<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Texans for (and against) NASA budget increases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/12/14/texans-for-and-against-nasa-budget-increases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/12/14/texans-for-and-against-nasa-budget-increases/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=texans-for-and-against-nasa-budget-increases</link>
	<description>Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Muncy</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/12/14/texans-for-and-against-nasa-budget-increases/#comment-6393</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Muncy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=753#comment-6393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David, 

    I get that you are sincere.  However, there are alternatives to spending $5 billion a year on the Shuttle.  for example, NASA could offer $1 billion a year, starting in FY2011 (i.e. after Shuttle shutdown) to buy rides from t/Space, SpaceX, SpaceDev, etc..., and have four billion left over for exploration.  

    There are PLENTY of ways to get cheap human access to LEO.  But flying the Shuttle will cost $5 billion a year, so there will be no money for exploration.  


     - Jim 

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, </p>
<p>    I get that you are sincere.  However, there are alternatives to spending $5 billion a year on the Shuttle.  for example, NASA could offer $1 billion a year, starting in FY2011 (i.e. after Shuttle shutdown) to buy rides from t/Space, SpaceX, SpaceDev, etc&#8230;, and have four billion left over for exploration.  </p>
<p>    There are PLENTY of ways to get cheap human access to LEO.  But flying the Shuttle will cost $5 billion a year, so there will be no money for exploration.  </p>
<p>     &#8211; Jim </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Davenport</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/12/14/texans-for-and-against-nasa-budget-increases/#comment-6392</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Davenport]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=753#comment-6392</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Donald,

If the Russians and the Yellow Peril are flying to LEO, why  HAVE TO  have something that can do likewise.

I am sincere about this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Donald,</p>
<p>If the Russians and the Yellow Peril are flying to LEO, why  HAVE TO  have something that can do likewise.</p>
<p>I am sincere about this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald F. Robertson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/12/14/texans-for-and-against-nasa-budget-increases/#comment-6391</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald F. Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=753#comment-6391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Perhaps we can a Shuttle mission to ISS about once a year after 2010&lt;/i&gt;

Now there&#039;s a way to spend a lot of money.  Because of the need to employ all those engineers maintaining the infrastructure, the Shuttle launch system costs &lt;i&gt;circa&lt;/i&gt; $4-5 billion a year whether you fly it or not.  One mission costs only marginally less than six missions.  One of the great quandaries NASA finds itself in is the fact that you can&#039;t save money by flying less.  You can only save money by shutting the whole system down.

-- Donald]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Perhaps we can a Shuttle mission to ISS about once a year after 2010</i></p>
<p>Now there&#8217;s a way to spend a lot of money.  Because of the need to employ all those engineers maintaining the infrastructure, the Shuttle launch system costs <i>circa</i> $4-5 billion a year whether you fly it or not.  One mission costs only marginally less than six missions.  One of the great quandaries NASA finds itself in is the fact that you can&#8217;t save money by flying less.  You can only save money by shutting the whole system down.</p>
<p>&#8212; Donald</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Davenport</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/12/14/texans-for-and-against-nasa-budget-increases/#comment-6390</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Davenport]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:36:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=753#comment-6390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt; ... Without more federal money, the shuttle may fly only eight more times rather than the 19 missions that NASA says will be needed to finish construction on the orbiting space station and give the 15-year-old space telescope a makeover, DeLay and Hutchison warn.

&lt;i&gt;As projected in the 2006 federal budget, shuttle funding will fall to $4.2 billion in 2007, $3.9 billion in 2008, $2.8 billion in 2009 and $2.4 billion in 2010.

&lt;i&gt; The funding decline was part of the White House strategy to pay for development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle by pulling funds away from the shuttle. The plan meant NASA would need only modest budget increases to accomplish the deep-space missions foreseen by the president.

...

&lt;i&gt; http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3523361.html &lt;/i&gt;

My recommendations are: budget for only nine more Shuttle flights -- three apiece for the three remaining Orbiters. This includes a Hubble servicing mission. Don&#039;t save the Hubble trip for last. 

Retire the Shuttles at that point? Maybe not. If the Chinese and the Russkies continue to fly cosmonauts and taikonauts after the American limited modified pullout form the ISS, we&#039;ll need to keep flying something. Perhaps we can a Shuttle mission to ISS about once a year after 2010 -- a sort of feel good 4th of July summertime special. Just stop pretending that 19 more Shuttle missions can happen by 2010. 

... Plus, maybe within another decade or so, the great minds of NASA and LM will know how to improve the spray-on foam on External Tanks. It is a possibility!

Also, if we&#039;re going to get more realistic, we&#039;ll have to clean the Thiokal moles, agents, shills, and pimps out of NASA. This includes Mickey Mouse Griffin. I seriously expect him to be a Thiokal VP or exploring other career opportunities after 2008 or anyway, if there&#039;s any justice in this world.  

How to save money? Cancel the Thiokal-based launch missiles and force NASA and the DoD to neck down to just one modular family of missiles -- probably the Boeing Delta IV.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> &#8230; Without more federal money, the shuttle may fly only eight more times rather than the 19 missions that NASA says will be needed to finish construction on the orbiting space station and give the 15-year-old space telescope a makeover, DeLay and Hutchison warn.</p>
<p></i><i>As projected in the 2006 federal budget, shuttle funding will fall to $4.2 billion in 2007, $3.9 billion in 2008, $2.8 billion in 2009 and $2.4 billion in 2010.</p>
<p></i><i> The funding decline was part of the White House strategy to pay for development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle by pulling funds away from the shuttle. The plan meant NASA would need only modest budget increases to accomplish the deep-space missions foreseen by the president.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p></i><i> <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3523361.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3523361.html</a> </i></p>
<p>My recommendations are: budget for only nine more Shuttle flights &#8212; three apiece for the three remaining Orbiters. This includes a Hubble servicing mission. Don&#8217;t save the Hubble trip for last. </p>
<p>Retire the Shuttles at that point? Maybe not. If the Chinese and the Russkies continue to fly cosmonauts and taikonauts after the American limited modified pullout form the ISS, we&#8217;ll need to keep flying something. Perhaps we can a Shuttle mission to ISS about once a year after 2010 &#8212; a sort of feel good 4th of July summertime special. Just stop pretending that 19 more Shuttle missions can happen by 2010. </p>
<p>&#8230; Plus, maybe within another decade or so, the great minds of NASA and LM will know how to improve the spray-on foam on External Tanks. It is a possibility!</p>
<p>Also, if we&#8217;re going to get more realistic, we&#8217;ll have to clean the Thiokal moles, agents, shills, and pimps out of NASA. This includes Mickey Mouse Griffin. I seriously expect him to be a Thiokal VP or exploring other career opportunities after 2008 or anyway, if there&#8217;s any justice in this world.  </p>
<p>How to save money? Cancel the Thiokal-based launch missiles and force NASA and the DoD to neck down to just one modular family of missiles &#8212; probably the Boeing Delta IV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
