As though I wasn't busy enough, I find this at NASA Watch (I also heard about it from a friend at Boeing).

White papers are invited that address initial challenges facing Project Constellation and Project Prometheus in general, and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in particular. Enclosed are the key focus area, issues, and suggested white paper topics. White papers that examine one or more of the topics are invited. Papers that address other important aspects (in a manner consistent with the information requested below) are also welcome. Viable white papers should be consistent with the January 14, 2004, U.S. Space Exploration Vision, as well as with generally accepted laws of physics. Innovative approaches—including novel technologies and systems concepts—are welcome, but should be consistent with advances that are 'reasonably achievable' in supporting the established program milestones.

Darned those pesky "generally accepted laws of physics." That's going to restrict my repertoire some (but some other people much more, I suspect). Of course, the real phrase of art is "reasonably achievable." That will allow them to exclude almost anything they choose to.

Now I've got to write a white paper or two, in the midst of everything else.

"I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD."

Attitudes like this may well assure that when Rand's beloved $50 per pound to LEO launch systems finally arrive, it won't be made in America.

And I see no way to blame this memo on Bill Clinton! But I am sure Mark Whittington will find one soon enough. ;-)

NASA has lost my trust, so I don't care very much, but if they WERE going to do something, I would like to see a lot more work on tethers, and "momentum banks" in general. There's a lot of potential for reducing fuel use in orbital transfers. In the longer run, development could lead to better tether systems that could be the stepping stone from suborbital rockets to the moon.

Definitely a research item, but it has a lot more potential than scramjets, and is open to incremental improvement. There's been a lot of talk about space elevators, but that is the far out extreme version. Look at this site for the well-developed orbital system (still far along the development chain).

http://www.tethers.com/MXTethers2.html

"There's a lot of potential for reducing fuel use in orbital transfers."

But of course, fuel is cheap, so...

But yes, space tethers, wireless space-to-space, space-lunar, space-earth power transfers, and ISRU are technology areas in sore need of applied research.
Each of them could become "make it or break it" factor for economically sustainable human activityes in cislunar space.

Well, fuel is cheap, but getting it in space isn't. And some things are just plain hard - changing orbital inclination could be far easier with tethers.

For earth launch, the real issue is mass ratio. A small reduction in the maximum required velocity can have a huge effect on mass ratio. In effect, an advanced tether could be a "second stage." A reusable and relatively small craft would be far cheaper to run than a monster SSTO even if the fuel is free.

My feeling is that tethers (but not space elevators, not for some time at least) will be the "railroad" that opens earth to orbit and earth to moon travel. But I don't think NASA has any real incentive to develop it - it only makes sense for high volume use.