I like the gist of the email. What seems to be lacking are the details. But all things in good time I guess.

If Tumlinson would like to get going now, one idea for getting some equipment into orbit which could be used as habitats might be the shuttle external tank, once the STS gets flying again. If I recall correctly the tank only needs a slight delta V increase in order to achieve orbit. There have been studies done about how to make it habitable. These actions might be supportable through non-heavy lift boosters and their attendant spacecraft, and would act as a short cut to getting manned habitats in orbit to serve as the "anchorage and industrial port" Tumlinson talked about.

As it is now, NASA throws every ET away. All it accomplished after its fuel is spent is providing the folks in the southern hemisphere with a spectacular entry light show.

Re the difference between NASA and private industry, there's the drive to make a profit that's in the latter, but not in the former. As Jay pointed out either here or another BB, compared to its composition in the 1960s, today's NASA has significantly fewer engineers, and many more bureaucrats. The main goal of a bureaucrat is protecting one's territory and self-preservation, of the individuals position, the department, and the organization.

This is a problem that NASA will always have. It should be decisive in evolving NASA from a space flight "company" back to its original concept as indicated in its name "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". Its role would be the primary regulator of space travel, much like the FAA, etc., but hopefully without the FAA's charter to promote air travel while attempting to regulate airlines, etc., and ensure safety, which led to conflicts of interest in the past.

The principles described by Tumlinson are sound. Now let's get into the details, and start planning/executing.

Speaking of executing, a quick aside to Demigrog. About the last person I'd like to see in charge of one of these space companies is Jack Welch. What he did to GE was reprehensible. His misuse of Six Sigma to ensure short term gains was unconscionable. The effect this had on the quality of GE products and the quality of the work environment at GE was nothing but negative.

The only positives were for Welch and his inner circle, who departed with the most golden parachutes imaginable. His disregard for safety of GE employees and the safety of persons using GE products was arrogance personified. His books demonstrate that he continues to be proud of how he gutted the company.

No Welch, nor Iacocca, Ellison, Lutz, and their ilk. We need company heads who are in favor of innovation, quality, and safety as equal in stature to profits. Companies with these priorities tend to be profitable by nature (as opposed to profitable by brute force), and typically require little if any government agency intervention.

Great piece of writing by Mr. Tumlinson. I hope the responses he gets are positive, meaningful, and tangible!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.