My point is that you can develop deep space architectures that don't require massive boosters if you have the ability to do work in orbit.

That NASA has loused this approach up doesn't change the argument. For example, we're years late in developing high-pressure space suits, which would have made such operations far easier. The history of space suits is a history of politics and contract deals. And of course, I've worked on a number of designs where most assembly is a matter of docking, not an astronaut turning bolts.

In general, I have no problem with large vehicles, but that doesn't mean they have to be exotic. Bob Truax's "SeaDragon" would have been built in shipyards.

Rutan style handwaving space tasks as easy lost all credibility with me when he accidentally killed several people. NASA's "making things hard" often is based on being conservative on safety. When NASA has failed on safety it is usually from complacency not up front neglect. It is much easier to throroughly test stuff built on the ground than in space.

I think we all know that NASA has also killed several people, and we aren't even talking about the casualties during the early years of rocket testing.

I don't know how you draw a line between "complacency" and "neglect." Good design is the largest component of safety. NASA took the approach that they could build a manned space system without escape or abort functions if they just made it reliable enough. The systems I've worked on never took that approach.

Rutan's safety record is excellent, not just in rockets. That accident was their first fatality in over 20 years of test-flying exotic aircraft and countless rocket engine tests.

Our rocket test stand is in the same general location in Mojave, as are stands from other companies, and prior to that one accident, rocket tests have been going on for years down there without major injury, let alone a fatality.