<?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: Curious commentary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=curious-commentary</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: Rick Boozer</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-68361</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Boozer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-68361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;First of all, itâ€™s difficult to see space as an issue of such importance to trigger a fight&quot;

In most of the country, this assertion is correct.  Not so in Florida. Remember, Florida is considered up for grabs during the next election and is considered a swing state.  If Obama was to portray himself as heavily pro-NASA, it could make a major difference in the election!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;First of all, itâ€™s difficult to see space as an issue of such importance to trigger a fight&#8221;</p>
<p>In most of the country, this assertion is correct.  Not so in Florida. Remember, Florida is considered up for grabs during the next election and is considered a swing state.  If Obama was to portray himself as heavily pro-NASA, it could make a major difference in the election!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ghazala Khan</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-68309</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ghazala Khan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-68309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interview Request

Hello Dear and Respected,
I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.
 
We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don&#039;t mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at my email address &quot;ghazala.khi at gmail.com&quot;, so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.

regards.
 
Ghazala Khan
The Pakistani Spectator
http://www.pakspectator.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interview Request</p>
<p>Hello Dear and Respected,<br />
I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.</p>
<p>We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don&#8217;t mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at my email address &#8220;ghazala.khi at gmail.com&#8221;, so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.</p>
<p>regards.</p>
<p>Ghazala Khan<br />
The Pakistani Spectator<br />
<a href="http://www.pakspectator.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pakspectator.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: red</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67758</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[red]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:20:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Al &quot;The biggest policy/political impact of SpaceXâ€™s third failure in a row is that it probably takes the winds out their sails (at least for the moment) to persuade Congress to mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.&quot;

Congress should have them hold the competition anyway.  SpaceX doesn&#039;t have to be one of the winners.  Hopefully any setbacks SpaceX has will encourage other potential COTS D winners to put on their own pressure for COTS D.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Al &#8220;The biggest policy/political impact of SpaceXâ€™s third failure in a row is that it probably takes the winds out their sails (at least for the moment) to persuade Congress to mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.&#8221;</p>
<p>Congress should have them hold the competition anyway.  SpaceX doesn&#8217;t have to be one of the winners.  Hopefully any setbacks SpaceX has will encourage other potential COTS D winners to put on their own pressure for COTS D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill White</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67738</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill White]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67738</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To amplify my point about Russia and &quot;the gap&quot; . . .

John McCain has openly advocated tossing Russia out of the G8, his top advisers have lobbied for admitting the Republic of Georgia into NATO &amp; he supports the Central European missile defense facility.

If McCain is elected President and if America has a five or six year gap in our ability to access ISS, a confrontation over any of the above three issues (as well as over Iran) could see Russian denial of NASA access to Soyuz. 

Or at least a very substantial increase in the prices charged our taxpayers for each NASA astronaut.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To amplify my point about Russia and &#8220;the gap&#8221; . . .</p>
<p>John McCain has openly advocated tossing Russia out of the G8, his top advisers have lobbied for admitting the Republic of Georgia into NATO &amp; he supports the Central European missile defense facility.</p>
<p>If McCain is elected President and if America has a five or six year gap in our ability to access ISS, a confrontation over any of the above three issues (as well as over Iran) could see Russian denial of NASA access to Soyuz. </p>
<p>Or at least a very substantial increase in the prices charged our taxpayers for each NASA astronaut.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald F. Robertson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67679</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald F. Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67679</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Al:  &lt;i&gt;Elon has 500+ employees now, and he has to pay their salaries whether or not they are launching anything. &lt;/i&gt;

Gee, that sounds familiar.  It&#039;s the same &quot;standing army&quot; problem the Space Shuttle has, albeit on a far smaller scale.  

I agree with your suggestions for for Mr. Musk.  These rediculous waits between his attempts cannot help his finances or SpaceX&#039;s learning curve, and thus probably hurt more than help with &quot;getting things right.&quot;

-- Donald


-- Donald]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Al:  <i>Elon has 500+ employees now, and he has to pay their salaries whether or not they are launching anything. </i></p>
<p>Gee, that sounds familiar.  It&#8217;s the same &#8220;standing army&#8221; problem the Space Shuttle has, albeit on a far smaller scale.  </p>
<p>I agree with your suggestions for for Mr. Musk.  These rediculous waits between his attempts cannot help his finances or SpaceX&#8217;s learning curve, and thus probably hurt more than help with &#8220;getting things right.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8212; Donald</p>
<p>&#8212; Donald</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Fansome</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67649</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Al Fansome]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DONALD:  &lt;i&gt;Any thoughts about what the SpaceX failures, especially if they continue, will do to COTS?&lt;/i&gt;

The biggest policy/political impact of SpaceX&#039;s third failure in a row is that it probably takes the winds out their sails (at least for the moment) to persuade Congress to mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.  

Jeff has reported on recent congressional legislation, which has been approved by the House, is supported by the Senate, and appears to have a reasonable chance of being approved by the entire Congress and becoming law.  This legislation includes a legal mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.

So, in answer to your question, SpaceX&#039;s failures may hurt the final passage of the legislation (it certainly doesn&#039;t help), and it is also likely to impact any WH budget request and future appropriations by Congress. (IF the White House does not ask for the funding, and if the U.S. Congress does not appropriate the funding for the Category D competition, the existence of a legal requirement may be moot.)

Since SpaceX claims that it has identified the problem, and that a simple fix will solve it, a rapid (and successful) 4th launch is truly in SpaceX&#039;s interest.  Waiting around for another year for a 4th attempt is a bad idea (in my opinion.)  

Why?

Elon has 500+ employees now, and he has to pay their salaries whether or not they are launching anything.  It is in his strategic (and financial interest) to launch again ASAP.  I think he should launch a Falcon 1 once per month until they get it right.  As John Carmack has demonstrated, the fastest (and cheapest) way to learn is by flying.

FWIW,

- Al]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DONALD:  <i>Any thoughts about what the SpaceX failures, especially if they continue, will do to COTS?</i></p>
<p>The biggest policy/political impact of SpaceX&#8217;s third failure in a row is that it probably takes the winds out their sails (at least for the moment) to persuade Congress to mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.  </p>
<p>Jeff has reported on recent congressional legislation, which has been approved by the House, is supported by the Senate, and appears to have a reasonable chance of being approved by the entire Congress and becoming law.  This legislation includes a legal mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.</p>
<p>So, in answer to your question, SpaceX&#8217;s failures may hurt the final passage of the legislation (it certainly doesn&#8217;t help), and it is also likely to impact any WH budget request and future appropriations by Congress. (IF the White House does not ask for the funding, and if the U.S. Congress does not appropriate the funding for the Category D competition, the existence of a legal requirement may be moot.)</p>
<p>Since SpaceX claims that it has identified the problem, and that a simple fix will solve it, a rapid (and successful) 4th launch is truly in SpaceX&#8217;s interest.  Waiting around for another year for a 4th attempt is a bad idea (in my opinion.)  </p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Elon has 500+ employees now, and he has to pay their salaries whether or not they are launching anything.  It is in his strategic (and financial interest) to launch again ASAP.  I think he should launch a Falcon 1 once per month until they get it right.  As John Carmack has demonstrated, the fastest (and cheapest) way to learn is by flying.</p>
<p>FWIW,</p>
<p>&#8211; Al</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald F. Robertson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67561</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald F. Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:57:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Space may be a third tier issue, but it&#039;s clearly moving toward the top of the third tier list.  Who could have imagined the subject getting this much play in any prior election cycle.  Space &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; a more important issue -- as Mr. Obama appears to have discovered -- but we are also lucky enough to be having this election at a time when major decisions -- some involving lots of relatively high-paying, high-skill jobs in swing states; some involving key strategies for whether and how to go forward -- have to be made.  Whatever else can be said, we certainly do live in interesting times!

Bill, good points.  Any thoughts about what the SpaceX failures, especially if they continue, will do to COTS?

-- Donald]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Space may be a third tier issue, but it&#8217;s clearly moving toward the top of the third tier list.  Who could have imagined the subject getting this much play in any prior election cycle.  Space <i>is</i> a more important issue &#8212; as Mr. Obama appears to have discovered &#8212; but we are also lucky enough to be having this election at a time when major decisions &#8212; some involving lots of relatively high-paying, high-skill jobs in swing states; some involving key strategies for whether and how to go forward &#8212; have to be made.  Whatever else can be said, we certainly do live in interesting times!</p>
<p>Bill, good points.  Any thoughts about what the SpaceX failures, especially if they continue, will do to COTS?</p>
<p>&#8212; Donald</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill White</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67556</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill White]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67556</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Russia isnâ€™t likely considering she is a welfare client of the US on the ISS for the next decade.&lt;/i&gt;

If there is a five or six year &quot;gap&quot; in US spaceflight capabilities then the continued existence of ISS will give Russia great leverage over us, at least in the space arena. 

How can we possibly use ISS to leverage Russia when we cannot reach or service ISS?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Russia isnâ€™t likely considering she is a welfare client of the US on the ISS for the next decade.</i></p>
<p>If there is a five or six year &#8220;gap&#8221; in US spaceflight capabilities then the continued existence of ISS will give Russia great leverage over us, at least in the space arena. </p>
<p>How can we possibly use ISS to leverage Russia when we cannot reach or service ISS?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spectator</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67552</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[spectator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As most know, Space in the generic can be a potent wedge issue.  Kennedy and Johnson old hands know that from the early 1960&#039;s.  All that is missing is a catalyst.  Russia isn&#039;t likely considering she is a welfare client of the US on the ISS for the next decade.  China with its huge nationalistic ego could be the catalyst in a few years.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As most know, Space in the generic can be a potent wedge issue.  Kennedy and Johnson old hands know that from the early 1960&#8217;s.  All that is missing is a catalyst.  Russia isn&#8217;t likely considering she is a welfare client of the US on the ISS for the next decade.  China with its huge nationalistic ego could be the catalyst in a few years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SpaceMan</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/06/curious-commentary/#comment-67219</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SpaceMan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1692#comment-67219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sounds like a mole; beware]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like a mole; beware</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
