<?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: Coburn&#8217;s curious cuts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=coburns-curious-cuts</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: Martijn Meijering</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349659</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Martijn Meijering]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Martijn, my list of NASA bases to close was not exhaustive and I agree with those too.&lt;/i&gt;

Still curious what you have against Glenn.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Martijn, my list of NASA bases to close was not exhaustive and I agree with those too.</i></p>
<p>Still curious what you have against Glenn.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Googaw</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349654</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Googaw]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:43:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[â€œItâ€™s so entertaining to see, though, that the particular insular community that constitutes this blog and its comments section is so in denial that NASA stands a good chance of losing most of its funding in two weeks.â€

&lt;i&gt;So the insular community that constitutes this blog is going to be at fault when NASA loses itâ€™s funding? Who would have thought!&lt;/i&gt;

What a hilarious parsing error.  :-)    Means &quot;in denial of the probable fact that NASA...&quot; of course.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>â€œItâ€™s so entertaining to see, though, that the particular insular community that constitutes this blog and its comments section is so in denial that NASA stands a good chance of losing most of its funding in two weeks.â€</p>
<p><i>So the insular community that constitutes this blog is going to be at fault when NASA loses itâ€™s funding? Who would have thought!</i></p>
<p>What a hilarious parsing error.  <img src="http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley" />    Means &#8220;in denial of the probable fact that NASA&#8230;&#8221; of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rhyolite</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349636</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rhyolite]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349636</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;...unless youâ€™re a federal employee. Second, the Republicans know this, know that federal employees and their friends vote almost entirely Democrat anyway...&quot;

The Federal government has 4.4 million employees, of which 1.6 million are uniformed service members and 0.6 million are civilian employees of the defense department.  There are a couple of hundred thousand employees in other parts of the national security apparatus.  Together, they compose more than half of all Federal employees.  Do you really think that national security apparatus - Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, CIA, NSA and the rest of the alphabet soup - is a bastion of Democratic fervor?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;unless youâ€™re a federal employee. Second, the Republicans know this, know that federal employees and their friends vote almost entirely Democrat anyway&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>The Federal government has 4.4 million employees, of which 1.6 million are uniformed service members and 0.6 million are civilian employees of the defense department.  There are a couple of hundred thousand employees in other parts of the national security apparatus.  Together, they compose more than half of all Federal employees.  Do you really think that national security apparatus &#8211; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, CIA, NSA and the rest of the alphabet soup &#8211; is a bastion of Democratic fervor?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Lassiter</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349631</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Lassiter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349631</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Googaw wrote @ July 20th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
&quot;Itâ€™s so entertaining to see, though, that the particular insular community that constitutes this blog and its comments section is so in denial that NASA stands a good chance of losing most of its funding in two weeks.&quot;

So the insular community that constitutes this blog is going to be at fault when NASA loses it&#039;s funding? Who would have thought!

But the point that NASA could well suffer a lot from draconian spending cuts is quite correct. But cuts to NASA are hardly going to solve this national &quot;crisis&quot;. Yes, Coburn&#039;s proposed cuts look to be far milder than what could actually come to pass. But what we&#039;re all chuckling about is how mild they are, and how fundamentally useless most of them are. Kill off NASA education and public outreach to save money? Geez. Bill Proxmire never had much impact on federal spending with his Golden Fleece awards either, but it made for great press.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Googaw wrote @ July 20th, 2011 at 5:57 pm<br />
&#8220;Itâ€™s so entertaining to see, though, that the particular insular community that constitutes this blog and its comments section is so in denial that NASA stands a good chance of losing most of its funding in two weeks.&#8221;</p>
<p>So the insular community that constitutes this blog is going to be at fault when NASA loses it&#8217;s funding? Who would have thought!</p>
<p>But the point that NASA could well suffer a lot from draconian spending cuts is quite correct. But cuts to NASA are hardly going to solve this national &#8220;crisis&#8221;. Yes, Coburn&#8217;s proposed cuts look to be far milder than what could actually come to pass. But what we&#8217;re all chuckling about is how mild they are, and how fundamentally useless most of them are. Kill off NASA education and public outreach to save money? Geez. Bill Proxmire never had much impact on federal spending with his Golden Fleece awards either, but it made for great press.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349627</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rand Simberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:17:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;the usually very insightful Oler&lt;/em&gt;

I&#039;m splitting a gut from laughter.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>the usually very insightful Oler</em></p>
<p>I&#8217;m splitting a gut from laughter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Googaw</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349619</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Googaw]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alas, the usually very insightful Oler has lapsed into Democrat robot mode on the debt ceiling.   First, there&#039;s no apocalypse happening in August if the debt ceiling isn&#039;t raised, unless you&#039;re a federal employee.   Second, the Republicans know this, know that federal employees and their friends vote almost entirely Democrat anyway, and aren&#039;t quaking in their boots about Obama&#039;s threats to not pay this or that obligation that he is legally required to pay and will have plenty of money to pay.  Third, more Americans than not oppose raising the debt ceiling at all.   Fourth, the idea that the 14th Amendment gives Obama anything remotely resembling the power you suggest is a crank idea that has been debunked by those people who know their constitutional law on both the left (e.g. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe) and the right.   You should actually try reading Article 1 Section 8  to see which branch of government has control over federal borrowing.

It&#039;s so entertaining to see, though, that the particular insular community that constitutes this blog and its comments section is so in denial that NASA stands a good chance of losing most of its funding in two weeks.

It&#039;s also in denial over the various budget deals to solve this &quot;crisis&quot;, all of which are draconian on discretionary expending, among which NASA is obviously the most optional of all.  For example the Gang of Six&#039;s plan will likely cut far _more_from NASA than Coburn&#039;s plan recommended.  Keep on having fun daydreaming about your big big rockets and astronaut extravaganzas.   I hope you get to see a lot of them in the movies.  :-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alas, the usually very insightful Oler has lapsed into Democrat robot mode on the debt ceiling.   First, there&#8217;s no apocalypse happening in August if the debt ceiling isn&#8217;t raised, unless you&#8217;re a federal employee.   Second, the Republicans know this, know that federal employees and their friends vote almost entirely Democrat anyway, and aren&#8217;t quaking in their boots about Obama&#8217;s threats to not pay this or that obligation that he is legally required to pay and will have plenty of money to pay.  Third, more Americans than not oppose raising the debt ceiling at all.   Fourth, the idea that the 14th Amendment gives Obama anything remotely resembling the power you suggest is a crank idea that has been debunked by those people who know their constitutional law on both the left (e.g. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe) and the right.   You should actually try reading Article 1 Section 8  to see which branch of government has control over federal borrowing.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s so entertaining to see, though, that the particular insular community that constitutes this blog and its comments section is so in denial that NASA stands a good chance of losing most of its funding in two weeks.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also in denial over the various budget deals to solve this &#8220;crisis&#8221;, all of which are draconian on discretionary expending, among which NASA is obviously the most optional of all.  For example the Gang of Six&#8217;s plan will likely cut far _more_from NASA than Coburn&#8217;s plan recommended.  Keep on having fun daydreaming about your big big rockets and astronaut extravaganzas.   I hope you get to see a lot of them in the movies.  <img src="http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martijn Meijering</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349616</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Martijn Meijering]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:36:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;With shuttle and Gemini we were willing to launch people into space with only ejection seats as an escape system.&lt;/i&gt;

With Gemini part of the reason ejection seats were considered good enough is that a hypergolic booster cannot easily explode; because the propellants ignite on contact they cannot mix very well. Explosive decomposition of the hydrazine (which can be used as a monopropellant after all) was apparently considered unlikely.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>With shuttle and Gemini we were willing to launch people into space with only ejection seats as an escape system.</i></p>
<p>With Gemini part of the reason ejection seats were considered good enough is that a hypergolic booster cannot easily explode; because the propellants ignite on contact they cannot mix very well. Explosive decomposition of the hydrazine (which can be used as a monopropellant after all) was apparently considered unlikely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349615</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rand Simberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:19:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We could even do it without ejection seats.  We flew Shuttle that way for three decades (after the fourth flight).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We could even do it without ejection seats.  We flew Shuttle that way for three decades (after the fourth flight).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rhyolite</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349612</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rhyolite]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:58:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The SpaceX Dragon capsule is already flying, so outfitting it for crew wonâ€™t take the rest of the decade.&quot;

With shuttle and Gemini we were willing to launch people into space with only ejection seats as an escape system.  If we *really* wanted to we could modify the Dragon hatches, add ejection seats and launch people in a year.  Any gap in US manned launch capabilities is purely the choice of congress made to protect its parochial interests.  Congress is choosing to have a gap.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The SpaceX Dragon capsule is already flying, so outfitting it for crew wonâ€™t take the rest of the decade.&#8221;</p>
<p>With shuttle and Gemini we were willing to launch people into space with only ejection seats as an escape system.  If we *really* wanted to we could modify the Dragon hatches, add ejection seats and launch people in a year.  Any gap in US manned launch capabilities is purely the choice of congress made to protect its parochial interests.  Congress is choosing to have a gap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coastal Ron</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/19/coburns-curious-cuts/#comment-349609</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Coastal Ron]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4859#comment-349609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chris Castro wrote @ July 20th, 2011 at 4:01 am

&quot;&lt;i&gt;NO FURTHER AMERICAN-BUILT SPACECRAFTS WILL FLY FOR THE REST OF THE DECADE.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

What an ignorant statement.

At the very least, the MPCV, which is the Cadillac Escalade of the capsule world, will be ready for testing in just a few years, and the main thing holding it up from manned testing is Congress, since they want the SLS to be the only crew carrier for it.  Go lobby Congress to free up funds to certify Delta IV Heavy as an alternate launch vehicle, which would also keep us from being grounded when/if the SLS becomes grounded.

Secondly, though Congress is not fully in love with the CCDev program, they have been funding it.  And in fact Commercial Crew is the primary designated method for supporting the ISS, and it has been since the Bush/Griffin FY2006 budet.  The CCDev program doesn&#039;t need as much as the MPCV program, and they can get two or more American crew systems going by 2016.  The SpaceX Dragon capsule is already flying, so outfitting it for crew won&#039;t take the rest of the decade.

It surprises me why someone who purports to be such an American space supporter would totally ignore and not support the efforts of the American aerospace industry to provide multiple ways to space.  And they are not taking 100% of their money from NASA like Lockheed Martin is for the MPCV, these companies are investing their own money, multiplying the investment from the American Taxpayer.  What&#039;s wrong with that?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris Castro wrote @ July 20th, 2011 at 4:01 am</p>
<p>&#8220;<i>NO FURTHER AMERICAN-BUILT SPACECRAFTS WILL FLY FOR THE REST OF THE DECADE.</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>What an ignorant statement.</p>
<p>At the very least, the MPCV, which is the Cadillac Escalade of the capsule world, will be ready for testing in just a few years, and the main thing holding it up from manned testing is Congress, since they want the SLS to be the only crew carrier for it.  Go lobby Congress to free up funds to certify Delta IV Heavy as an alternate launch vehicle, which would also keep us from being grounded when/if the SLS becomes grounded.</p>
<p>Secondly, though Congress is not fully in love with the CCDev program, they have been funding it.  And in fact Commercial Crew is the primary designated method for supporting the ISS, and it has been since the Bush/Griffin FY2006 budet.  The CCDev program doesn&#8217;t need as much as the MPCV program, and they can get two or more American crew systems going by 2016.  The SpaceX Dragon capsule is already flying, so outfitting it for crew won&#8217;t take the rest of the decade.</p>
<p>It surprises me why someone who purports to be such an American space supporter would totally ignore and not support the efforts of the American aerospace industry to provide multiple ways to space.  And they are not taking 100% of their money from NASA like Lockheed Martin is for the MPCV, these companies are investing their own money, multiplying the investment from the American Taxpayer.  What&#8217;s wrong with that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
