 1B is cheaper, even if you include sunk costs.

I know there are other options besides an SLS-class HLV, but this post is long enough as it is.  Besides, the issue is not that the government can't afford missions with SLS, but could afford them with something else.  The differential cost of SLS, even if it is positive in a given instance, is miniscule in the context of federal discretionary spending, never mind the whole budget.  The issue is that the government does not choose to fund those missions.  Replacing a rocket that they do choose to fund with one that they don't is unlikely to help, unless very carefully handled.

...

I'm not denying that a clean-sheet, cost-optimized SpaceX super heavy, if it gets built, could be significantly cheaper for NASA to use than a government-procured, oldspace-built legacy technology rocket like SLS, even if the Mars colonization idea falls through.  There should be no need to misrepresent the numbers to try to make it look more obvious than it is.

If you really want to debate with him, read his book and the references, then come back and tell us which part of the book is wrong, and which reference is wrong.

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading.  It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

[su27k]

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading. 

Please enlighten me, which statement is demonstrably false? I read through 3 pages of discussion, nobody actually presented anything concrete.

It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

So? His audience is not you, he is trying to appeal to the general public and raise the awareness of this issue. Seeing the US is still a democracy, and Congress is controlling NASA's spending, I think this is the correct way to move forward.

[93143]

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading. 

Please enlighten me, which statement is demonstrably false? I read through 3 pages of discussion, nobody actually presented anything concrete.

It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

So? His audience is not you, he is trying to appeal to the general public and raise the awareness of this issue.

You said we needed to read his book before challenging him.  We aren't the general public.  If I read an article that says SpaceX offered to come up with an SLS replacement for $2.5B (misleading) or that ULA could do 140 tonnes for $5.5B (false), or that BAH said SLS will probably only stay on schedule/budget for 3-5 years (misleading), or that if SLS/Orion were cancelled NASA could use the funds for X (debatable, but probably false), or that Falcon Heavy will have been produced "totally without funds from NASA" (false), or that "NASA" wanted to use smaller rockets before Congress forced SLS on them (misleading/false), or that Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket since Saturn V (false), or that the MCT would be a good replacement for Orion (silly), I don't need to read a book to know that the article is not totally unbiased and reliable.

[jongoff]

I remember a time, not too long ago, when everyone that was against SLS was saying heavy lift is unnecessary for anything and everything we want to do. 

That was the mantra.  That was the talking point and that was the bandwagon. 

Now, you can see many of the same people making those arguments have quietly changed the tune.  Now heavy lift is necessary, because quite frankly, SpaceX (Mecca to so many and something to never be questioned) is discussing it. 

Is the mantra now to be heavy lift is indeed necessary but only if it is a hypothetical "Super Rocket" and only from SpaceX? 

Go4TLI,

I'm actually bugged by the same trend. I still think that HLVs (launchers much bigger than say 30-50mT to LEO) are not the right way to go any time soon (ie in the next 10-20yrs). But I've seen the same phenomenon that you've mentioned--where a lot of anti-SLS people now seem to be all in favor of Elon's theoretical HLV.

You may disagree with me on the utility of HLVs, but at least I try to be consistent. :-)

~Jon

[jongoff]

Heavy becomes viable when you're talking about SpaceXesque (!!!) cost, reusability, and SpaceXesque flight rates.

It didn't makes sense when it was expendable, STS derived, costs >$20B to develop, and flies once a year.

Now try saying it:  SpaceXesque.

But do we really know if the SpaceX approach will scale well up to the sizes you guys are throwing around?  Personally I doubt it--I personally think you start running into dis-economies of scale long before that point. I think their reusability work is far more important than building HLVs.

~Jon

[Hauerg]

I think this is a matter of perception. SLS may be seen as something that might fly something like 0.5x to 2x per year. And we all have experienced that any programm with such a flight rate has serious problems regarding $ and safety.
Elons Überrocket might or might not happen. But if it happen nobody expect its to fly once per year.

So IF Elons builds us that rocket and the spaceship, it might be the road to our Heinlein future.
IF SLS flies it still the rocket to nowhere because of (un)affordability.

I never was against HLVs per se. Only against those that cost 3000000000.- annually even when not flying at all.

[su27k]

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading. 

Please enlighten me, which statement is demonstrably false? I read through 3 pages of discussion, nobody actually presented anything concrete.

It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

So? His audience is not you, he is trying to appeal to the general public and raise the awareness of this issue.

You said we needed to read his book before challenging him. 

That statement is made against people who think the article is too short to offer anything useful, while at the same time object him mentioning his book, and dismiss him just because of his profession. So it probably doesn't apply to you.

We aren't the general public.  If I read an article that says SpaceX offered to come up with an SLS replacement for $2.5B (misleading) or that ULA could do 140 tonnes for $5.5B (false), or that BAH said SLS will probably only stay on schedule/budget for 3-5 years (misleading), or that if SLS/Orion were cancelled NASA could use the funds for X (debatable, but probably false), or that Falcon Heavy will have been produced "totally without funds from NASA" (false), or that "NASA" wanted to use smaller rockets before Congress forced SLS on them (misleading/false), or that Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket since Saturn V (false), or that the MCT would be a good replacement for Orion (silly), I don't need to read a book to know that the article is not totally unbiased and reliable.

Well that is your opinion, but unlike him you didn't actually offer any references to backup your claim, even your longer post is just educated guesses ("Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs", is this really true? If so, from my layman's prospective that's a red flag right there).

[93143]

Well that is your opinion, but unlike him you didn't actually offer any references to backup your claim

I checked his references.  They don't, in general, prove what he says they prove.

I'm not going to look up all the information I've seen over the years that enables me to say he's off side (mostly because I've spent all freaking day on this thread and I need to get some research done).  I'm just saying I have in fact seen it.  All of this has been hashed out in detail on this forum over the past few years.

I know this is bad practice; sorry about that...

Though some of it is pretty common knowledge, or even demonstrated by his references...

even your longer post is just educated guesses

Some of it, yes.  But by no means all of it.  I thought it was pretty clear which parts were known data and which ones were extrapolations or approximations.

("Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs", is this really true? If so, from my layman's prospective that's a red flag right there).

Yes, it's true, in the sense I meant (heh).  They said as much publicly.

NASA did preliminary estimates of operating costs before the project started.  They used STS and CxP numbers, and according to my calculations, in a comparatively budget-rich environment they came up with a fixed cost of about $2B for Block 2 including KSC ground systems, and $300M per flight of a Block 1 equivalent.  Orion was $700M total cost at one flight per year.  (All 2011 dollars, derived by me from the numbers in the August 2011 ESD Integration document.)  These agree as well as could be expected with DIRECT's numbers for similar scenarios with a broadly similar vehicle (the J-246).

If their use of STS and CxP numbers means what I think it does, that's the ceiling, assuming no affordability measures at all.  The only way to go from there is down.  And since the affordability measures are still in work (and the preliminary SLS configuration roadmap is obsolete), NASA has not updated the conservative preliminary estimates with real SLS data.  Or hadn't, last I heard...

[su27k]

I know this is bad practice; sorry about that...

That's alright, we all have day jobs to do, my original post is not directed at you, it's against people who dismiss the article without even looking at it (for example, the lack of payload, he mentioned it on paragraph . I certainly do hope someone would write a counter book to provide a balanced view, but even better would be for NASA to run a competition so that we can actually see what the real cost/benefit analysis is, it would save a whole lot of guess work.

[Coastal Ron]

("Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs", is this really true? If so, from my layman's prospective that's a red flag right there).

Yes, it's true.  They said as much publicly.

NASA did estimates of operating costs before the project started.  They used STS and CxP numbers, and according to my calculations, in a comparatively budget-rich environment they came up with a fixed cost of about $2B for Block 2 including KSC ground systems, and $300M per flight of a Block 1 equivalent.  Orion was $700M total cost at one flight per year.  (All 2011 dollars, derived by me from the numbers in the August 2011 ESD Integration document.)  These agree as well as could be expected with DIRECT's numbers for similar scenarios with a broadly similar vehicle (the J-246).

If their use of STS and CxP numbers means what I think it does, that's the ceiling, assuming no affordability measures at all.  The only way to go from there is down.  And since the affordability measures are still in work, NASA has not updated the estimates.

From what I understand SLS Key Decision Point C, which is a NASA report that is supposed to be released soon, will identify the SLS lifecycle cost estimate.  Instead of debating estimates, I'll wait for the report to come out.  Something to keep in mind though is that the per/launch costs will depend greatly on how much Congress let's NASA buy long lead material.

For instance, in 2007 the Shuttle program added a contract modification to an existing External Tank (ET) contract, and that brought the cost of the final 17 ET's to $173M each.  Also in 2007 NASA extended an existing contract for Solid Rocket Booster sets (SRM), bringing those to a cost of $81M/set.  So for each Shuttle flight just those two components cost $254M - but only because they were purchased in large volumes.

The current flight rate for the SLS is undetermined, but if it only flies once every year or every other year, then it's hard to see how any cost efficiencies can be gained for massive custom components.

You previously mentioned that you thought a ULA HLV would be far more expensive than the SLS, but why would you think that?  What are the cost drivers that you think will make a ULA rocket the same size as the SLS significantly more expensive, especially when ULA has economies of scale that NASA can never get?

For instance, ULA launches a dozen rockets a year, so they can spread their overhead costs across far more launches than NASA can, and they also buy far more material than NASA ever likely will.  Assuming the SLS and a ULA HLV are close to the same mass, and rockets are mainly large tanks, it only makes sense that volume purchasing and overhead costs will influence overall costs far more than "design" (I'm assuming that's what you think the SLS advantage is).

Lastly, any talk about cost for a government launch system has to include development cost, so you can't ignore the $30B of U.S. Taxpayer money that is required to launch the first SLS.  If it launches more than once then the total cost can be amortized, but even if the SLS flew for 30 years like the Shuttle that would be $1B/year that would have to be added to fully account for the real cost of using the SLS.

[KelvinZero]

I remember a time, not too long ago, when everyone that was against SLS was saying heavy lift is unnecessary for anything and everything we want to do. 

That was the mantra.  That was the talking point and that was the bandwagon. 

Now, you can see many of the same people making those arguments have quietly changed the tune.  Now heavy lift is necessary, because quite frankly, SpaceX (Mecca to so many and something to never be questioned) is discussing it. 

Is the mantra now to be heavy lift is indeed necessary but only if it is a hypothetical "Super Rocket" and only from SpaceX?

This deserves to be it's own topic, IMO It is more interesting and well defined than the article. (I also think there were some very good replies)

I don't think Elon's monster rocket works in any context I have seen up to today. Absolutely it is probably the best size for moving thousands of people to mars every year, and maybe ten years is quite credible, if someone was buying.

More on topic with the title: "Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA's 'Rocket to Nowhere'", one thing that has occured to me right from the beginning is that you don't actually need a rocket to do that, only the perception of one. I think the demand for a 130 ton rocket will vanish as soon as SpaceX becomes a more credible source of one than SLS. This alone could be a valuable outcome and certainly justify some cheap words.

[M129K]

Critics of the SLS are critical of it not because of the fact that it is a heavy lift LV but because it is a very expensive heavy lift vehicle.

Not necessarily. There's a truckload of people who will tell you HLVs aren't needed, with criticisms ranging from "it's cheaper to use current rockets" to "HLVs are a cancer which should be exterminated and are the reason we don't have cheap space access". There is no unified criticism with regards of SLS.

[93143]

Something to keep in mind though is that the per/launch costs will depend greatly on how much Congress let's NASA buy long lead material.

Why does that matter?  It takes a certain amount of money to keep the lights on at MAF, and a certain amount of money to actually produce a core.  And SLS launches are likely to be scheduled pretty far in advance.  Given that government contractors are not allowed to be opaque about their profit margins, that should be pretty much the whole story.

And we know that the SLS facilities at MAF are being extensively "right-sized", as well as heavily automated using sophisticated manufacturing technology, to reduce the cost of making cores at a low rate.  ATK and Rocketdyne are doing similar stuff, and the preliminary advanced booster effort is along the same lines.

[Also, I'm pretty sure your number for Shuttle tank costs is way high.  Someone must have gotten some wires crossed with those contract numbers.  Historical costs from the '90s were supposed to be around $90M in 2007 dollars (NASA New Start) for the SLWT, and in 2007 and 2008, SSP was paying about $300M per year for the ET line item.]

You previously mentioned that you thought a ULA HLV would be far more expensive than the SLS, but why would you think that?  What are the cost drivers that you think will make a ULA rocket the same size as the SLS significantly more expensive, especially when ULA has economies of scale that NASA can never get?

I didn't say exactly that.  I said a ULA HLV was unlikely to get down to $500M per launch total cost, which isn't a number I would have assigned to SLS at one flight per year if NASA hadn't done so first.

I was thinking of a CBO report in which an Atlas super heavy roughly equivalent to EELV Phase 3 was pegged at over a billion dollars for each test launch, not including other development activities, and presumably over and above any fixed costs shared with the rest of the EELV program.  However, this is probably apples to oranges with the SLS "affordability" target, so I'll remove my comment.

...

Still...  while the Decatur facility is already running and thus costs can be shared, the production line is significantly underutilized, so the proportion of fixed costs borne by the super heavy may not be "right-sized" unless it launches at a fairly reasonable rate.  And since the plant is already running, it could be difficult (if perhaps somewhat less necessary) to do a clean-sheet modernization effort like what's happening at MAF, even without the Air Force objecting to NASA messing with its stuff.

If ULA went with Phase 3B, they'd have MAF in on the game as well as Decatur, plus the engine suppliers.  If SLS ends up with (say) the Dynetics boosters, on the other hand, that's just MAF and Canoga Park for major subassemblies.

ULA might have to come up with a home-grown version of the RD-180, which could add significantly to ongoing costs.  Then again, they might not.  (But man, that is a lot of RD-180s on a Phase 3, especially a 3B.  SLS just has two big dumb boosters providing most of the liftoff thrust.)

Also, a ULA super heavy would have to launch from LC-39, so it wouldn't be able to share any launch infrastructure with the smaller EELVs unless they switched to LC-39 too...

I don't see volume purchasing of raw materials as a significant factor at this scale.  If you're making a heavy lifter at all, you're already getting the bulk price...

Lastly, any talk about cost for a government launch system has to include development cost, so you can't ignore the $30B of U.S. Taxpayer money that is required to launch the first SLS.

...you mean $7.65-8.59B, according to an estimate of cumulative spend to IOC published near the end of 2012.  And a significant chunk of that has already been spent.

Of course if you go past Block 1 (and you should, at least to Block 1B), that's somewhat more.  The 1B upper stage should be about $4B if it uses ACES-style advanced cryo stage technology, or less if it doesn't.

Other options have development costs too.  You basically cannot do BEO exploration with existing launchers.  Something has to be added.  And the more you add to the launch system, the less complicated and squished your in-space architecture gets, especially for distant targets.

Keep in mind that Congress wants to fund SLS, whereas the same cannot be said of the alternatives.  Considering how tiny its budget is in the grand scheme of things, I think this is a significant mitigating factor with respect to its development cost.

[JBF]

There is a mission for SLS.  Congress has made it clear that the immediate goal is the moon, same as with Project Constellation and the previous NASA Authorization Acts.  The international partners have made it clear that they're on board with this.

Or rather, that NASA is not on board with them, because Obama said we're not going back to the moon and the Administration refuses to discuss it (and spouts nonsense about how we'd be going "back to square one" if a lunar mission were announced, as if SLS and Orion weren't blatantly two of the three pieces necessary for such a mission).

Under these circumstances, naturally none of the mission-specific hardware is on any sort of fast track.  And of course there's not money for it, because Congress can't exactly appropriate money for a project that the White House refuses to let NASA do.

This is wrong. Congress can appropriate money and order NASA to spend it in a specific way. They do it all the time for various programs. As long as the President doesn't veto the bill it has to get done.

[93143]

Are you suggesting Congress just totally ignore the White House and NASA Administration (which answers to the White House) and force NASA to go to the moon?

No.  Everybody has to be on board with this.  They're getting more than enough pushback just with SLS alone, and the only reason it isn't worse is that Obama has put his stamp on SLS by specifically rejecting the moon mission.

Besides, Congress isn't a monolithic entity as far as NASA's direction and funding are concerned, and they haven't shown a particularly strong tendency to appropriate large quantities of cash that aren't in the President's budget request...

I suppose they could do it, but they probably won't.  On the bright side, we finally have a budget this year instead of a CR, so maybe they'll surprise me...

[Proponent]

I remember a time, not too long ago, when everyone that was against SLS was saying heavy lift is unnecessary for anything and everything we want to do. 

That was the mantra.  That was the talking point and that was the bandwagon. 

Now, you can see many of the same people making those arguments have quietly changed the tune.  Now heavy lift is necessary, because quite frankly, SpaceX (Mecca to so many and something to never be questioned) is discussing it. 

Is the mantra now to be heavy lift is indeed necessary but only if it is a hypothetical "Super Rocket" and only from SpaceX?

For SpaceX's goal of Mars colonization (whether or not you think they will succeed) I think heavy lift makes sense. For the kind of missions that SLS would perform I don't think heavy lift is the most cost effective option. But that is just my opinion.

It's not just your opinion, RapidPanda, it's SpaceX's view.  After the first Falcon 9 flight, SpaceX put out a press release which included a closing sentence or two to the effect that really big rockets made sense for frequent human Mars missions but not for anything less demanding.  I've been trying to find the press release, because, as another forum member remarked at the time, it was amusingly passive aggressive.

The bottom line is that SpaceX is not inconsistent in pushing Falcon Heavy for medium-term missions while calling for a much larger rocket for Mars colonization.  That doesn't necessarily mean that SpaceX is correct, but it is not being inconsistent, and it has not changed its tune.

[Proponent]

Is there a transcription of Musk's appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Feb 3?
The article says tht Musk "mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing"
These contradict what Musk has said before, particularly the landing. 

He definitely said that

55 seconds, "Maybe just to prove the capability"

And it's pretty clear Musk is talking about flying the moon mission before developing the MCT.  Boozer implies the opposite order, though it may just be sloppy wording, when he says "Musk further mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing.  Following those events, he said, SpaceX would use the huge rocket for trips to Mars."

[JBF]

Are you suggesting Congress just totally ignore the White House and NASA Administration (which answers to the White House) and force NASA to go to the moon?

No.  Everybody has to be on board with this.  They're getting more than enough pushback just with SLS alone, and the only reason it isn't worse is that Obama has put his stamp on SLS by specifically rejecting the moon mission.

Besides, Congress isn't a monolithic entity as far as NASA's direction and funding are concerned, and they haven't shown a particularly strong tendency to appropriate large quantities of cash that aren't in the President's budget request...

I suppose they could do it, but they probably won't.  On the bright side, we finally have a budget this year instead of a CR, so maybe they'll surprise me...

That's the power of the purse.  If enough of congress really wants to do something they can force it through. The problem is not enough of congress really cares which is why we have a rocket but no mission.

[Dave G]

And it's pretty clear Musk is talking about flying the moon mission before developing the MCT.  Boozer implies the opposite order, though it may just be sloppy wording, when he says "Musk further mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing.  Following those events, he said, SpaceX would use the huge rocket for trips to Mars."

My guess:  Musk has the whole plan in his head, and when he talked about the moon, he mixed different phases of that plan.  In other words, FH would go around the moon but not land, but MCT may land on the moon to prove the capability before going to Mars.

[Proponent]

FWIW, the biggest problem I have with this article is that Rick Boozer changes tack mid-way through the article. It starts by mentioning MCT and what I presume is Atlas-V Phase-3B. Then, suddenly, mid-step, he switches to talking about some hypothetical capabilities of Falcon Heavy in a very assertive way before quietly adding a disclaimer that his assertions are basically guesses as SpaceX have not mentioned such a mission or what the hardware and mass requirements would be.

Yeah, I think Boozer would make his point better if he didn't mention MCT at all.  He would be better of just focusing on the indications that ULA and SpaceX have given that they could develop an SLS-like capability at considerably lower cost.