<?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: Reiterating their opposition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=reiterating-their-opposition</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: nasaengineer.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Opinion: ADA, Working Backwards from June 9</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-313265</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nasaengineer.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Opinion: ADA, Working Backwards from June 9]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-313265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] brings us back to the discussion Foust mentioned here&#8230; That link has two versions of the language the Senate has used to keep CxP on track, the new [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] brings us back to the discussion Foust mentioned here&#8230; That link has two versions of the language the Senate has used to keep CxP on track, the new [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Space Politics &#187; Hutchison&#8217;s statement, Shelby&#8217;s award</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-312220</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Space Politics &#187; Hutchison&#8217;s statement, Shelby&#8217;s award]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-312220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Government Waste named Shelby its &#8220;Porker of the Month&#8221; for his effort last month add language to a supplement appropriations bill that would require NASA to continue spending money on Constellation. &#8220;Sen. Shelbyâ€™s actions [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Government Waste named Shelby its &#8220;Porker of the Month&#8221; for his effort last month add language to a supplement appropriations bill that would require NASA to continue spending money on Constellation. &#8220;Sen. Shelbyâ€™s actions [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NASA Attempts To Cut Back Constellation &#124; JetLib News</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-309835</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NASA Attempts To Cut Back Constellation &#124; JetLib News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-309835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] in violation of a 2010 appropriations amendment by Sen. Shelby (R-AL) and Sen. Bennett (R-UT) which prohibits NASA from terminating any Constellation contracts. If NASA&#8217;s move goes through, the biggest liability is $500M for ATK, the contractor who [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] in violation of a 2010 appropriations amendment by Sen. Shelby (R-AL) and Sen. Bennett (R-UT) which prohibits NASA from terminating any Constellation contracts. If NASA&#8217;s move goes through, the biggest liability is $500M for ATK, the contractor who [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Space Politics &#187; Congress reacts to NASA Constellation announcement</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-309750</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Space Politics &#187; Congress reacts to NASA Constellation announcement]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-309750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] budget that has not been supported, or approved, by Congress,&#8221; Shelby said, adding that language included in a supplemental appropriations bill the Senate approved last month is a &#8220;reaffirmation of Congressional intent to continue [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] budget that has not been supported, or approved, by Congress,&#8221; Shelby said, adding that language included in a supplemental appropriations bill the Senate approved last month is a &#8220;reaffirmation of Congressional intent to continue [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Space Politics &#187; Augustine in Huntsville; CAGW cheers Constellation&#8217;s demise</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-305543</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Space Politics &#187; Augustine in Huntsville; CAGW cheers Constellation&#8217;s demise]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 10:11:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-305543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] also took aim at Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), one of the leading supporters of Constellation, for his effort to put language into a supplemental spending bill restating an existing provision that keeps NASA from terminating Constellation contracts this [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] also took aim at Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), one of the leading supporters of Constellation, for his effort to put language into a supplemental spending bill restating an existing provision that keeps NASA from terminating Constellation contracts this [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Library: A Round-up of Reading &#171; Res Communis</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-303970</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Library: A Round-up of Reading &#171; Res Communis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 21:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-303970</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Reiterating their opposition &#8211; Space Politics [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Reiterating their opposition &#8211; Space Politics [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-303681</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rand Simberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 17:26:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-303681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;Randâ€¦ Processing and manufacturing techniques didnâ€™t lead to the cause of either of the failures.&lt;/em&gt;

Actually, they probably did, if by processing you mean making a launch decision in inappropriate weather, and if by manufacturing you mean building external tanks that shed foam during ascent.  In any event, my point stands.  Shuttle was not man rated.  &quot;Man rated&quot; is a meaningless term, and confuses more than clarifies.  We need to design things to be reasonably safe.  Both SpaceX and ULA are capable of doing so, and NASA has no unique expertise in that regard.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Randâ€¦ Processing and manufacturing techniques didnâ€™t lead to the cause of either of the failures.</em></p>
<p>Actually, they probably did, if by processing you mean making a launch decision in inappropriate weather, and if by manufacturing you mean building external tanks that shed foam during ascent.  In any event, my point stands.  Shuttle was not man rated.  &#8220;Man rated&#8221; is a meaningless term, and confuses more than clarifies.  We need to design things to be reasonably safe.  Both SpaceX and ULA are capable of doing so, and NASA has no unique expertise in that regard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Set it straight</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-303662</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Set it straight]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 16:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-303662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rand...  Processing and manufacturing techniques didn&#039;t lead to the cause of either of the failures.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rand&#8230;  Processing and manufacturing techniques didn&#8217;t lead to the cause of either of the failures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-303651</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rand Simberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 15:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-303651</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;Itâ€™s not all about the design of the rocket that makes it man rated. Itâ€™s the operations, the quality of manufacturing, repetitiveness of manufacturingâ€¦ There is SO much more to it than just the design. The same practices used to build shuttle are being applied to Ares.&lt;/em&gt;

Shuttle was not man rated.  Shuttle killed fourteen astronauts.  So if true, this doesn&#039;t make me sanguine about the safety of Ares.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Itâ€™s not all about the design of the rocket that makes it man rated. Itâ€™s the operations, the quality of manufacturing, repetitiveness of manufacturingâ€¦ There is SO much more to it than just the design. The same practices used to build shuttle are being applied to Ares.</em></p>
<p>Shuttle was not man rated.  Shuttle killed fourteen astronauts.  So if true, this doesn&#8217;t make me sanguine about the safety of Ares.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Set it straight</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/05/14/reiterating-their-opposition/#comment-303623</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Set it straight]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 14:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3489#comment-303623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ Trent...  And it should be noted that flight tests are not planned for the Ares family. The Wiz will tell us if the rocket is safe

Ares I-X, Ares 2-X, Ares I-Y are all test flights planned.  Each of which progresses and tests the operational design progressively. 

It&#039;s not all about the design of the rocket that makes it man rated.  It&#039;s the operations, the quality of manufacturing, repetitiveness of manufacturing...  There is SO much more to it than just the design.   The same practices used to build shuttle are being applied to Ares.  That is a huge benefit to any rocket build.  These practices are also as difficult to get right, if not more, than the engineering design due to human error repetitiveness.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Trent&#8230;  And it should be noted that flight tests are not planned for the Ares family. The Wiz will tell us if the rocket is safe</p>
<p>Ares I-X, Ares 2-X, Ares I-Y are all test flights planned.  Each of which progresses and tests the operational design progressively. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not all about the design of the rocket that makes it man rated.  It&#8217;s the operations, the quality of manufacturing, repetitiveness of manufacturing&#8230;  There is SO much more to it than just the design.   The same practices used to build shuttle are being applied to Ares.  That is a huge benefit to any rocket build.  These practices are also as difficult to get right, if not more, than the engineering design due to human error repetitiveness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
