Too busy to blog (I'm working overtime, have a sick furnace and a sick cat), but fortunately, Henry Vanderbilt over at the Space Access Society is picking up the slack. He's very upbeat, and has an update on X-Prize progress, a smart analysis of the president's space initiative, and the new House legislation on launch regulation, a subject that I still haven't had much time to analyze.

As part of his new space policy analysis, he also has a powerful argument against the "Bush space policy hoax" folks.

...we think this new plan is very unlikely to be what many are claiming, mere election-year feelgood puffery. Were it so, the Administration would be making promises left and right, jobs for everyone and a contract in every district, and not worrying overmuch whether the Congress would fund it all once the election's over. Instead, the White House and NASA HQ have been notably reticent about reassuring the established NASA manned space Centers and contractors that they'll all have major roles in the new initiative. Refusing to promise job security is a poor way to win votes. It is, however, a good way to keep options open to implement the sort of major restructuring NASA will need to meet the new program's ambitious goals within relatively modest budget increases.

It's long, but read the whole thing.

[Update on Tuesday morning]

There was one specific other item of note from Henry's report that I would have mentioned last night if I hadn't had the cat and furnace problems. Pioneer Rocketplane apparently has funding to build their suborbital vehicle, thanks to tax credits from the state of Oklahoma. Mitchell Burnside Clapp, founder and president, told me about this over a year ago, but it's public information now.

I think that 2004 will continue to be a very interesting year for the new emerging space transport industry.

> ...we think this new plan is very unlikely to
> be what many are claiming, mere election-year
> feelgood puffery. Were it so, the
> Administration would be making promises left
> and right, jobs for everyone and a contract in
> every district, and not worrying overmuch
> whether the Congress would fund it all once the
> election's over. Instead, the White House and
> NASA HQ have been notably reticent about
> reassuring the established NASA manned space
> Centers and contractors that they'll all have
> major roles in the new initiative. Refusing to
> promise job security is a poor way to win
> votes.

I think Henry's "powerful argument" is largely based on conjecture. In 1984, did Reagan really promise MSFC, JSC et al. would be getting their slice of the Space Station pork and that cost would be no object?

The new space exploration initiative has been around for only one month, for crying out loud! Beats me how the proponents and opponents of the program can be so sure about what will (and won't) happen... Note, for example, that Reagan rarely mentioned the Space Station during his remaining years in office. Will the same thing happen to the manned lunar program? We just don't know yet. Henry also says the fact no Crew Exploration Vehicle "lead center" has been appointed is a promising sign. So what! The Space Station Freedom project wasn't directly led from JSC or MSFC most of the time, either.

I do think we can safely assume the usual constituents will receive the goodies, *if* the project encounters fierce political resistance. A lot can happen between now and 2015.

MARCU$