<?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: First look at NASA&#8217;s FY2011 budget</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget</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: Ten (and three) years laterâ€¦ &#171; Space Politics</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-396808</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ten (and three) years laterâ€¦ &#171; Space Politics]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-396808</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] the Obama Administration&#8217;s plans, rolled out three years ago today, also met with opposition, resulting in the compromise enacted in the form of the 2010 NASA [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] the Obama Administration&#8217;s plans, rolled out three years ago today, also met with opposition, resulting in the compromise enacted in the form of the 2010 NASA [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: commander keen</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-283134</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[commander keen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-283134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Sally Ride and Augustine, NASA has been woefully underfunding the research of new HSF applicable technologies.    

I think it&#039;s a great plan.   I&#039;d prefer if we worked on heavy lift implementation now but I do see the argument for a full press on research.   Maybe we could get a centrifuge to ISS.

This plan suggests starting construction in 2016, which is the Ares V timetable anyway.   But puts billions into researching it beforehand, which Constellation wasnt doing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Sally Ride and Augustine, NASA has been woefully underfunding the research of new HSF applicable technologies.    </p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s a great plan.   I&#8217;d prefer if we worked on heavy lift implementation now but I do see the argument for a full press on research.   Maybe we could get a centrifuge to ISS.</p>
<p>This plan suggests starting construction in 2016, which is the Ares V timetable anyway.   But puts billions into researching it beforehand, which Constellation wasnt doing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aremisasling</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282775</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aremisasling]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282775</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I saw no HLV program, only â€œtechnology developmentâ€ that could conceivably support it if some future administration chooses to fund a real vehicle development at some future time. Itâ€™s really code for â€œweâ€™re going to goof around and not really build anythingâ€.&quot;

You do, of course, realize that Ares V wasn&#039;t going to start development work until the second half of the decade, right?  In other words when the R&amp;D money for an HLV in Obama&#039;s plan runs out and we&#039;ve developed a bunch of technologies toward an HLV Ares V would just have begun it&#039;s R&amp;D.  Even if it&#039;s just throwing money at propulsion science projects, that&#039;s better than throwing money at a gigantic funding hole.

If Obama&#039;s plan is commercial space welfare, constellation was welfare for Roskosmos.  Throwing our chips in with constellation would essentially be handcuffing us to Soyuz for at least five and more likely 7 or 8 years.  If we&#039;re going to throw our money in the toilet, I&#039;d rather it be an American toilet, thankyouverymuch.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I saw no HLV program, only â€œtechnology developmentâ€ that could conceivably support it if some future administration chooses to fund a real vehicle development at some future time. Itâ€™s really code for â€œweâ€™re going to goof around and not really build anythingâ€.&#8221;</p>
<p>You do, of course, realize that Ares V wasn&#8217;t going to start development work until the second half of the decade, right?  In other words when the R&amp;D money for an HLV in Obama&#8217;s plan runs out and we&#8217;ve developed a bunch of technologies toward an HLV Ares V would just have begun it&#8217;s R&amp;D.  Even if it&#8217;s just throwing money at propulsion science projects, that&#8217;s better than throwing money at a gigantic funding hole.</p>
<p>If Obama&#8217;s plan is commercial space welfare, constellation was welfare for Roskosmos.  Throwing our chips in with constellation would essentially be handcuffing us to Soyuz for at least five and more likely 7 or 8 years.  If we&#8217;re going to throw our money in the toilet, I&#8217;d rather it be an American toilet, thankyouverymuch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282762</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:16:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My God! What an awesome display of ignorance. About half of you really need to check some facts before commenting.
But never mind, this budget is a good thing for NASA and human space flight. The tech and propulsion development is the right course to take. There are technologies coming to term in companies, research centers, and universities that will make CxP look like an ox cart, and they could mature within five to ten years.
So, I&#039;m pleased and expect to see the Russ, Chinese, and Indians in my rear-view mirror by 2020.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My God! What an awesome display of ignorance. About half of you really need to check some facts before commenting.<br />
But never mind, this budget is a good thing for NASA and human space flight. The tech and propulsion development is the right course to take. There are technologies coming to term in companies, research centers, and universities that will make CxP look like an ox cart, and they could mature within five to ten years.<br />
So, I&#8217;m pleased and expect to see the Russ, Chinese, and Indians in my rear-view mirror by 2020.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Major Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282749</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Major Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Only one of those will be manned.&quot;

Only one vehicle needs to be manned (but two or more commercial vehicles probably will be based on the Augustine report).  HLV architectures usually assume that the HLV launches the stack unmanned and rendezvous with the crew in orbit.  Tech demos don&#039;t need to be (shouldn&#039;t be) manned.

&quot;I saw no HLV program, only &#039;technology development&#039; that could conceivably support it if some future administration chooses to fund a real vehicle development at some future time. Itâ€™s really code for &#039;weâ€™re going to goof around and not really build anything.&#039;&quot;

The old program wasn&#039;t bending any HLV hardware, tech development or otherwise.  

If I liked HLVs (which I actually don&#039;t), I&#039;d much prefer a program that spent hundreds of millions to billions of dollars developing actual, real-world HLV capabilities now versus one that spent low tens of millions of dollars on HLV viewgraphs for years on end.

&quot;There is no $9B for human spaceflight. Thereâ€™s some money to fly out Shuttle, some money for ISS, and $500M for commercial efforts. The rest is science fair projects that wonâ€™t result in any human space flight.&quot;

That&#039;s no different from the old program minus commercial crew.  There wasn&#039;t going to be any human space flight on Ares I/Orion until well after the budget runout.

&quot;Itâ€™s easy to win arguments when you move the goal posts, isnâ€™t it?&quot;

Like Ares I/Orion from 2014 to 2017-19?

Like Ares V from 2020 to 2030?

Like Altair from 2020 to 2040?

&quot;Oh, and think before you post.&quot;

Pot, kettle, black?

FWIW...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Only one of those will be manned.&#8221;</p>
<p>Only one vehicle needs to be manned (but two or more commercial vehicles probably will be based on the Augustine report).  HLV architectures usually assume that the HLV launches the stack unmanned and rendezvous with the crew in orbit.  Tech demos don&#8217;t need to be (shouldn&#8217;t be) manned.</p>
<p>&#8220;I saw no HLV program, only &#8216;technology development&#8217; that could conceivably support it if some future administration chooses to fund a real vehicle development at some future time. Itâ€™s really code for &#8216;weâ€™re going to goof around and not really build anything.'&#8221;</p>
<p>The old program wasn&#8217;t bending any HLV hardware, tech development or otherwise.  </p>
<p>If I liked HLVs (which I actually don&#8217;t), I&#8217;d much prefer a program that spent hundreds of millions to billions of dollars developing actual, real-world HLV capabilities now versus one that spent low tens of millions of dollars on HLV viewgraphs for years on end.</p>
<p>&#8220;There is no $9B for human spaceflight. Thereâ€™s some money to fly out Shuttle, some money for ISS, and $500M for commercial efforts. The rest is science fair projects that wonâ€™t result in any human space flight.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s no different from the old program minus commercial crew.  There wasn&#8217;t going to be any human space flight on Ares I/Orion until well after the budget runout.</p>
<p>&#8220;Itâ€™s easy to win arguments when you move the goal posts, isnâ€™t it?&#8221;</p>
<p>Like Ares I/Orion from 2014 to 2017-19?</p>
<p>Like Ares V from 2020 to 2030?</p>
<p>Like Altair from 2020 to 2040?</p>
<p>&#8220;Oh, and think before you post.&#8221;</p>
<p>Pot, kettle, black?</p>
<p>FWIW&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Major Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282746</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Major Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Barry Soetoro, our Moooslim-Marxist in Chief, needs NASAâ€™s money to re-distribute to his cult-like followers...&quot;

Take your meds, please.

&quot;Too funny bro! Guess thats what you learn at all those fancy educatin schools like Harvard and Colombia! We rubes donâ€™t have much fancy book learnin, we rely on our elites in da media and in Warshingtin DC to learn us fancy stuff.&quot;

This has nothing to do with space policy.  Take it elsewhere.

FWIW...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Barry Soetoro, our Moooslim-Marxist in Chief, needs NASAâ€™s money to re-distribute to his cult-like followers&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Take your meds, please.</p>
<p>&#8220;Too funny bro! Guess thats what you learn at all those fancy educatin schools like Harvard and Colombia! We rubes donâ€™t have much fancy book learnin, we rely on our elites in da media and in Warshingtin DC to learn us fancy stuff.&#8221;</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with space policy.  Take it elsewhere.</p>
<p>FWIW&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Billings</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282734</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom Billings]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, I have been opposing Obama since I heard of him, but those who cannot individuate his effective behaviors in different programs are using far too coarse a filter. Even the most corrupt Daley Machine pol has his dreams about a legacy, and needs money to make them happen. One set of legacy efforts have failed. This may be a start to more fiscally moderate ones for this administration. 

The extent to which Obama *may* be able to finally suppress completely the NASA turf war against the commercial space launch providers is the crucial point here, not which government engineers get hired or laid off, or reduced in GS ranking. That last is where a lot of the pissing and moaning on space blogs is coming from over the past 4 days. People *hate* looking for work, ...I surely do, ...and these sorts of changes guarantee that for many in the Space Community, such as it is. It will be worth it if we can get to a point where we no longer must worry about whether a particular program in spaceflight &quot;raises enthusiasm&quot;, but only if it furthers the human settlement of the solar system by free men and women.

I have been saying for 3 years now that it is private US groups that will return to the Moon, because there simply is insufficient *political*profit* in it. That means the *best* we could hope for was a program that makes it cheaper for private groups to reach the Moon, till the point they can project a *financial* profit in doing so to financiers. Some here argue this cannot be sustained, but if *this* budgeted series of r&amp;d programs cannot be sustained, then the far larger increases needed for doing the job with the POR were utter fantasy. 

Better we act like they were, and get on with the job of demonstrating Propellant Depots both in LEO, at L1, and at the first source for LOX out there, the Moon itself, and mostly with robots. Demonstrate propulsion tech needed for Translunar and interplanetary work. Most certainly demonstrate the construction technology needed to piece together large Translunar vehicles from smaller payloads of frequently launched cheap commercial launchers. Extend this with reusable LEO launchers. *Then*, when costs have dropped between one and two orders of magnitude for a lunar development, we can rationally expect private groups to make a profit, first at tourism, developed from LEO tourism, which develops from the market for sub-orbital tourism. Then, we can expect that with planetary science fieldwork being far cheaper per bit than today, the scientists will get funding to move operations to the field, so that they need not use slowly creeping telerobots, but at minimum can erase latency for much higher scientific productivity in the field. Then, ....

This is the path that will get us beyond the small dreams of pols who want a few jobs in their district to be sacrosanct. Till we tread it, we will be dependent on them, and earth-bound. If an academician-turned-&quot;organizer&quot;-turned-politician has stumbled onto the first steps of this path, then applaud him for it. We obviously have so much else to rag on him for, that the contrast between our reaction to this and other programs alone may hold his attention, and keep the next 3 years of funding for this expanding path flowing. After 2012, we will face new challenges, but those were always going to be there, and I&#039;d rather face them with the proposed program than with the POR.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, I have been opposing Obama since I heard of him, but those who cannot individuate his effective behaviors in different programs are using far too coarse a filter. Even the most corrupt Daley Machine pol has his dreams about a legacy, and needs money to make them happen. One set of legacy efforts have failed. This may be a start to more fiscally moderate ones for this administration. </p>
<p>The extent to which Obama *may* be able to finally suppress completely the NASA turf war against the commercial space launch providers is the crucial point here, not which government engineers get hired or laid off, or reduced in GS ranking. That last is where a lot of the pissing and moaning on space blogs is coming from over the past 4 days. People *hate* looking for work, &#8230;I surely do, &#8230;and these sorts of changes guarantee that for many in the Space Community, such as it is. It will be worth it if we can get to a point where we no longer must worry about whether a particular program in spaceflight &#8220;raises enthusiasm&#8221;, but only if it furthers the human settlement of the solar system by free men and women.</p>
<p>I have been saying for 3 years now that it is private US groups that will return to the Moon, because there simply is insufficient *political*profit* in it. That means the *best* we could hope for was a program that makes it cheaper for private groups to reach the Moon, till the point they can project a *financial* profit in doing so to financiers. Some here argue this cannot be sustained, but if *this* budgeted series of r&amp;d programs cannot be sustained, then the far larger increases needed for doing the job with the POR were utter fantasy. </p>
<p>Better we act like they were, and get on with the job of demonstrating Propellant Depots both in LEO, at L1, and at the first source for LOX out there, the Moon itself, and mostly with robots. Demonstrate propulsion tech needed for Translunar and interplanetary work. Most certainly demonstrate the construction technology needed to piece together large Translunar vehicles from smaller payloads of frequently launched cheap commercial launchers. Extend this with reusable LEO launchers. *Then*, when costs have dropped between one and two orders of magnitude for a lunar development, we can rationally expect private groups to make a profit, first at tourism, developed from LEO tourism, which develops from the market for sub-orbital tourism. Then, we can expect that with planetary science fieldwork being far cheaper per bit than today, the scientists will get funding to move operations to the field, so that they need not use slowly creeping telerobots, but at minimum can erase latency for much higher scientific productivity in the field. Then, &#8230;.</p>
<p>This is the path that will get us beyond the small dreams of pols who want a few jobs in their district to be sacrosanct. Till we tread it, we will be dependent on them, and earth-bound. If an academician-turned-&#8220;organizer&#8221;-turned-politician has stumbled onto the first steps of this path, then applaud him for it. We obviously have so much else to rag on him for, that the contrast between our reaction to this and other programs alone may hold his attention, and keep the next 3 years of funding for this expanding path flowing. After 2012, we will face new challenges, but those were always going to be there, and I&#8217;d rather face them with the proposed program than with the POR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Dere</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282717</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe Dere]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282717</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Commercial crew vehicles (number TBD), HLV, and various flagship-class in-space technology demos.&quot;

Only one of those will be manned.  I saw no HLV program, only &quot;technology development&quot; that could conceivably support it if some future administration chooses to fund a real vehicle development at some future time.  It&#039;s really code for &quot;we&#039;re going to goof around and not really build anything&quot;.  

There is no $9B for human spaceflight.  There&#039;s some money to fly out Shuttle, some money for ISS, and $500M for commercial efforts.  The rest is science fair projects that won&#039;t result in any human space flight.

It&#039;s easy to win arguments when you move the goal posts, isn&#039;t it?

Oh, and think before you post.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Commercial crew vehicles (number TBD), HLV, and various flagship-class in-space technology demos.&#8221;</p>
<p>Only one of those will be manned.  I saw no HLV program, only &#8220;technology development&#8221; that could conceivably support it if some future administration chooses to fund a real vehicle development at some future time.  It&#8217;s really code for &#8220;we&#8217;re going to goof around and not really build anything&#8221;.  </p>
<p>There is no $9B for human spaceflight.  There&#8217;s some money to fly out Shuttle, some money for ISS, and $500M for commercial efforts.  The rest is science fair projects that won&#8217;t result in any human space flight.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s easy to win arguments when you move the goal posts, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>Oh, and think before you post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282679</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:53:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282679</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Heck yeah the pharmacies are closed? Can&#039;t you guys get home delivery for your meds?

I was under the impression this site was &quot;moderated&quot;?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heck yeah the pharmacies are closed? Can&#8217;t you guys get home delivery for your meds?</p>
<p>I was under the impression this site was &#8220;moderated&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: l5</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/first-look-at-nasas-fy2011-budget/#comment-282677</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[l5]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3046#comment-282677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here,  here.....our &quot;Genius&quot; in Chief, who brags about &quot;restoring science to it&#039;s rightful place&quot;, actually still believes in GLO-BALONEY WARMING!!   Guess thats why our Socialist Boy in Chief never has released his school transcripts like 99% of all other presidents and major candidates.   I wonder what Genius Boy is hiding....?

Too funny bro!   Guess thats what you learn at all those fancy educatin schools like Harvard and Colombia!   We rubes don&#039;t have much fancy book learnin, we rely on our elites in da media and in Warshingtin DC to learn us fancy stuff.  

Three more years and Ol&#039; Big Ears will be history.  And we can restore free enterprise and individual liberty.   Central Planning by Obama&#039;s Politboro?   No thank you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here,  here&#8230;..our &#8220;Genius&#8221; in Chief, who brags about &#8220;restoring science to it&#8217;s rightful place&#8221;, actually still believes in GLO-BALONEY WARMING!!   Guess thats why our Socialist Boy in Chief never has released his school transcripts like 99% of all other presidents and major candidates.   I wonder what Genius Boy is hiding&#8230;.?</p>
<p>Too funny bro!   Guess thats what you learn at all those fancy educatin schools like Harvard and Colombia!   We rubes don&#8217;t have much fancy book learnin, we rely on our elites in da media and in Warshingtin DC to learn us fancy stuff.  </p>
<p>Three more years and Ol&#8217; Big Ears will be history.  And we can restore free enterprise and individual liberty.   Central Planning by Obama&#8217;s Politboro?   No thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
