I continue to suggest to folks that with a couple of Falcon 9 payloads one could dock a module to boost it into the Earth-Moon L1 point. At which point station keeping would require minimum fuel.

Delta-v to EML1 from LEO is 3.77 km/sec. Assuming an Isp of 320 sec, you get a mass ratio of about 3.3, which works out to about 75 Falcon payloads, not counting any hardware you need to boost.

If you use ion thrusters, the delta-V becomes larger (7km/sec), but with an Isp of 3000 sec you can do it with only about 4.5 falcons. So this plan could be reasonable.

The real problem seems to be that crewed missions to the ISS probably can't use ion engines, and so take a huge payload hit getting there and back, right?

Also, won't radiation be an issue that far from earth?

If we want to fund things, we'll need to pay taxes.

We already pay plenty of taxes. Let's focus on optimization of tax spend than on getting more of it.

We can also reapproproate tax dollars from failed programs to science.

> We already pay plenty of taxes

Who is we? And by what standard is "plenty" measured?

Less tax revenue will result in less accomplished by government; it's inevitable. Already, important programs are cut in the US and UK. For example, as people were dying the US Congress wouldn't fund Zika virus research, and CDC (or NIH) shifted resources from Ebola research and/or treatment. The US military has clearly stated they cannot defend the country and accomplish their mission with current funding.

People can always claim they can 'trim the fat', etc.; it's just words; a promise of something for nothing, government services without having to pay for them. It's been used by politicians for as long as taxes have existed.

I'd be interested in serious research showing where such inefficiencies exist and what can be done, but the claim by itself isn't substantive.