Comments on: March Storm agenda: COTS, NEOs, and SSP http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/07/march-storm-agenda-cots-neos-and-ssp/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=march-storm-agenda-cots-neos-and-ssp Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Al Fansome http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/07/march-storm-agenda-cots-neos-and-ssp/#comment-40647 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:36:08 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/07/march-storm-agenda-cots-neos-and-ssp/#comment-40647 Jonathan,

It is unseemly that NASA is sending more money to Putin’s Russia than it is sending to U.S. entrepreneurs via COTS.

I do want to note the Space Review article by Alex Kirk with regards to the SEA Blitz last month, for which Jeff started a thread here:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/04/blitzing-specifics/#comments

KIRK: The lesson to be learned from this is simple: whenever possible, space advocates should make their pitches in support of NASA or other space exploration activity very targeted and explicit. A letter or a call to an office that simply states general support for space is certainly preferable to no contact at all, but if an individual or a group can call for funding for a specific aspect of space exploration, or come out in support of or opposition to a specific bill, their impact will be magnified substantially.

It sounds like Mr. Kirk is saying that the Blitz (and the SEA) could learn something from ProSpace. The March Storm agenda is “very targeted and specific.”

FWIW,

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

]]> By: Jonathan Goff http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/07/march-storm-agenda-cots-neos-and-ssp/#comment-40628 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:23:30 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/07/march-storm-agenda-cots-neos-and-ssp/#comment-40628 It’s good that someone is focusing on the one solution that could really close the gap (and close it in a useful way). I remember reading a comment in one of the recent Griffin speeches that it is “simply unseemly, for the United States…to be reduced to purchasing services like this”. I think the only unseemly thing is that in spite of all the work over the past 50 years, that the only entity selling tickets to space is a former communist space program. There’s nothing unseemly about NASA having to buy tickets for transportation, it’s just unseemly that they haven’t really done very much over their existence to make sure that there are robust and affordable US providers that they could be buying those services from.

~Jon

]]>