– Al

I have to agree with you there. As we can recall, Richardson, who was considered a VERY good friend of the Clintons and was thought to be in their corner. He came out for Obama really early. The Clintons, in effect, were calling him a traitor.

It begs the question, what was promised for the endorsement. A cabinet position or some bacon for the folks back home. If Richardson jumped on Senator Obama’s campaign that early, I tend to think it was more about what he could bring home to his state, versus what the Clinton’s offered personally. I believe that the new commercial space port and related activities is becoming a major cornerstone of planned growth for New Mexico by Richardson.

If Richardson was the one to put the bug in Obama’s ear about cutting NASA’s constellation program and toss part of it to commercial space does make some sense.

I agree with you, when President Elect Obama first stated the zero tax for small business new start ups he was SPECIFICALLY refering to ONLY new ENERGY start ups. This was pre sept 15 and the wall street melt down. It was only AFTER that he started to change the language to ALL small business and new start ups without adding that new energy only predicate.

As you say, we will have to wait until the actual language comes out of the house and senate.

Mark, this is a rare example of total agreement. While I don’t think it likely that Mr. Obama will “shaft NASA” too much (he has to win Florida again in four years and he has good space advisers, balanced by the need to fix the economic messes he has inherited), if he did it would be a disaster for commercial space transportation. Right now, and for the immediately foreseeable future, NASA (and the DoD) are the customers. I have been and remain truly amazed the apparently limitless ability of many advocates for commercial space transportation to let ideology blind them to simple financial reality. . . .

— Donald

Reader’s point is a legitimate one. NASA is spending $20-25 billion on Ares I/Orion development, but only $500 million on COTS. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that if NASA had to pursue the same civil human space flight goals, but without the largesse of the civil human space flight budget, the agency (and Congress) would have little choice to pursue less costly, less civil servant-intensive, and more commercial solutions.

Even if that weren’t the case, it’s also goes to good Government 101. An efficient, small government is one that leverages, rather than duplicates, private sector capabilities. If the private sector can launch intermediate and smaller sized payloads and crews, then NASA should leverage that capability and focus its resources on heavy lift or cislunar transport or advanced reusable launchers or fuel depots (or whatever the exploration or technology target is beyond basic Earth-to-orbit transport), rather than reinventing the intermediate-lift Earth-to-orbit wheel. NASA would be a lot closer to launching its first human lunar return mission if it were spending some of the $10-12+ billion going to Ares I on a heavy lifter, EDS, and/or lander, rather than competing with its own, unfunded COTS D program for basic ETO crew transport.

“Not that Obama is going to be a big commercial space bppster.”

The Obama campaign’s space policy said otherwise. Under “Space Science and Exploration” and “Closing the Gap”, the Obama campaign’s space policy explicitely states:

“Using the Private Sector: Obama will stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate spaceflight capabilities. NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is a good model of government/industry collaboration.”

See (add http://www):

.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880

“Besides tax increases, one wonders how friendly his pick for FAA is going to be,”

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC, the position of FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation is a civil service (SES) position. They’re not a political appointee.

FWIW…

That’s a big “if.” Anyway, it has a huge loophole. Existing companies will simply start up new companies, and take stock in them in exchange for assets. How will they define what a “new startup” is?