In article ,
says...

That said, I do expect a future generation craft to have substantial
downmass, simply because as our presence in space grows, so will the need
for such things.

But, again, it's the right approach, fly what's needed now, with a little
extra... add on to that.. and evolve.

(here's a wild idea... want huge downmass, fly an inflatable heatshield
inside an Orion trunk, expand in orbit, attach your payload, land it.
Elegant, nope, practical, not very, but probably a cheap way for now to get
something more than we have now.)

Agree completely. Such a solution would seem to be ideal for larger
"cargo" down-mass.

I'm happy to see NASA finally getting around to testing this sort of
technology which is also needed for bigger Mars missions. The last
rover landing using the "sky-crane" approach looked more than a bit
Rube-Goldberg to me.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer