"I've been thinking about this subject matter for ages. I really think we should split the requirements up.

1. To orbit Requirements.

2. Outer orbit Requirements"

Requirements for who?

Me, you, everyone, and/or NASA?

I don't see any reason why NASA needs to own a vehicle that can get it to orbit. In other words I don't see any necessity that NASA be in charge or be managing the building and operating launch vehicles. I don't see this as requirement for NASA.
Obviously, NASA has a requirement to be able to get into space, but if NASA can buy launches from X-Space, Boeing, Lockheed, etc, then the necessity to be building and operating launch vehicles is not a requirement.

Now, you could say that the technology of getting into orbit needs improvement and NASA should be involved in management and operation of launch vehicle so as to get this improvement.
NASA does have this task, but NASA also has the task of improving the technology related air plane travel- this doesn't mean NASA should be in the business of building and operating airplanes.

"Permanent Space Tug / Orbiter this would mean the same vehicle can go backward and forwards to Mars. Build it unmanned first as the (until the engines get faster) then added to the structure as time goes by to increase the science that can be returned. Even use the same vehicle to visit Jupiter and its moons."

So, I'm picturing something that functions and is vaguely similar to the Shuttle- or more specifically the Shuttle program. This might be a good idea.
But it would need a few gas stations. I think having gas station should be a requirement, and if you have gas stations, then NASA could possibly have this Space Tug program.
So, if step one of the Space Tug / Orbiter program is to get gas stations built, I'm a fan of it. If NASA wants to build and operate a gas stations, I could be in favor of such an idea. I think there could be different ways of doing this, but getting gas station build and operated is the important aspect, rather than how it's done. I would say though, that delivering of the rocket fuel is something the private sector launch vehicles could/should do.
So, there is no doubt in my mind that having a gas station in LEO is worth 10 billion dollars or more of tax payer's money to build and operate for a decade or so. Now, I think the tax payers could get this and something better for essentially free- but that's nitpicking.

"Build the nuclear reactor on the moon (hopefully all the material is there)"

I think building a nuclear reactor on the Moon could be a good idea, and frankly the only possible reason NASA should actually need to have a permanent base on the Moon. But I wouldn't build the nuclear reactor from lunar material- it's simply too expensive and extremely long and expensive way of getting a nuclear reactor on the Moon.

Making a iron/steel anything on the Moon is billions of dollars- if done right. Making numerous exotic precision parts by NASA on the Moon is nightmare scenario- if they could do it, by the time they did it, they would have forgotten why or what these parts were for.
Just build the nuke on the Earth, have some assembly required on the lunar surface- like perhaps, digging a hole being the hardest part.