Clark Lindsey has a plan, in the unlikely event he's put in charge of NASA.

It's certainly a lot better than any of the current ones.

>>1.0$SE => to NASA to develop innovative space technologies to support eventual large scale space settlement such as rotating free-flyers for testing artificial gravity and minimal mass shielding designs for radiation exposure reduction.
I'd cut "minimal mass designs" from here and put some immediate ISRU plant project at the top of this technology development list( anywhere outside this gravity well, i dont care if its venus, moon, mars, NEO )
Just to open up the market for crucial stuff ASAP and get the 'feel' of what we will be actually facing eventually. Like solar cells, propellants, shielding and radiator materials.

It's a nice 1st draft, but IMHO it doesn't go far enough. It seems like he wants to replace the old boy's club of the established aerospace players with an old boy's club of up-and-coming players. Better, but in a generation you'll be in the same old mess.

I prefer a more aggressive market-based "must buy 10 launches from anyone who can put payload x into orbit y for z dollars" approach, because at this point in time I think we need to emphasize trying different approaches, and because it's less tied down to being on the inside track. A dark horse can always appear and get into the business.

I thought it was a nice draft. I'd change a few things, (wouldn't we all? :o) but overall it's good.
I do have a few 'comments on a few items:

>Stop the Shuttle program and send the remaining
>vehicles to museums.

The Orbiters maybe, but the Shuttle stack, (ET and SRBs) would still make a good cargo carrier rocket. Given a go-ahead to finally build the recoverable liquid boosters would be even better.

I'd also hedge my be though and follow through with:
>0.5 $SE =>contract for a RLV system to provide 5
>cargo deliveries and retrievals to/from the ISS
>per year starting in 2006. The deal would last
>for three years. Presumably Kistler would win
>this contract but it would be open to other
>bidders.

Kister SHOULD win since they have the most 'complete' vehicle. But it would really depend on a comprehensive review of the ISS mission and probably missions :o)
(real ones, not the political ones that got us the ISS as is in the first place :o)

Then again, the Shuttle stack as a cargo vehicle gives the ability to orbit Skylab size full-up modules/stations in one go. So the ISS may have NO mission :o)

>Cancel the OSP program.

I'm not sure about this one. I'd probably put the entire program under review first. And make a few center managers explain to me and Congress why certain designs that already meet the proposed requirements were actively opposed or deliberately ignored.
We, (the American taxpayer) have already paid for more than one vehicle design under the SLI program that were not pursed. Not due to any technical challenge or design flaw, but simply because people lied to the higher ups in NASA and Congress to advance other agendas.

Lastly:
>1.0 $SE => to NASA for X vehicle projects to
>develop and test particular launch technologies
>(but not intended to lead to operational
>vehicles.)

We DID this one already. I fault NASA with going with a company with no recent commercial experience, (LM has not designed a civil vehicle in decades) while expecting them to develop and build a commercial follow-on vehicle.
THAT was doomed from the start.

But I blame LM, (which got a sweetheart deal with the program, no NASA oversight, and no NASA over all management, NASA was to be treated as a sub-contractor and LM ran the project) for the overall failure of the project.

The overall goals of the project though, (beyond testing hardware) of getting solid numbers for operational costs and reoccurring costs for RLV operations was a good one and SHOULD be pursued.

The X-33 program was not the way though.

Randy