<?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: Augustine: new plan&#8217;s means meet the ends</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends</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: Space Politics &#187; An all-star panel Wednesday</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-302081</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Space Politics &#187; An all-star panel Wednesday]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 00:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-302081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] represented. Holdren and Bolden are obviously in support of the new direction for NASA, and Augustine has largely supported the plan as well. Armstrong and Cernan, on the other hand, signed a letter last month sharply critical of [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] represented. Holdren and Bolden are obviously in support of the new direction for NASA, and Augustine has largely supported the plan as well. Armstrong and Cernan, on the other hand, signed a letter last month sharply critical of [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-285120</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-285120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cargo to ISS is called COTS and actually CRS is the contract not COTS-D which is a crew transportation program. Get your facts straight it will help your case. But I think you are starting to troll around now so I&#039;ll leave it to others to try and set you straight. Read this below first is my suggestion.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26868]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cargo to ISS is called COTS and actually CRS is the contract not COTS-D which is a crew transportation program. Get your facts straight it will help your case. But I think you are starting to troll around now so I&#8217;ll leave it to others to try and set you straight. Read this below first is my suggestion.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26868" rel="nofollow">http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26868</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dandwithaplan</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-285114</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dandwithaplan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-285114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is cargo-to-I
SS program.  Why SpaceX won it I have no Idea, Boeing and LM could have done it faster.  

I think it is about raising puppies.

It&#039;s how you raise &#039;em.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is cargo-to-I<br />
SS program.  Why SpaceX won it I have no Idea, Boeing and LM could have done it faster.  </p>
<p>I think it is about raising puppies.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s how you raise &#8216;em.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-285103</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:30:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-285103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;SpaceX is already taking public monies on the COTS-D program&quot;

This is total utter ignorance or lie: There is NO COTS-D program. The reason why people arte trying COTS type contract is to get rid of this kind of attitude. Welcome to the free market! Reference to SpaceX &quot;taking&quot; public monies? There was a bid and they won along with Orbital. I assume OSC is all fine and dandy. Were you rejected at an interview with SpaceX? What is your problem? What if Boeing makes somethign out of CCDev on a fixed contract? Are you going to say they are taking public monies? Plleeeeaaaseee!

&quot;Iâ€™m saying Bolden and Obama have taken the VSE off the table, they said it not me.&quot;

When? Reference?

&quot;Yet again it shows that the USG doesnâ€™t really care all that much for a HSF. &quot;

Nobody, NOBODY gives a hoot about HSF. This is REALITY. What do you think? A few of us bloggers are an important influencial group???

&quot;Stand behind the VSE, work with Nasa on a more affordable alternative to Ares I/V.&quot;

This almost is exactly what they are doing. Show us where they actually are going against VSE. Because there is no date? No destination? Get real, Constellation was supposed to have a first flight in 2008, yes 2.0.0.8. The only flight they got was this Ares-1X abomination that does not even support the Constellation vehicles.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;SpaceX is already taking public monies on the COTS-D program&#8221;</p>
<p>This is total utter ignorance or lie: There is NO COTS-D program. The reason why people arte trying COTS type contract is to get rid of this kind of attitude. Welcome to the free market! Reference to SpaceX &#8220;taking&#8221; public monies? There was a bid and they won along with Orbital. I assume OSC is all fine and dandy. Were you rejected at an interview with SpaceX? What is your problem? What if Boeing makes somethign out of CCDev on a fixed contract? Are you going to say they are taking public monies? Plleeeeaaaseee!</p>
<p>&#8220;Iâ€™m saying Bolden and Obama have taken the VSE off the table, they said it not me.&#8221;</p>
<p>When? Reference?</p>
<p>&#8220;Yet again it shows that the USG doesnâ€™t really care all that much for a HSF. &#8221;</p>
<p>Nobody, NOBODY gives a hoot about HSF. This is REALITY. What do you think? A few of us bloggers are an important influencial group???</p>
<p>&#8220;Stand behind the VSE, work with Nasa on a more affordable alternative to Ares I/V.&#8221;</p>
<p>This almost is exactly what they are doing. Show us where they actually are going against VSE. Because there is no date? No destination? Get real, Constellation was supposed to have a first flight in 2008, yes 2.0.0.8. The only flight they got was this Ares-1X abomination that does not even support the Constellation vehicles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richardb</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-285077</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[richardb]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-285077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[danwithaplan,  how naive of you.
See this for details on how Elon Musk has his fingers deep in the public purse.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/elon-musk-private-jet/

SpaceX is already taking public monies on the COTS-D program.  He is taking hundreds of millions already in taxpayer monies on his two pet programs.  He is becoming more and more a purely government contractor.

Common Sense, you don&#039;t read too well.  For one, I am not saying spend whatever it takes on Constellation.  I&#039;m saying Bolden and Obama have taken the VSE off the table, they said it not me.  They said they need to spend months, perhaps more, working with Congress on a new plan.  Now there is no plan for Nasa in an upcoming era of drastic fiscal cutbacks.  I think that is very bad news for Nasa.   Second, 3 billion dollars a year is nothing to this government.  Its pocket change to us ordinary citizens.  Yet again it shows that the USG doesn&#039;t really care all that much for a HSF.  

Here is what I&#039;d have preferred Obama doing.  Stand behind the VSE, work with Nasa on a more affordable alternative to Ares I/V.  Call it Direct, call it Super EELV, call it the Musk Prize, whatever.  Bump NASA by the amount Augustine said they need for a meaningful HSF.
He didn&#039;t do it.  Instead he is terminating NASA&#039;s biggest programs with nothing to replace them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>danwithaplan,  how naive of you.<br />
See this for details on how Elon Musk has his fingers deep in the public purse.<br />
<a href="http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/elon-musk-private-jet/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/elon-musk-private-jet/</a></p>
<p>SpaceX is already taking public monies on the COTS-D program.  He is taking hundreds of millions already in taxpayer monies on his two pet programs.  He is becoming more and more a purely government contractor.</p>
<p>Common Sense, you don&#8217;t read too well.  For one, I am not saying spend whatever it takes on Constellation.  I&#8217;m saying Bolden and Obama have taken the VSE off the table, they said it not me.  They said they need to spend months, perhaps more, working with Congress on a new plan.  Now there is no plan for Nasa in an upcoming era of drastic fiscal cutbacks.  I think that is very bad news for Nasa.   Second, 3 billion dollars a year is nothing to this government.  Its pocket change to us ordinary citizens.  Yet again it shows that the USG doesn&#8217;t really care all that much for a HSF.  </p>
<p>Here is what I&#8217;d have preferred Obama doing.  Stand behind the VSE, work with Nasa on a more affordable alternative to Ares I/V.  Call it Direct, call it Super EELV, call it the Musk Prize, whatever.  Bump NASA by the amount Augustine said they need for a meaningful HSF.<br />
He didn&#8217;t do it.  Instead he is terminating NASA&#8217;s biggest programs with nothing to replace them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: danwithaplan</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-285013</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[danwithaplan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-285013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think 3 billion dollars more for NASA are fiscally irresponsible.

Feeding SpaceX off taxmonies makes no sense.  They are a private company and should stay that way.  And rely on private Demand (if any)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think 3 billion dollars more for NASA are fiscally irresponsible.</p>
<p>Feeding SpaceX off taxmonies makes no sense.  They are a private company and should stay that way.  And rely on private Demand (if any)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-284966</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:58:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-284966</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Do you really think an extra 3 billion dollars was fiscally irresponsible?&quot;

You still don&#039;t get it, sorry. What is irresponsible is funding a program that is bankrupting the entire NASA and not just HSF. Is it clear now?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Do you really think an extra 3 billion dollars was fiscally irresponsible?&#8221;</p>
<p>You still don&#8217;t get it, sorry. What is irresponsible is funding a program that is bankrupting the entire NASA and not just HSF. Is it clear now?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-284965</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-284965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Nasa will see severe employment declines and severe budget declines, of course.&quot;

Do you know of any industry that does not go through employment/budget corrections over the years?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Nasa will see severe employment declines and severe budget declines, of course.&#8221;</p>
<p>Do you know of any industry that does not go through employment/budget corrections over the years?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-284964</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-284964</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;We had VSE, a pretty good vision. Now we have nothing but empty rhetoric about game changing technologies and maybe building a HLV after 2020 or 2030 or later and maybe getting another vision together.&quot;

How com on stop it. Constellation was cancelled nothing has been said about the VSE, so far. And Constellation was going nowhere but the ditch. 

&quot;What is the incentive for the commercial guys? Making money to pay off their investors&quot;

Duh???

&quot;The only way is to fly rides to the ISS. &quot;

How do you know? Did you consult with their marketing plans? 

Etc, etc, etc... Tiresome.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We had VSE, a pretty good vision. Now we have nothing but empty rhetoric about game changing technologies and maybe building a HLV after 2020 or 2030 or later and maybe getting another vision together.&#8221;</p>
<p>How com on stop it. Constellation was cancelled nothing has been said about the VSE, so far. And Constellation was going nowhere but the ditch. </p>
<p>&#8220;What is the incentive for the commercial guys? Making money to pay off their investors&#8221;</p>
<p>Duh???</p>
<p>&#8220;The only way is to fly rides to the ISS. &#8221;</p>
<p>How do you know? Did you consult with their marketing plans? </p>
<p>Etc, etc, etc&#8230; Tiresome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richardb</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/15/augustine-new-plans-means-meet-the-ends/#comment-284960</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[richardb]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3097#comment-284960</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Doug, this isn&#039;t just about Constellation.  I&#039;m not grousing about its cancellation.  I&#039;m grousing about no there, there.  We had VSE, a pretty good vision.  Now we have nothing but empty rhetoric about game changing technologies and maybe building a HLV after 2020 or 2030 or later and maybe getting another vision together.  Bolden is the Chancy Gardener of Nasa administrators.  
You&#039;re also right about introducing commercial operations to the extent possible at Nasa.  However it was NASA that almost killed the commercial launchers when the shuttle went &quot;operational&quot; in the 80&#039;s.  Only the Challenger accident brought it back but it was much weaker and lost out to Ariane and others.  The government might just try to kill off commercial again.  It happened before.
What is the incentive for the commercial guys?  Making money to pay off their investors.  The only way is to fly rides to the ISS.  Two problems.  One is they can&#039;t be sure Congress won&#039;t stop supporting ISS before they make a profit.  The second is competing against another government operation, Soyuz.  I&#039;d say we are very far from SpaceX or ULA funding a taxi using purely market conditions to fund their work.  They will be like ATK or any other commercial company dealing with Nasa, beholden to government money.  Government money is fickle, go ask ATK about it.

Do you really think an extra 3 billion dollars was fiscally irresponsible?  That is 1/500 of the increase in the national debt passed last week and about 1/1200 of the federal spending in 2010.  3 billion dollars is the USG&#039;s monthly rounding error when balancing its books, heck maybe its weekly.  The fact is Nasa just isn&#039;t that important across the Federal government and hasn&#039;t been for decades.

When the Congress changes this November due to the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the land,   Nasa IMHO,  will be among many  federal agencies in the fight for their lives.  Congressman love pork but they love their jobs even more. 
They will make a show of fiscal restraint by scalping some of the more dismal agencies.  Nasa after blowing 9 billion, according to Obama and Bolden is probably in line for a buzz haircut, maybe worse.  New Congressman will rightly ask why Nasa needs so many employees when the Shuttle is retired, Constellation is cancelled and the ISS is finally completed?  For those who claim it&#039;s goofy that Congress would cut Nasa, see if you can find someone that worked on Project Apollo.  Ask them what happened when their program was killed.  Now we have two of Nasa&#039;s largest programs getting killed at the same time.  Nasa will see severe employment declines and severe budget declines, of course.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doug, this isn&#8217;t just about Constellation.  I&#8217;m not grousing about its cancellation.  I&#8217;m grousing about no there, there.  We had VSE, a pretty good vision.  Now we have nothing but empty rhetoric about game changing technologies and maybe building a HLV after 2020 or 2030 or later and maybe getting another vision together.  Bolden is the Chancy Gardener of Nasa administrators.<br />
You&#8217;re also right about introducing commercial operations to the extent possible at Nasa.  However it was NASA that almost killed the commercial launchers when the shuttle went &#8220;operational&#8221; in the 80&#8217;s.  Only the Challenger accident brought it back but it was much weaker and lost out to Ariane and others.  The government might just try to kill off commercial again.  It happened before.<br />
What is the incentive for the commercial guys?  Making money to pay off their investors.  The only way is to fly rides to the ISS.  Two problems.  One is they can&#8217;t be sure Congress won&#8217;t stop supporting ISS before they make a profit.  The second is competing against another government operation, Soyuz.  I&#8217;d say we are very far from SpaceX or ULA funding a taxi using purely market conditions to fund their work.  They will be like ATK or any other commercial company dealing with Nasa, beholden to government money.  Government money is fickle, go ask ATK about it.</p>
<p>Do you really think an extra 3 billion dollars was fiscally irresponsible?  That is 1/500 of the increase in the national debt passed last week and about 1/1200 of the federal spending in 2010.  3 billion dollars is the USG&#8217;s monthly rounding error when balancing its books, heck maybe its weekly.  The fact is Nasa just isn&#8217;t that important across the Federal government and hasn&#8217;t been for decades.</p>
<p>When the Congress changes this November due to the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the land,   Nasa IMHO,  will be among many  federal agencies in the fight for their lives.  Congressman love pork but they love their jobs even more.<br />
They will make a show of fiscal restraint by scalping some of the more dismal agencies.  Nasa after blowing 9 billion, according to Obama and Bolden is probably in line for a buzz haircut, maybe worse.  New Congressman will rightly ask why Nasa needs so many employees when the Shuttle is retired, Constellation is cancelled and the ISS is finally completed?  For those who claim it&#8217;s goofy that Congress would cut Nasa, see if you can find someone that worked on Project Apollo.  Ask them what happened when their program was killed.  Now we have two of Nasa&#8217;s largest programs getting killed at the same time.  Nasa will see severe employment declines and severe budget declines, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
