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.

semi-OT...
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=131378
*crosses fingers for the filter*
I don't know how big a deal this is, but it's good to know that folks are still working on methane and making progress.

H/T AvLeak's Ares blog

And yeah, it seems that NASA will never, ever offer the kind of business that Bigelow is willing to guarantee for the right performance and price.

if successful could essentially wipe out the Space Act, which has been able to provide NASA and other agencies with flexibility for procurement innovation.

A small correction, Rand: The Space Act is the NASA charter and does not apply to other agencies (although DARPA has similiar authority in its charter).

Also, Mike Griffin has stripped center directors of their authority to sign NASA Act Agreements without approval from NASA Headquarters. So, there's not much flexibility left.

I don't think I've ever bashed RpK anywhere (and have usually found it annoying when someone does) but them being so obviously "lawyer-happy" really puts me off. I can't see how acting in such a manner has any chance of working to their advantage, they make themselves look like the SCO of aerospace.