If you can lower the cost to LEO then the cost to go further out also lowers. Anyway here is how it could happen the billionaires want to go further out any pay to do so and such a mission could be staged from LEO perhaps using modified commercial crew spacecraft. A station is placed at l1/l2 allowing longer term stays further from the earth and again the billionaires can afford it because the cost to LEO has lowered. The billionaires want to land on the moon and that further out station would be perfect for it and again they could support this development.

Anyway from LEO many options open such as using electric propulsion to send cargo and supplies further out. Aero braking is another option that opens up. If you Aero brake you can reuse the spacecraft from LEO saving the cost of launching the whole thing again. Sharing the ride such that millionaires who can’t afford to go further out can afford to ride with billionaires lowering the cost of going into space for both or the Government likewise using this to cut costs (imagine how expensive it would be if you needed the Air force to Fly all personal from the US to their bases and didn’t use commercial airlines as much as possible).

“But if you want to stay in the 20th century with this thing, that’s ok too.”

You may be good at simulations, but you’re not good at understanding higher level financial issues. And you’re not good at understanding what people are really advocating for.

For me, I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space.

I don’t really care where the rockets launch from, nor whether they use cross-feeding or run on methane. None of that matters if it can’t be done in a cost competitive way.

And since money (and the lack thereof) is the main reason we’re not going beyond LEO, I focus on those things that are related to addressing that situation. And since it’s highly unlikely that NASA will be getting MORE money, then how much we pay to accomplish space-related tasks has to DECREASE.

Now do you understand?

Whatever, it beats whatever it is they think they are doing with the SLS. There are only two real destinations in the manned realm, high inclination and equatorial. There are really only two ways to do this simply, inline staging and booster assisted with cross feed. That alone simplifies everything.

Booster assisted with cross feed means … ta da, the core stage is going to space. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you. Thus, Brownsville and the cape and/or KSC, until they can get people to allow land overflights and landings, and international destinations, which won’t be very long now by the looks of it. But if you want to stay in the 20th century with this thing, that’s ok too.

“Since apparently you haven’t bothered to think or simulate any of these variables through, you can think whatever you want. I always try to be ahead of the curve using empirical evidence.”

Launch corridors, no. Though what you’re doing is more like trying to figure out which animal shapes will appear next in the clouds over head – that you want to try to be ahead of the curve using empirical evidence…

You say you run lots of simulations, but I have yet to see any evidence of any. That’s especially true since not that long ago you were advocating that it was a good idea for Congress to dump MORE money into the SLS to make it an SSTO… your simulations became suspect after that.

Not really, there is the F9R and FH and a 650Klbf methane engine, and fundamental physics and GEOMETRY and GEOGRAPHY, as I just mentioned. Geometry and geography makes things a lot easier and greatly restricts the usable phase space here. Since apparently you haven’t bothered to think or simulate any of these variables through, you can think whatever you want. I always try to be ahead of the curve using empirical evidence. Of course, I’d be happy to look at any of your results, Ron, but hand waving doesn’t cut it, at least for it it doesn’t and neither does outright denial that is not based on any empirical evidence at all.