It's not the technology, It's the bureaucracy.
It's not science & exploration, it's making a home in Space.
It's not being patient & begging Congress for more money, it's taking risks, making mistakes, and making money.
It's not a jobs program for aerospace engineers, it's humanity's future in Space.
It's not international cooperation, it's competition and survival of the fittest.
It's not dreams, utopias, and intergalactic love, it's faster horses, older whiskey, younger women, MORE MONEY.
It's not free, you have to work for it.
How might you ask? NASA, or more exactly the Federal Government, owns the Space Shuttles and someday the International Space Station. These chunks of hardware are considered to be "national assets" much as a National Park. Of course to NASA they are nearly religious icons, but it must be admitted that they cannot be simply sold off the way the government sells off old jeeps. There will have to be terms and conditions and by setting those terms and conditions the NASA administrator can shape the structure of America's future space transportation industry.
The first step should be to transfer the Shuttles to at least three different operators. That will insure competition. The operators should be required to seek some private financing and to plan to purchase privately financed replacement vehicles by a certain date.
Because the current Shuttles are "national assets", NASA will be able to require specific maintenance standards and payload requirements. This will set a precedence for future standards for industry.
By becoming a tenant on the International Space Station and eventually being pushed on to other operators space stations by competition for accommodations from free enterprise, NASA will be able to support the development of a competitive environment in space.
Congress willingly gave that kind of elective power to Postmaster Brown because it knew he wanted to create an industry. Congress will give that kind of latitude to the NASA administrator if he is committed to a free enterprise space environment.
NASA science programs exploring the deep universe, and the development of a mature cosmological theory have all pointed to the fact that we exist in a universe that will eventually die. As the galaxies spread farther and farther apart and the stars burn up all their fuel, the universe will eventually become cold, dark, and very dead. Of course this will be 100 billion years from now so don't worry about it. Unfortunately NASA is composed of mostly learned Phd's who do worry about it. There is even an almost desperate search for some theory that will escape this ultimate cosmological fate. In the mean time NASA, loaded to the gills with learned Phd's well versed in the aspects of eastern religion, has taken on the "accept things as they are it doesn't matter" attitude of Buddhism regarding humanity's future in Space. In the face of a remote but ultimate cosmological death sentence NASA has simply given up on the future. In NASA's fatalistic viewpoint it's all right to study Space as an esoteric exercise, but real development, industrialization, and colonization is considered pointless and futile.
The optimism of youth, of free enterprise, of Madison avenue advertising, of an activist religious viewpoint is what is needed for our species to have a future in Space. Our science may have revealed a problem in our distant future but it has also proven that we cannot predict the future. Fate is not a certainty.
* An unmanned probe to Pluto. Pluto is the last and most distant planet in the Solar system. Only blurry indistinct photos hint as to it's surface features. A small fast flyby probe of Pluto would complete our catalog of the solar system, and if NASA could commit not to launch the probe on the Space Shuttles it would not be very expensive. Not much knowledge would be gained by a probe to Pluto, it is after all just a ball of ice, but it would complete our knowledge of the Solar System.
* A manned landing on Mars. Sure Mars is just another lifeless ball of rock, but the moon really doesn't qualify as a manned landing on another planet, it's a moon. The important thing about a manned landing on Mars is that the transportation of the people and equipment to Low Earth Orbit should be a commercial operation. NASA should buy the expedition vehicles COD LEO.
* A manned landing on Europa. The last best bet for intelligent life in the Solar System is in the possible oceans under the icy surface of Jupiter's moon Europa. A couple of unmanned probes and a manned landing to analyze samples should settle the question. However, should life be found, Europa should be placed permanently under quarantine to protect the life forms from human interference, and that includes all scientists.
How many more unmanned probes does NASA need? We've seen most everything. We don't need any more probes to take pictures of rocks. How many more manned landings do we need? We don't need anymore footprints on lifeless rocks. The question is, is there a point to any further exploration of Space, if we don't intend to move human civilization into Space? The answer is, further exploration of the universe without the pretext of human civilization is a pointless endeavor whose sole purpose is to support the dying NASA bureaucracy.
No one wins a war of attrition. It is a far better strategy to flank a strong position, not be drawn into a battle which gains you nothing, and attain your objective with the least resistance. By privatizing space transportation we gain industry allies for growth in Space, we take Space out of the political arena, we secure humanity's future in Space, and we stop the never ending battle for space transportation in Congress.
Space Transportation- The day Neil Armstrong stepped on to the Moon, plans should have been implemented to privatize space transportation, we are 30 years behind schedule. NASA is not competent, nor trustworthy enough to be allowed to develop a private space transportation industry. The current X-33 contract is just another example of NASA business as usual, and will delay the start of the real space age by another 30 years. We will be 60 years behind schedule. To demonstrate a commitment to privatization, NASA must sell the Space Shuttles now! Until that level of commitment is demonstrated, no contractor will dare to compete with NASA.
Kennedy Space Center - The NASA launch facilities are vital access points into space. NASA would still try to exercise control of space if allowed to retain them. All Federal launch facilities not exclusively use by the military, should be transferred to state and local control to encourage the development of more spaceports.
Research and Development - Lewis Research Center and other NASA facilities have and should continue to provide support to private industry for advances in aircraft and spaceflight. But, for many years to come there should not be a vehicle with 'NASA' painted on the side. The desire to proclaim it the next "National Space Transportation System" is too great.
Space Station - A recent article in Space News, detailed a discussion as to whether or not 15% of the space station should be available to private enterprise. 100% of the station should be accessible to private research and industry. The day after the first astronaut takes up residence, the station should be sold to private ownership.
Exploration - This is NASA's true occupation, deep space exploration. Earth observation should be turned over to NOAA, leaving NASA to explore where no one has gone before. To realize humanity's destiny in space, NASA can never be allowed the luxury of a safe bureaucratic domain. They must always be pushed to the edge of human space.
Finding pilots won't be difficult, with NASA getting out of the flight business. They will of course be NASA qualified. NASA need never worry about my charging excessive rates, because without the NASA contract I cannot support the Shuttle's expenses. I would have to sell immediately to the next operator who would offer NASA a fair rate. If and when I could support a Shuttle without NASA support, that would be a good thing. With a commercially supported Shuttle, NASA would very soon have a choice of dozens of flights of many different vehicles, and that would be a very good thing!
If however, NASA were to sell their Space Shuttles to private enterprise, with NASA contracts to support operations, ANY payload that used left over cargo bay space and produced revenue would be a "Killer App". There would be no 30 billion dollar barrier, the barrier would be lowered to 5 of 10 million dollars. Develop several such applications for space, and you have a profitable industry. We don't need great revolutionary leaps, just many small profitable steps.
You would really be crazy to invest in a small space transportation company that is directly and politically competing with NASA? They will never get a NASA contract, at least as long as they continue to criticize NASA. Even if they are successful in an effort to force NASA out of the "business" of space transportation, the big companies will quickly move in and push them out. They won't even thank them for the effort. their best hope is to sell out to a larger company. No, investing in a small politically active space transportation company is something you do "for the generations", for the future of humankind. It is an opportunity to make a significant change it the course of human civilization. But for a few less beers or a couple less CDs, you could be a part of a great effort.
Consider apartment buildings. Whenever the apartment buildings in a city approach a certain percentage of occupancy, investors and builders start the construction of new apartments. In this manner there is always a supply of apartments available. If however government intervenes by providing low grade project housing or rent controls, the supply of apartments quickly dries up. Investors will not participate in a government controlled market. The same thing is happening in Space. A proposal was made that NASA reserve a measly 15% of the station facilities for free market occupancy. NASA has not responded. By maintaining total control of space station operations NASA hopes to choose technologies that will fit into their view of space benefits, which unfortunately does not include "profit". By eliminating free market profit NASA makes the hurdle very high for getting into the space station business. That means that investors will not enter the market, and NASA's space station will be Earth's only space station.
If you want a lot of space stations, you provide free market access to 25% of the space station the first year, 50% the third year, and in the fifth year you turn the space station over to a private operator with NASA leasing back space in competitive bidding as compensation for the station operation contract. This opens space to the free market. If space industry develops, NASA will not be able to afford to rent space in their own space station, but there will be many other space stations some of which will consider government occupancy as a customer.
Our current NASA space station is like a neon sign in the heavens that keeps blinking "No Occupancy Allowed", and it will keep on blinking as long as NASA holds space hostage to guarantee it's budget.