Chair Force Engineer lists the technologies that need to be developed for us to become spacefaring, but are being largely ignored by NASA. I don't agree with his prescription for a scramjet first stage for cheap launch, though. That may be the answer, some day, but it's not obvious that it will be, and it certainly isn't necessary to get big improvements in the near term.

But instead of making progress in these crucial areas, NASA is spending billions to return to the sixties.

not to mention, that throughout its history NASA has paid VERY little attention to most of the things in this list, and none to some. Or maybe they have had attention for paper studies and artists concepts, but not any real projects.

Actually either NASA or the private sector are working on these technologies, though it can be argued that at least space nuclear power should get more bucks.

My top ten would focus on freedom, philosophy and growth and leave technology to follow money of rich people who want to go:

1. Sleep research so people can work and play longer hours; 4 fewer hours a night is worth a 13-year life extension
2. Fertility encouragement so countries like Japan, Italy, Germany and Japan won't depopulate.
3. $100 laptops for everyone. Negraponte should stop whining about Intel aping his business model. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
4. Stomp out the meme that we have to do something about the world ending other than continue to grow the economy and develop resources and skills to deal with whatever comes.
5. Low marginal taxes close to average taxes (20% or less); start calculating income taxes as a percent of net instead of a percent of gross
6. Private property (take that Chavez!)
7. Personal freedom including the freedom to be rich
8. Philosophy of the importance of altruism to the species that allows personal sacrifice
9. Philosophy of risks to life and limb in the service of human betterment being acceptable and paternalism unacceptable
10. Continued subsidy of public health (especially vaccination), education (focusing on value add which may put secondary education ahead of primary education) and communication

"Actually either NASA or the private sector are working on these technologies,"

You have to be kidding. Aside from paper studies, NASA isn't working on any of the items on Chairforce Engineer's list:

1) Space Nuclear Reactors -- No. For robotic missions, NASA does small-scale RHUs, RTGs, and has thought about pursuing Stirling engines. But there's no reactor research ongoing, certainly not at the scale necessary to transport or support astronauts. Griffin killed NASA's one space nuclear reactor program, Project Prometheus, years ago to feed the ESAS, Ares, and Orion beasts.

2) Large-Scale Electric Propulsion -- Again, the robotic program has flown a couple missions with small-scale electric propulsion, but there is no large-scale electric propulsion work ongoing or planned, certainly not at the scale necessary to support human missions. Again, Griffin killed NASA's one large-scale electric propulsion project when he killed the JIMO mission to feed the ESAS, Ares, and Orion beasts.

3) Artificial Gravity -- No one has plans to spin up any space habitats and observe the effects on humans.

4) On-Orbit Fueling -- Despite the fact that Ares V will almost certainly need on-orbit fueling to complete the ESAS lunar architecture due to Ares I/V underperformance and the very short window between Ares I and V launches, NASA is doing practically nothing in this area. There are no significant zero/low boil-off technology demos or in-orbit fuel depot demos underway or planned.

5) In Situ Resource Utilization -- Aside from a couple $100K-class prizes, NASA is not sponsoring or conducting any significant research or technology demonstrations in the ISRU arena.

6) Closed Loop Life Support Systems -- There are no significant technology demonstrations underway or planned to advance the efficiency of life support systems beyond the state-of-the-art demonstrated on ISS.

7) Aerobraking and Aerocapture -- A few NASA robotic missions have demonstrated small-scale aerobraking, but there are no large-scale aerobraking demonstrations for human missions or any aerocapture demonstrations at any scale underway or planned.

8) Reliable, Routine Transport to Earth Orbit -- As defined by Chair Force Engineer, air-breathing RLVs, NASA has no follow-up to the X-43 program or other, finished RLV programs.

Please do a little research before you post any more NASA falsehoods on your utterly misinformed blog. Practically everything you claim about NASA or space in general on Curmudgeon's Corner is wrong. Educate yourself or shut the hell up.

Blithering idiot...

Practically everything you claim about NASA or space in general on Curmudgeon's Corner is wrong.

I think you miss the point:

Curmudgeon (n) -- An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions (American Heritage® Dictionary).

NASA studies all sorts of things (pays to have others do it mostly) at the small study level. All those concepts near the bottom of the technology readiness scale get varying amounts of peanuts depending on the activities of the bigger projects.

These small studies have always struck me as job programs. It's nice to see some things getting done, but when the next study ignores the previous ones I get perturbed as one of the taxpayers footing this bill.

I'm not even sure I want NASA in this kind of business anyway. I prefer to have them exploring and let the scientists do the science through other channels.