<?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: On posture and policy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=on-posture-and-policy</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: Library: A Round-up of Reading &#171; Res Communis</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/#comment-281379</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Library: A Round-up of Reading &#171; Res Communis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2994#comment-281379</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] On posture and policy &#8211; Space Politics [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] On posture and policy &#8211; Space Politics [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike shupp</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/#comment-281308</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mike shupp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2994#comment-281308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NASA Fan -

We are not &quot;broke as a nation&quot; (not more than just about anyone else anyhow) and do not &quot;need help funding&quot; our space activities.  OTOH, we have a strong interest in persuading several billion in Ireland and Denmark and Morocco and Indonesia and China and Japan and so on, that we are a nation filled to the brim with people with great technical ability, andthat we are eager to work with similar people from Ireland and Denmark, etc. to build a beautiful future world of peace and plenty and equality and high tech adventures for all; and that those nasty tales of waterboarding captives and keeping prisoners without trials and obliterating small towns in the hopes of bumping out middle-rank terrorists have all been serious overstated.    After all, we hope to hammer out trade agreements in future years with Ireland et al, we want their votes on our side in the UN, we may want them to return fugitive bankers in the not so distant future.

Think Soft Power, in other words. Of course, this is foreign policy and international relations rather than space, but the US space program is fairly visible and fairly cheap, and it isn&#039;t as if the country has anything better to use astronauts on for the next fifty years, so .... Bingo.  We need and love our international partners!  Let us work together on a better world!

And yes, DoD will go along, particularly after troop strength and procurement budgets start taking $50 B/year hits in a couple of years.   Soft power is better than nothing at all.

Unfortunately, there aren&#039;t a whole lot of tools to]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NASA Fan &#8211;</p>
<p>We are not &#8220;broke as a nation&#8221; (not more than just about anyone else anyhow) and do not &#8220;need help funding&#8221; our space activities.  OTOH, we have a strong interest in persuading several billion in Ireland and Denmark and Morocco and Indonesia and China and Japan and so on, that we are a nation filled to the brim with people with great technical ability, andthat we are eager to work with similar people from Ireland and Denmark, etc. to build a beautiful future world of peace and plenty and equality and high tech adventures for all; and that those nasty tales of waterboarding captives and keeping prisoners without trials and obliterating small towns in the hopes of bumping out middle-rank terrorists have all been serious overstated.    After all, we hope to hammer out trade agreements in future years with Ireland et al, we want their votes on our side in the UN, we may want them to return fugitive bankers in the not so distant future.</p>
<p>Think Soft Power, in other words. Of course, this is foreign policy and international relations rather than space, but the US space program is fairly visible and fairly cheap, and it isn&#8217;t as if the country has anything better to use astronauts on for the next fifty years, so &#8230;. Bingo.  We need and love our international partners!  Let us work together on a better world!</p>
<p>And yes, DoD will go along, particularly after troop strength and procurement budgets start taking $50 B/year hits in a couple of years.   Soft power is better than nothing at all.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there aren&#8217;t a whole lot of tools to</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NASA Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/#comment-281279</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NASA Fan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:14:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2994#comment-281279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looks like Obama&#039;s &#039;international cooperation&#039; initiative, soon to be revealed as part of the new direction for HSF, because we are broke as a nation and need help funding anything we do in space, has not taken root in the DoD community.  Think Obama will have a much harder road to travel in that culture to get reforms through...be they GPS or missile defense, or etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like Obama&#8217;s &#8216;international cooperation&#8217; initiative, soon to be revealed as part of the new direction for HSF, because we are broke as a nation and need help funding anything we do in space, has not taken root in the DoD community.  Think Obama will have a much harder road to travel in that culture to get reforms through&#8230;be they GPS or missile defense, or etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Habitat Hermit</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/#comment-281254</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Habitat Hermit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2994#comment-281254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok, &quot;there is no problem&quot; and &quot;they should have a problem and come ask us to fix it&quot; and &quot;we&#039;ll give them a problem&quot;, that&#039;s what you&#039;re actually saying isn&#039;t it? I don&#039;t mind that you say so or whether it&#039;s true or not but what about the question on whether the US is even welcome to join Galileo? Right off the bat I wouldn&#039;t think so for several reasons and if that&#039;s the case then all the rest is moot.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, &#8220;there is no problem&#8221; and &#8220;they should have a problem and come ask us to fix it&#8221; and &#8220;we&#8217;ll give them a problem&#8221;, that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re actually saying isn&#8217;t it? I don&#8217;t mind that you say so or whether it&#8217;s true or not but what about the question on whether the US is even welcome to join Galileo? Right off the bat I wouldn&#8217;t think so for several reasons and if that&#8217;s the case then all the rest is moot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Major Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/#comment-281243</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Major Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2994#comment-281243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Not continuing to upgrade GPS in favor of Eurocooperation seems to me to be fixing something thatâ€™s not broken.&quot;

The point is probably not to fix the U.S. GPS, which, as you state, obviously doesn&#039;t need fixing.

The point is probably to put a stake in the heart of Galileo, so there is no strong competitor to the U.S. GPS.  As long as the Galileo program is weak, it&#039;s a good opportunity to overcome European distaste for the military nature of the U.S. GPS and encourage/force the Europeans to work to U.S. global positioning standards.

But given the disastrous NPOESS experience of combining USAF, NOAA, and European polar weather satellite requirements in a single system, the U.S. government needs to plan very carefully, both technically and organizationally.  We don&#039;t need another critical space system crippled by well-intended mergers leading to massive overruns and schedule slips.

FWIW...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Not continuing to upgrade GPS in favor of Eurocooperation seems to me to be fixing something thatâ€™s not broken.&#8221;</p>
<p>The point is probably not to fix the U.S. GPS, which, as you state, obviously doesn&#8217;t need fixing.</p>
<p>The point is probably to put a stake in the heart of Galileo, so there is no strong competitor to the U.S. GPS.  As long as the Galileo program is weak, it&#8217;s a good opportunity to overcome European distaste for the military nature of the U.S. GPS and encourage/force the Europeans to work to U.S. global positioning standards.</p>
<p>But given the disastrous NPOESS experience of combining USAF, NOAA, and European polar weather satellite requirements in a single system, the U.S. government needs to plan very carefully, both technically and organizationally.  We don&#8217;t need another critical space system crippled by well-intended mergers leading to massive overruns and schedule slips.</p>
<p>FWIW&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tps</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/#comment-281232</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tps]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2994#comment-281232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually it should be the other way around with them coming to work with us.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually it should be the other way around with them coming to work with us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/23/on-posture-and-policy/#comment-281219</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rand Simberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:51:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=2994#comment-281219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not continuing to upgrade GPS in favor of Eurocooperation seems to me to be fixing something that&#039;s not broken.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not continuing to upgrade GPS in favor of Eurocooperation seems to me to be fixing something that&#8217;s not broken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
