Corporations will find ways of making it cheaper and ways of making it pay off. That is a totally different motivation than NASA.
Dan, your assertion is in need of some clarification. Yes, it is true that corporations may find ways of making things more cost effective. But there are areas of technology that overwhelm these same limited corporations. If you remember (from personal memory or from history), it took many hundreds of corporations working together in order to develop the Apollo project. Only a government with sufficient GDP may be capable of sustaining such a venture. Initial innovations are usually managed by a few (people or corporations); But, the first step towards that goal must be met. An unknown, that ultimately may require tremendous financial resources.
The innovation of such a new propulsion technology may require resources greater than what is available in any one or group of corporations. But once that discovery is developed & understood, the innovation steps necessary to improve and make it more cost-effective may kick in. Depends on what scale is required.
Also remember, it took over 60 years from the Wright Flyer to Apollo. The US Government became an enabler to this initial innovation by applying a need for improving the Mail delivery system. Unfortunately it took several World Wars that also aided in the development of this technology by necessity. Again it took many corporations subsidized by the US Government, making this technology flourish.
Some suppose that cheap space flight will enable us to mine the asteroid belt for precious metals & materials that will justify and allow the technology to progress commercially. No one corporation or corporations could progress towards cooperative standards necessary for such an innovation becoming universally practical. Commercial international pilots use the English language as a means of communication during flights. A standard still used today. Standards must be regulated through a common source E.G. Federal Government. It took cooperation on a massive scale. Someone some thing needed to coordinate those enabling standards. Whom do you suppose that was?
First comes the innovation enabler. A sigma innovation step not yet realized. If the innovation may be exploited in such a manor as to make it cost effective, step-wise improvements may be performed (your assumption with respect to corporations making things cheaper). There is a big If. This kind of breakthrough may not be possible in Steve Job’s garage, or by a Bell Labs graduate student, etc... But as will be the case, someone or some group will discover this new technology. Also remember Edison took several thousand experimental attempts before he invented the simple light bulb.
Virgin took the first steps, but it is only a first step, not unlike the first step developing the Wright Flyer. The Wright Flyer proved the concept, but it took several decades before we had anything commercially useful. And it payed for itself by the innovative steps allowing larger payloads being transported, making it cost effective. Virgin still uses a chemical means of propulsion & is still too expensive making it practical.
Your implication: “That is a totally different motivation than NASA” is not completely on target. Because of increasing budgetary constraints, Can assure you that there is a “make do with what you got” mentality. Successful researchers have found the fine art of scrounging necessary. Every research $ is accounted for in an attempt to make thing cost effective. But you can’t put a price on a new technology until it is realized! Yes, there are NASA projects that are over budget; but, if you knew what the Manhattan Project cost in 2012 $’s, NASA’s budget would represent “chump change”. It all boils down to necessity. And these arguments are and will be discussed by Congress, the Executive branch & ultimately by voters.
NASA’s motivation is focusing some of it’s resources towards that inexpensive propulsion goal. But due to it’s current budgetary limitations and current work-load involvements, such research is limited. A bad economy certainly does not help these efforts.
Lastly, your assumption “Corporations will find ways of making it cheaper...” is slightly flawed in that “it” you have implied with respect to a new propulsion technology, is not yet discovered. Chemical propulsion is too expensive regardless of any step-wise corporate improvement to a chemical based propulsion systems making it cheaper. We will need a propulsion system more robust, durable & cost effective not requiring a limited “one time use in flight” chemical reaction.
If by chance you have that “next step” in propulsion innovation, my hat’s off to you! You will become richer than avaricious can imagine. But you may find that such a technology may require resources only available through a Government’s GDP. So an organization such as NASA may ultimately be an enabling focal point after-all.
This is my opinion, and not of NASA’s.