Because, last time I checked, the STS is no longer operational and its replacement won't be ready before the end of the decade.
And its enemies would love to kill it thereby wasting money when they should be supporting it.
It was THINKING BIG that gave us the shuttle program...effectively cost us our first and orbiting launch platform when the shuttle mission failed to replace Apollo.
Apollo was thinking big. STS was thinking reusable.
Any prudent business manager knows that "Thinking Big" is not something you do when you're just starting out
We are not just starting out--and how is that starting out when folks want to kill it and not give it a chance
It would be a pretty sweet payoff if the SLS actually flies on time and on schedule... but what exactly does NASA plan to do if it blows up on the launch pad?
What does NASA doe when any rocket blows up? Good grief--you're just being difficult.
If you were in any way concerned about the opinions of real experts you wouldn't be spamming unsourced essays from the nasaspaceflight.com forum.
The piece was from Covault, BTW. Of Av Week and space, and the folks he had on there are hardly unknowns
So Griffin--who wrote AIAA texts is unsourced. A man on Augustine who trashed HLVs, gave us the Roton.
And for those of you who think this isn't relavent--what do you think launches heavy reactors--Delta IIs? Get the ride first--the reactor later.