An article about the new NASA direction I agree with

Shortly back, I wrote in "Asteroid collisons and directions in space"

the following:

"The change of direction taken by NASA, if it works out, could be healthy; what needs to be developed are the following:

1. a capability to take humans to the Lagrange (L5 points);
2. a capability to take space repairmen to geostationary orbit to repair or de-orbit defunct communications satellites;
3. a plan to deal with orbital debris and defunct LEO satellites that could either be repaired or need to be de-orbited (the latter could be dealt with by a remote deorbital booster, but grappling with a variety of satellite configurations is a problem; and
4. a capability to rendesvous with a near-Earth asteroid."

So in an insightful editorial, Jeff Volosin echoed my thoughts (which I am sure are not unique, of course):

Some thoughts on the NASA vision

"3) For those who have a passion for the human explorer. For now, why not focus these astronauts on the one activity that has actually captured the interest of a good number of average Americans - satellite repair. Based on our experiences with the Hubble Space Telescope and other Shuttle based repair missions - and the construction of the ISS, we are perfectly positioned to be the country that leads the way in developing large human tended satellites of the future for Earth and Space Sciences that can be serviced and expanded over time to increase their data gathering capabilities. We could even react to specific threats (hard power threats) by changing out sensors and components on military satellites as well - creating a much more adaptive system in space than any other country. Going even a step further - with the bazillion satellites sitting in GEO that provide critical communication services - isn't it time to develop a way to repair and upgrade these expensive assets - human ingenuity and creativity would be much more valuable for these tasks compared to robots."

and then this, too:

"4) Along with this new mission for humans in space - NASA should - for the millionth time - drive toward development of a single-stage-to-orbit capability for crew. Imagine a day where astronauts file a flight plan prior to jumping into their spacecraft (which can be parked on the flight line of any major airport in the country) and take off (in any weather - without the need for a Mission Control) to go up for the day to service a satellite in LEO or GEO or to visit the ISS. Again, highly reactive - mega soft power - maybe even a bit of hard power capability. I don't think that commercial providers are ready to take this step without NASA leading since a great deal of the ideas for getting people into orbit commercially leverage simpler technology solutions developed by NASA many years ago (like a capsule on a rocket)."

My feeling is: if you can get to geostationary orbit, you can get to a Lagrange point or to a near-Earth asteroid. Developing the capability to get there has real commercial payback. Having the capability to get there has scientific and technical rewards.

So do it that way, already.