Meanwhile, in this week’s issue of The Space Review, I examine some issues associated with implementing that policy, which was originally a tool to win votes on the Space Coast (and an largely ineffective one, given the outcome of the election) but is now seen as the blueprint for the new administration when it comes to space. The first, and perhaps biggest challenge, is determining who should lead NASA while deciding what to do with the shuttle and Constellation. There are other issues that it should consider, given the current state of the agency and overall policy, including whether to stick to the current deadlines of the Vision for Space Exploration; the need to act on, rather than just study, export control reform; and the importance of an open and effective new space council. Undoubtedly the NASA transition team is getting bombarded with suggests like the ones contained in this article, and it will be fascinating to see how they act to put the new administration’s stamp on NASA and national space policy.

In an essay for Discovery.com, former House staffer and NASA official Eric Sterner evaluates NASA’s current situation, good and bad, and calls the incoming president “the wild card in the mix” because of the change in position he made regarding Constellation during the campaign. “Does this change represent a true change of heart and the beginning of a commitment to our future in space, or an opportunistic campaign tactic to appeal to voters along Florida’s important space coast? That remains to be seen.”

An NPR article identifies space exploration as one of 13 key issues facing the next president; in its list it lies between telecommunications and labor organizing. NPR notes the gap between the shuttle and Constellation, then asks, “But can we afford space when we can’t afford better schools or health insurance for all?”

In Arizona, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat and member of the House Science and Technology Committee (and wife of NASA astronaut Mark Kelly), handily won re-election in her southern Arizona district over Republican state senator Tim Bee. But there’s a bit of sour grapes from at least one Republican about her victory, the Arizona Daily Star reports:

As an example of why Bee was a stronger candidate, [Arizona Republican Party executive director Sean] McCaffrey said one could “put two columns with numbers 1 through 10 on it” and list the accomplishments of Bee and Giffords.

“You could get through number 10 in Tim Bee’s column just in legislative accomplishments,” Sean McCaffrey said. “In hers you’d have to include marrying a spaceman. But that’s not to say she’s isn’t a wonderful person; she’s just not qualified to be a congresswoman.”

Cramer’s newly-elected successor, Parker Griffith, also a conservative Democrat, said he will seek a seat on the House Science and Technology Committee, one of three committee posts he’s seeking. (Cramer had served on the Appropriations committee). In an interview with the Times, he described his position on Constellation:

Where do you stand on NASA’s Ares program, designed to take man back to the moon and eventually to Mars?

I am extremely pro-Ares I and Ares V. (A lot of that development work takes place at Marshall Space Flight Center.) I think we need to be especially sure that we accomplish V, which will be our large workhorse for NASA. That is absolutely critical for us to maintain our position as a leader in space exploration.

We will have intense discussion about whether to continue additional shuttle missions, which will involve money. (The shuttle program is set to be shut down in 2010.) We’ll have people on both sides of the aisle wanting to accomplish both things, possibly two more shuttle missions and the completion of Ares I and V.

It’s not clear from the statement whether the two shuttle missions means two on top of the additional shuttle mission for the AMS that Congress ordered this fall in the NASA authorization bill, or if it’s one additional mission plus the AMS one.

Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who is expected to return to his position as the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee dealing with NASA, remains hopeful about adding money to NASA’s budget:

“We’ll continue to deal with NASA,” he said, adding that Marshall Space Flight Center is in a key position. “You know, the role that Marshall plays … you can’t go anywhere in space without propulsion.

“We would like to see a larger NASA budget,” Shelby said. “It’s a big fight every year. … I hope to do it but we’re going to have some challenges and some political fights. But I’ll be there working for Marshall.”

Others, though, have mixed expectations for what the new administration will mean to NASA in general and Marshall Space Flight Center in particular. Mark McDaniel, a Huntsville lawyer and former NASA Advisory Committee member who is said in the article to be working with the Obama transition team, said to expect more funding for the sciences and aeronautics. “The vision of the next White House is very much one that would rely on science and technology as a mission for NASA,” he said.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, though, doesn’t think there will be much emphasis for “lunar exploration” in the Obama Administration. “Although Obama has expressed support for human spaceflight later in his campaign, after saying he would shift that money to other programs, I wouldn’t think it will go to pay for lunar exploration,” he said, adding that “unmanned science will probably be the focus” for NASA in the new administration.

The story, though, is different in the House, and for space advocates not for the better. In addition to Udall, two other House members, Bud Cramer (D-AL) and Dave Weldon (R-FL), also did not run for re-election; both served on the Appropriations Committee, although not on the subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA. A bigger blow, though, were the reelection defeats of Reps. Tom Feeney (R-FL) and Nick Lampson (D-TX); Feeney had been the ranking Republican on the House Science and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee, while Lampson had been promised the chairmanship of that subcommittee had he won.

While these members are generally being replaced by new Congressmen who are, at least on paper, similarly supportive of space (one exception is Udall’s House successor, Jared Polis, whose campaign web site doesn’t include space, science, or technology among his issues), they’ll be at the bottom of the seniority ladder. It will be an opportunity for other members to step up, such as Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA), who had been the vice-chair of the space subcommittee and presumably would be in line to chair the subcommittee after Lampson’s loss. The chair and ranking member of the full science committee, Bart Gordon (D-TN) and Ralph Hall (R-TX), will be back, as well as another staunch space advocate on the appropriations committee, John Culberson (R-TX). It will, though, be a time of transition in the House just as NASA approaches its biggest transition since the end of Apollo.

Compare that to the state at large:

So Obama won the state by nearly 200,000 votes, but lost in Brevard by 30,000 votes. The I-4 corridor did play a role in the outcome—Obama won neighboring Orange County, which includes Orlando, with 60% of the vote—but the Space Coast wasn’t anywhere near the deciding factor. The outcome in Brevard wasn’t that much different from 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection with 58% of the vote in Brevard, in an election where space was rarely mentioned by either candidate. So were voters on the Space Coast convinced that McCain had a better space policy in their eyes than Obama, or was space simply overshadowed by other issues?