If they'd started on page 27, skipping the "system of systems" management & restructuring stuff, it would have been easier to read. After that it's actually pretty cool! In fact, I'm seriously impressed with the list of enabling technologies on page 28 and thereafter.

Page 20-21 acknowledges that space resources include energy, not just materials - "transmitting energy to re-power satellites".

Page 33 hints pretty strongly at pulling out of the 1967 UN Treaty on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and the “Moon Treaty” of 1979, which quote: "prohibits any private ownership of the Moon or any parts of it. The United States is a signatory to the 1967 Space Treaty; it has not ratified the 1979 Moon Treaty, but at the same time, has not challenged its basic premises or assumptions."

I think the US already intends to abandon the Space Treaty, due to anti-ballistic missile defence, but in the future will be further motivated to protect corporate investments with military clout.If a company wanted to develop lunar mining technology, for example, it would want return on it's investment. That might be the right to sell purified metals or other products manufactured from lunar resources. If they don't have property rights, they may never invest. The fact is, without privatization and commercial revenues, no large-scale manned space presence is possible. Only a finite amount of taxpayer money would be invested annually, that would put a ceiling on how much hardware could be launched. If they get more people involved, they could ramp it up geometrically.

The statement on page 34, "It is hard to envision a national space program based on exploration solely by the United States or any future human spaceflight mission that would be flown only by Americans."......seems to be at odds with the statement on page 44: "The American people – the taxpayers who pay the bill – must assert ownership of the space program that transcends politics and the political environment."

Page 27 states that NASA must attract "inventors with precious few assets but their genius and drive." In Canada, no funding is available for anyone who is not a university professor, teaching assistant, or industrial researcher, regardless of educational level, inventiveness, or drive. Massive underemployment is a serious problem here, as it is in many countries, where there are no jobs, or other systems to compensate people with ideas to contribute, but not much else.

So, overall the document is pretty good, with a few dubious issues (as always).