Is This a Really Necessary Thing or Just an Exrcise in Engineering?

Right now it takes a huge percentage of fuel for every pound of payload, something on the order ow 10:1.

Now, that is just for a one way ride to LEO. If the requirement is to burn fuel for the return trip the ratio gets much worse, probably closer to 20:1.

While the technology is impressive, I just can't wrap my arms around how this system economically improves on the current system (with or without parachute recovery for the spent stages).

True, but it looks cool.

May be useful for jaunts between Moon bases?

WOW!!!!

A Space 1999 reference!

You must be older than your avatar indicates. LOL

how about http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASMIndex.html

It's a grand vision and a brilliant plan, but I really want to know how NASA planned to put all those planets and moons in such close proximity as shown in the illustration?

Scales a bit off too, I don't think people will be that big in the future.

But it would make getting into LEO a little easier if all you have to do is jump.

Future indoor basketball games me be a problem.

There is always celestial pool.

many people don't can't remember but i was a kid that time - a cold war - i fall a sleep crying that there might be no tomorrow - i think those guys made a great attempt to . . . cope such scenarios

Maybe not as bad as you think. The starting fuel load goes up, but mostly it's an empty tube coming down and there's not as much mass to control so it's not going to double. I assume they are targeting extra fuel costs below the cost of the rocket.

I do kind of like the way these guys think - Solve one problem at a time in manageable increments so the cost of failure is smaller and you have some kind of success to show to help entice more investment.

Or maybe it's Mythbusters on a grander scale.