On the day before the election, my analysis of the two candidates' space policies can be seen at TechCentralStation.

[Update a few minutes later]

For what it's worth, the Washington Times largely agrees with me.

[Update at 9:40 AM EST]

I should add that there are some more space policy and election pieces over at The Space Review this morning. Mark Whittington vigorously fisks one of them, in which Greg Zsidisin says that it's basically immoral to vote for Bush, despite his better space policy.

And Jeff Foust has written the article on Hubble Servicing that I've been intending to write, but haven't yet gotten around to. But he probably did a better job than I would have. Bottom line, with which I fully agree:

While a replacement spacecraft has the highest expected value in this study, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right approach: there are good scientific reasons for keeping Hubble operating, not to mention the intangible benefits of repairing a spacecraft that has become an icon for the space program. What these studies do suggest, though, is that it is far too soon to exclude this and shuttle servicing options in favor of a risky robotic repair mission. The time may come when robotic servicing emerges as the best option, but, the administrator’s comments to the contrary, that time has not yet arrived.

He also has a review of a new biography of late Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard.

I agree that Kerry will backpedal from exploration, but what concrete steps does the Bush vision have that makes it compelling enough to vote for? A few hundred million in study money? Prizes? The CEV? My answer is that Bush won't extend the shuttle life or beef up our international commitments to the ISS or some inward-looking successor project. Vision is a good start, but your "damning with faint praise" comment may be an understatement.

Could not the the robotic technologies developed for repairing Hubble help finish the ISS, if the Shuttle launch schedule is curtailed?

The 'Hubble Servicing' link just points back to your weblog.

Exceedingly well said, Rand. May Team Bush hire your opinions at $500/hour once they've sent Senator Floppy back to the Senate to continue giving long speeches about the masochistic pleasure of being a loser. As a taxpayer, I'd call it money well spent.

I especially like (if I've read you right) your point that steadfastness is a key component in national space policy. If there is to be hope of private initiative in space, it is clearly essential that the national-level environment stay predictable and mildly positive (or at least neutral). Uncertainty is death to private investment.

Also, in re the Hubble, I think the reservations in the linked article are very much to the point. I like HST images as much as the next person, they're very pretty and I would never underestimate the importance of the gee whiz lookitthat factor in promoting good science. Sojourner's Web page did more for a robust Mars exploration policy than any number of ponderous Presidential speeches.

But Hubble is old, and while it -- or any orbital telescope -- can still do very good astronomy, I think the more interesting frontier is probably in the IR, which can penetrate dust, peer out to greater redshifts, explore earlier stages in solar system formation, et cetera. Which is why I'd rather pump that $1.5 billion into, for example, the James Webb near-IR telescope.

Also, building the JWST will be much more technologically adventurous than propping up Hubble. I like that. Basic research should be daring.

Of course, I'm assuming a Shuttle mission to HST is ruled out. Which is panty-waisted folly, to my mind. If the purpose of a national manned space flight program is not to take serious risks in the pursuit of personal and national glory, then I don't understand why we have one at all. I mean, safe haven? If our grandfathers had worried about safe havens (or safe foreign policies) half as much as we do we'd still be walking everywhere, grinding corn by hand, and defending ourselves from hyenas with pointed sticks.

I would rather my descendants were awed by the courage and daring of my generation than by the length of our carefully-tended lives.