Well, Hillary's science policy has been released. No surprises here.

The "space policy" is motherhood (again, as expected):

Hillary will enhance American leadership in space, including:

• Pursuing an ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program, by implementing a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.
• Developing a comprehensive space-based Earth Sciences agenda, including full funding for NASA's Earth Sciences program and a space-based Climate Change Initiative that will help us secure the scientific knowledge we need to combat global warming.
• Promoting American leadership in aeronautics by reversing funding cuts to NASA's and FAA's aeronautics R&D budget.

Leave aside the fact that aeronautics is not space (though it's part of NASA).

Who decides what is "balanced"? Absent details, there is nothing here to critique or comment on. If there is a real policy (goals, schedules, budgets) behind the platitude, there's no evidence of it.

And of course, it's all about "exploration," as usual. Same mindless pap we've seen in Congressional or presidential discussions of space for the past fifty years.

Oh, well, at least, unlike Kerry's, it doesn't mention George Bush.

A (little) more there than meets the eye:

"Pursuing an ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program, by implementing a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science."

The key words here are "balanced" and "expanded." I read that as a (perhaps significant) reduction in human spaceflight funding and a (perhaps modest) increase in robotics.

Budgeting is almost always incremental, so that's about as big a shift as could be expected.

And of course, it's all about "exploration," as usual.

Yeah, unlike the Vision for Space Exploration, which was truly visionary, Clinton boringly focuses NASA on exploration.

Yeah, unlike the Vision for Space Exploration, which was truly visionary, Clinton boringly focuses NASA on exploration.

[Ssswwwooooosssshhhhh]

That was the sound of the point going right over Mr. Harris' head.

Not surprising, though, when someone's sole purpose of existence is to hate George Bush.

Who decides what is "balanced"? Absent details, there is nothing here to critique or comment on. If there is a real policy (goals, schedules, budgets) behind the platitude, there's no evidence of it.

Honestly, isn't that what the Clintons, both of them, do so well. I don't trust either of them, and certainly don't want her as President. Still, you have to respect their ability to say something as if it is meaningful and important, yet has nothing of substance on which they could be held accountable or critiqued.

Wasn't Lori Garver, ex-NSS Fuhrer, supposed to have had a hand in Donk candidate space policy positions? This sounds *a lot* like her style.

Balanced, robotics, climate and aeronautics are code for reducing exploration because there won't be enough money in NASA to restore all the funding to the cut programs and raise funding to the expanded programs. It's basically a blank slate to Congress that says we have no measurable goals and no ambition so consider this a pork barrel. In its own way, it's an anti-Bush policy where "robotics" is a euphimism for balancing the budget and raising taxes, "balanced" is a euphimism for multilateralism and compromise consensus budgeting, "climate" is pretty literal and "aeronautics" is code for social spending versus military and more compromise consensus budgeting. Compromise consensus budgeting gets us logrolling and pork and jack-of-all-trades agencies that do not have the resources to match their responsibilities as their responsibilities expand faster than their resources. I like a vision that has a narrow focus so the worst programs don't get funded. I call that specialization. I infer Clinton's campaign (and Kerry's) call that unbalanced.

this is utter nonnews. this statement has like 0.5 bits of useful information in it, and thats stretching it.

Someone ought to pose this question to presidential candidates: do you see any reason to break up NASA into different organizations ?

to clarify a bit: that question would give little opportunity of ambigous yadda yadda exploration science yadda yadda balanced talk.
Can anyone think of better, more focused one ?

Sam is entirely correct. There are two ways that NASA can be "balanced" along the lines Hillary suggests. Add more money to NASA or gut the exploration account to fund the rest. Guess which approach Hillary will employ.

Also, there is no mention whatsoever of commercial space. I suspect it will be taxed and regulated out of this country under a Hillary Administration in any case.

I got one useful bit from that statement, Hillary favors continued government domination of space. No sign of the private sector in her vision.

I went further into the link and found a little more content then what Rand spoke of...

"Pursue an Ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program. Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the "brain drain" that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions. "

Note this bit in particular...

"...speed...deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles..."

...sounds like a committment to increased spending on the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles.

Don't know how she can manage that without a large budget increase for NASA. Or substitution of a different launch vehicle architecture. Or she's just making extravagant promises to the gullible.

Note that there's no mention of what those "other human missions" are. Also, one could use EELVs for the "next-generation launch vehicles."

Devoid of anything new. You're right Leland... looks like Lori Garver's work.

Believe me Rand, no one is more suspicious than me when it comes to spotting the danger signs of dumping manned space exploration. The Hillary document has hints of that, but I have to note hopeful hints too.

For example, the vague and suspicious "other human missions" is followed by "future human exploration". And if speeding up deployment of the next generation human launch vehicle means abandoning Ares I&V in favor of EELV, in my book that's a good thing.

Ever since the Kerry campaign I've been suspicious that any new Democratic administration would abandon VSE and return to the navel-gazing Earth-focused niggardly space program of the Clinton administration. I can't say that this Hillary policy post supports that suspicion. That fact in combination with Hillary's co-sponsorship of the $1 billion supplimental NASA spending bill gives me a faint hope that a Hillary administration wouldn't spell doom.

But to be clear, it's ONLY a faint hope.

Re: "Exploration"

I still haven't seen a definition that includes "why" you explore. "Exploration" is an action, not a reason.

-MM

"Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the "brain drain" that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions"

That sounds like codespeak for keeping the Ares V.

It is about the only think that could occupy the workforce.

I agree, this whole speech smacks of being developed by Lori Garver from what I have read of her pervious stuff.

Still, at this stage of a game, this is an exercise akin to speculating on angelic pin-head dancing.