<?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: NASA offers $50 million for commercial crew development</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/08/06/nasa-offers-50-million-for-commercial-crew-development/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/08/06/nasa-offers-50-million-for-commercial-crew-development/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nasa-offers-50-million-for-commercial-crew-development</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: Jonathan Goff</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/08/06/nasa-offers-50-million-for-commercial-crew-development/#comment-264996</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan Goff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:41:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2508#comment-264996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a way, I think this is good.  The end result needs to be more than just wiring SpaceX money to exercise their COTS-D option.  SpaceX is the farthest along, but it really would be best if there were at least 1-2 other competitors able to also provide the services, so there can be real competition and resiliency.  Unlike the cargo only COTS option, the ability to haul people safely to/from orbit is a service with customers beyond NASA and the ISS, so the market should be able to sustain at least a few healthy players.  So, I&#039;m personally not too displeased that they&#039;re funding some low-level work with a couple of groups.  This allows them to cut their teeth on the project and demonstrate that they know how to retire risk.  Also, by showing some visible progress (which t/Space for instance demonstrated could be done for little money during the CE&amp;R work under Steidle), it may make it easier to get real funding from Congress next year.

~Jon]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a way, I think this is good.  The end result needs to be more than just wiring SpaceX money to exercise their COTS-D option.  SpaceX is the farthest along, but it really would be best if there were at least 1-2 other competitors able to also provide the services, so there can be real competition and resiliency.  Unlike the cargo only COTS option, the ability to haul people safely to/from orbit is a service with customers beyond NASA and the ISS, so the market should be able to sustain at least a few healthy players.  So, I&#8217;m personally not too displeased that they&#8217;re funding some low-level work with a couple of groups.  This allows them to cut their teeth on the project and demonstrate that they know how to retire risk.  Also, by showing some visible progress (which t/Space for instance demonstrated could be done for little money during the CE&amp;R work under Steidle), it may make it easier to get real funding from Congress next year.</p>
<p>~Jon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: looking for real work</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/08/06/nasa-offers-50-million-for-commercial-crew-development/#comment-264993</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[looking for real work]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2508#comment-264993</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does anyone know if this $50 million is the total commercial got in the deal?  It looks like there was only $80 million for this activity to begin with.  Did eveything else drop out or have the details not come up yet?

I read somewhere else this was the plan at first:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1382/1

&quot;That recommendation played a supporting role in a debate on Capitol Hill last week about NASAâ€™s support of COTS and commercial ISS resupply efforts. NASA earlier announced it was putting $150 million of stimulus funding towards commercial ISS crew transportation: $70 million to develop general capabilities, including human rating requirements for commercial vehicles (the lack of which was cited in the ASAP report) and $80 million â€œto stimulate activity for commercial crewâ€, as acting administrator Chris Scolese explained last week during a hearing by the Senate Commerce Committeeâ€™s space subcommittee.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone know if this $50 million is the total commercial got in the deal?  It looks like there was only $80 million for this activity to begin with.  Did eveything else drop out or have the details not come up yet?</p>
<p>I read somewhere else this was the plan at first:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1382/1" rel="nofollow">http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1382/1</a></p>
<p>&#8220;That recommendation played a supporting role in a debate on Capitol Hill last week about NASAâ€™s support of COTS and commercial ISS resupply efforts. NASA earlier announced it was putting $150 million of stimulus funding towards commercial ISS crew transportation: $70 million to develop general capabilities, including human rating requirements for commercial vehicles (the lack of which was cited in the ASAP report) and $80 million â€œto stimulate activity for commercial crewâ€, as acting administrator Chris Scolese explained last week during a hearing by the Senate Commerce Committeeâ€™s space subcommittee.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
