The problem with asking NASA to come up with another launcher is that they don't know how to do it economically. NASA is a bureaucracy, and as such it is incapable of imagining a system that pays for itself. In fact, by their reckoning a system that costs more to operate and takes more people is better because it grows the bureaucracy.
Similarly, the big aerospace companies won't gamble on a bigger market at reduced costs. They are afraid reducing the cost of getting to orbit will just mean less revenue for themselves.
If you look at the development of other technologies, you see a huge ramp up from the first prototypes. Aircraft, computers, etc. But nearly fifty years after we started going into space, we still aren't doing things remarkably different. Launcher development is a dead technology, has been since the seventies. Oh they keep slapping "new" and "improved" on the sides of their missiles, but they are still just missiles.
All the people who figured out how to launch things bought into a dead end paradigm with dead end economics. New people are just starting to look at the problem in the context of improvable technology and profitable economics.
If NASA gets back into launcher development, they will just sabotage those efforts.