Space Politics has three posts, with a lot of commentary, here, here and /here.

Also, the Carnival of Space for the week is up.

[Update at 10 AM]

Keith Cowing notes that this is the most any presidential candidate has had to say about space policy in a long time (perhaps in memory). Whatever you think about what she said, that's probably right.

The bit from the NYT story was telling.

There is no hope for VSE in a Hillary administration.

Everyone who thinks that Hillary talking a lot about space policy is a good thing raise their hand.

Not I.

Certainly Hillary's promise to gut space exploration combined with her silence on space commercialization should be cause for alarm for just about everyone.

Looks like Orion and Ares I will replace the Shuttle and just serve the ISS. And NASA will just continue robot science missions beyond LEO.

So much for COTS, Bigelow and the other alt.space plans for LEO.

So much for COTS, Bigelow and the other alt.space plans for LEO.

How in the world would any of this hurt Bigelow or other alt.space plans for LEO (which were happening before COTS existed)?

Let me explain this one to you, Rand. A careful reading of Hillary's space policy would indicate that she plans to drop COTS and just use the Orion/Ares for resupplying ISS. That would make sense if she is going to gut VSE and hence a need to justify Orion/VSE that doesn't involve all that politically incorrect space exploration.

Without COTS, private orbital space craft are in the indefinate future (indefinate enough to put Bigelow into its grave for lack of a way to get to the Bigelow space station.)

In any event, Hillary's planned taxes and regulations would cripple commercial space for years to come.

Mark, loosing COTS would hamper private space operations growth a bit, but what Bigelow has in mind is not dependent on COTS and as such I don't think his plans would be altered at all.

Cecil,

Bigelow needs three things to close his business plan.

ITAR to launch it - do you think ITAR will be easier under Clinton II?

A system to take customers to it - Will Dragon be able to close its business model without COTS funding? $200 million is a big chunk of change and Elon's under a tight schedule to meet it's requirements - 4 successful Falcon IV launches by the end of 2009. Will NASA be as forgiving of a schedule slip under a new Clinton appointed administrator as it has been under Dr. Griffin? Especially if NASA needs to justify Orion/Ares I by ISS support.

Customers - if Bigelow's customers need to buy their rides on Soyuz because its the only game in town why bother with Bigelow's station when they could go to the ISS instead as current space tourists do?

Bigelow's Sundancer is premature, like someone opening a dot.com in 1988 instead of 1998. The alt.space infrastructure is not there to support it.

Let me explain this one to you, Rand.

I obviously can't stop you from pathetically attempting to "explain" things to me, Mark.

Without COTS, private orbital space craft are in the indefinate future (indefinate enough to put Bigelow into its grave for lack of a way to get to the Bigelow space station.)

Despite your fervent fantasies, Mark, that was not true before COTS, it's not true now, and it won't be true with the death of COTS. Or at least, it's not more "indefinite" than anything that NASA plans.

Rand may think that private orbital space craft will happen in the near future without a COTS program, but I suspect that he is alone in that assessment. Private space will be hard pressed to even get their sub orbital joy rides off the ground in the tax and regulatory environment that would be in store under a Hillary Clinton administration, not to speak of her apparent plans to transform the Ares1/Orion vehicle into a shuttle part II. He may think that attempts to explain these sad facts to him "pathetic", but that doesn't make the facts less true or less sad.

Cecil, I have to disagree. I don't think we get commercial orbital transportation in the near term (at least at what Bigelow is looking for) without COTS. It will certainly happen eventually (though under the tax and regulatory environment in store for us under a Hillary administration, "eventually" likely means a long time.) But it will likely be too late for Bigelow.

Hillary policy worst of all possible worlds!

Billions of pork dollars will still be spent supporting manned spaceflight, but limited to non-exploration! Billions to be wasted stuck in LEO.

How are SpaceX launches any different then Orbital Science, Boeing or Lockheed-Martin launches? All have business models built on a combination of government and commercial (mostly comsat)contracts for placing satellites in orbit. The only difference I see is that Elon Musk is just using his own money at the moment instead of going to investors.

Billions of pork dollars will still be spent supporting manned spaceflight, but limited to non-exploration! Billions to be wasted stuck in LEO.

"Wasted," Brad? "Stuck? "Non" exploration? "Joy rides"?

You and Mark sound awfully bitter.

I've never heard that sort of trash talk from people who've actually been in space. They generally talk about how great it was.

Yet, people who've never been in space complain about being "stuck" there and curse the government for not giving NASA enough money to go someplace cooler.

I would say you sound spoiled and jaded, except you have nothing to feel spoiled or jaded about. You aren't stuck in LEO, you're stuck on Earth. If NASA hasn't enabled you to go someplace as droll as LEO, what makes you think they will get you to ?

How are SpaceX launches any different then Orbital Science, Boeing or Lockheed-Martin launches?

They're lower cost (or at least they are advertised to be) because (at least prior to COTS) Elon is developing his system with his own money, instead of on a cost-plus contract.

Not that I understand the point of your question.

"You ... sound awfully bitter. "

"I would say you sound spoiled and jaded, except ..."

Projecting much?

Eddie, you have officially crossed into the realm of no longer worth reading.