<?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: Hutchison followup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hutchison-followup</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: anonymous.space</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/#comment-29416</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[anonymous.space]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/#comment-29416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I donâ€™t think her [that?] statement is fair. She did try.&quot;

There&#039;s realistic and effective lobbying strategies that are built around carefully scrubbed budget numbers and that involve a lot of shoe-pounding and one-on-one time with decisionmakers.  And then there&#039;s unrealistic and empty-handed gestures that grab round numbers out of thin air and make calls for a White House space summit that no one thinks will get answered.  I&#039;d argue that the $1 billion sideshow has been more of the latter, than the former.  Although it&#039;s something to put in the Senator&#039;s mailings to JSC voters back home, it&#039;s not much a of &quot;try&quot;.

My 2 cents... FWIW.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I donâ€™t think her [that?] statement is fair. She did try.&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s realistic and effective lobbying strategies that are built around carefully scrubbed budget numbers and that involve a lot of shoe-pounding and one-on-one time with decisionmakers.  And then there&#8217;s unrealistic and empty-handed gestures that grab round numbers out of thin air and make calls for a White House space summit that no one thinks will get answered.  I&#8217;d argue that the $1 billion sideshow has been more of the latter, than the former.  Although it&#8217;s something to put in the Senator&#8217;s mailings to JSC voters back home, it&#8217;s not much a of &#8220;try&#8221;.</p>
<p>My 2 cents&#8230; FWIW.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald F. Robertson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/#comment-29414</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald F. Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/#comment-29414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anonymous, while accurate, I don&#039;t think her statement is fair.  She did try.

A more telling critique, I think, is the fact that she is quitting the Senate, where she can have an influence on national space policy, for a local position where she can advance her political career but where she will have little influence on spaceflight.  It may not be fair, but I can&#039;t help thinking that&#039;s the measure of her interest and dedication . . .

-- Donald]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anonymous, while accurate, I don&#8217;t think her statement is fair.  She did try.</p>
<p>A more telling critique, I think, is the fact that she is quitting the Senate, where she can have an influence on national space policy, for a local position where she can advance her political career but where she will have little influence on spaceflight.  It may not be fair, but I can&#8217;t help thinking that&#8217;s the measure of her interest and dedication . . .</p>
<p>&#8212; Donald</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymous.space</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/#comment-29408</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[anonymous.space]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/12/04/hutchison-followup/#comment-29408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Depending on exactly when in 2009 she decides to leave the Senateâ€”if in fact thatâ€™s what she decides to doâ€”that means only two more years of time left in the Senate, at most, for her to win additional funding for NASA for her major concerns&quot;

I wouldn&#039;t bet on it, based on her 0 for 2 record in securing an additional $1 billion in Constellation funding two years running.

&quot;(like closing the Shuttle-Constellation gap)&quot;

A nit, but the $2 billion that Hutchison vowed in the last hearing to go after next year won&#039;t close the gap.  At best, that money will shrink the gap from five to three years.  And per Griffin&#039;s testimony, that $2 billion is only through 2010.  Additional billions are likely needed in 2011, 2012, and 2013 just to maintain the three-year gap.

FWIW...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Depending on exactly when in 2009 she decides to leave the Senateâ€”if in fact thatâ€™s what she decides to doâ€”that means only two more years of time left in the Senate, at most, for her to win additional funding for NASA for her major concerns&#8221;</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t bet on it, based on her 0 for 2 record in securing an additional $1 billion in Constellation funding two years running.</p>
<p>&#8220;(like closing the Shuttle-Constellation gap)&#8221;</p>
<p>A nit, but the $2 billion that Hutchison vowed in the last hearing to go after next year won&#8217;t close the gap.  At best, that money will shrink the gap from five to three years.  And per Griffin&#8217;s testimony, that $2 billion is only through 2010.  Additional billions are likely needed in 2011, 2012, and 2013 just to maintain the three-year gap.</p>
<p>FWIW&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
