Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.

As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.

I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.

There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:

I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.

Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).

Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.

This looks like an interesting engine development, but just what is the “critical mission need”? What is the specific application for it?

Over at Space Politics.

I have to confess that I don’t envy Neil Woodward–I have no idea what should be done with COTS. It may well be that there is a fundamental impedance mismatch between available dollars and market, but we’re in uncharted territory here. I do agree that the RpK protest is one of sheer desperation, and as is noted over there, if successful could essentially wipe out the Space Act, which has been able to provide NASA and other agencies with flexibility for procurement innovation. It also seems to me like a way to guarantee no reaward to them in the current bidding round. If I were them, I’d be more focused on Bigelow than COTS right now. It seems to me that’s a more promising market with which to persuade investors to ante up than COTS is.

This week’s edition is up over at Riding With Robots.

“anonymous.space” has some questions over at Space Politics for the Senate to ask NASA:

1) Given the Space Shuttle

“anonymous.space” has some questions over at Space Politics for the Senate to ask NASA:

1) Given the Space Shuttle

“anonymous.space” has some questions over at Space Politics for the Senate to ask NASA:

1) Given the Space Shuttle

Walter Pincus informs us that the Pentagon has gotten a hundred million for the Falcon program (though I’m not sure why the headline calls it a “space defense program”):

The agency describes Falcon as a “a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from [the continental United States] in less than two hours.”

Hypersonic speed is far greater than the speed of sound. The reusable vehicle being contemplated would “provide the country with significant capability to conduct responsive missions with quick turn-around sortie rates while providing aircraft-like operability and mission-recall capability,” according to DARPA.

The vehicle would be launched into space on a rocket, fly on its own to a target, deliver its payload and return to Earth. In the short term, a small launch rocket is being developed as part of Falcon. It eventually would be able to boost the hypersonic vehicle into space. But in the interim, it will be used to launch small satellites within 48 hours’ notice at a cost of less than $5 million a shot.

Does this mean renewed Air Force interest in AirLaunch and QuickReach, or does all of the launcher money go to SpaceX? And how are the funds apportioned between launcher and hypersonic vehicle?