That stuff sounds good, but
would anyone really say
NASA -- defined by
bureaucracies and
old boy networks, along with
weird academic
hierarchies -- stands
as a manifestation
of the human soul?
NASA's mantra under Clinton's appointee was "too male, too pale, and too stale."
A lot of the Apollo-era engineers, who had since entered senior management, were driven out during those years.
What's missing inside NASA (and lots of other organizations) is that undefineable combination of leadership and competence that characterized Apollo.
But the bigger issue has nothing to do with NASA: no amount of leadership or enthusiasm will make up for the inability for the general population to dream. Nor can it make up for the levels of unchecked cynicism so common to those in positions of influence (and they have a vested interest in keeping people from dreaming).
Kennedy said we should go into space because it's easy, but because it's hard. But he was wrong -- we should go into space because it's intrinsically worth doing. The problem is: how do you make that case? How do you vault past the cynics to get to the dreamers, and how do you avoid disappointing them through failure?
I usually come on to these threads challenging the "privatize space" folks to present a business case for their cause. I personally think "privitization" is bound to fail except in cases where government R&D has already been done, and feasibility has been demonstrated. That's why a revitalized NASA is necessary. Space does offer tremendous potential, but it likewise requires the expenditure of tremendous resources -- amounts only a government can amass -- to make it work.
I hope W's team comes out with a realistic timeline, and I hope that they start it rolling during his next administration.