<?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: No quick end for 2015 appropriations process</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process</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: Andrew Swallow</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-563693</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Swallow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-563693</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WW3 may have started.  The threats are coming back.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WW3 may have started.  The threats are coming back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-560404</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2014 05:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-560404</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vlad is quite right.  Elon will win because he will be looking six or eight moves ahead at all times and never making a move that is not well-considered and well-prepared.  He&#039;s going to summit an unknown rock face, but he&#039;s not planning to make the initial ascent freestyle; he&#039;s going to use ropes and lots and lots of pitons.  Elon&#039;s signal advantage over governments and bureaucracies who may be inclined, in their stupid and careless ways, to try doing the same is that he has his vision as an ever-present navigational reference, and he is able to be &lt;i&gt;per&lt;/i&gt;sistent and &lt;i&gt;con&lt;/i&gt;sistent in pursuit of his goal.

It&#039;s essentially impossible for government, or even corporate, bureaucracies to marshal these necessary qualities over time.  The U.S. Apollo program had Von Braun as its visionary-in-chief.  The early Soviet program had Korolev.  I think a lot of the reason for the Soviet&#039;s ultimate failure to either win the Moon race or even to place a close second was because Korolev died in 1966, whereas Von Braun lasted through to the end and beyond.  Interesting to contemplate how things might have gone quite differently had Von Braun expired in 1966 and Korolev lived until 1977.  In that case, afficianados of 60&#039;s-era trivia might well be getting the real-life team of Neil and Buzz mixed up with the fictional team of Tod and Buzz and either one could be a $1,000 dollar answer on &lt;i&gt;Jeopardy.&lt;/i&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vlad is quite right.  Elon will win because he will be looking six or eight moves ahead at all times and never making a move that is not well-considered and well-prepared.  He&#8217;s going to summit an unknown rock face, but he&#8217;s not planning to make the initial ascent freestyle; he&#8217;s going to use ropes and lots and lots of pitons.  Elon&#8217;s signal advantage over governments and bureaucracies who may be inclined, in their stupid and careless ways, to try doing the same is that he has his vision as an ever-present navigational reference, and he is able to be <i>per</i>sistent and <i>con</i>sistent in pursuit of his goal.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s essentially impossible for government, or even corporate, bureaucracies to marshal these necessary qualities over time.  The U.S. Apollo program had Von Braun as its visionary-in-chief.  The early Soviet program had Korolev.  I think a lot of the reason for the Soviet&#8217;s ultimate failure to either win the Moon race or even to place a close second was because Korolev died in 1966, whereas Von Braun lasted through to the end and beyond.  Interesting to contemplate how things might have gone quite differently had Von Braun expired in 1966 and Korolev lived until 1977.  In that case, afficianados of 60&#8217;s-era trivia might well be getting the real-life team of Neil and Buzz mixed up with the fictional team of Tod and Buzz and either one could be a $1,000 dollar answer on <i>Jeopardy.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hiram</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-557446</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hiram]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-557446</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I said, humans travel to explore because they are threatened or hungry. As a rationale for contemporary human space flight, however, hunger is laughable. At least Apollo did what it did because we were threatened. Food is cheap, and loads of it is sitting on shelves at the grocery store. Housing materials are not hard to find either. If we&#039;re looking for food, the Moon, for example, is a really, really bad place to look.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I said, humans travel to explore because they are threatened or hungry. As a rationale for contemporary human space flight, however, hunger is laughable. At least Apollo did what it did because we were threatened. Food is cheap, and loads of it is sitting on shelves at the grocery store. Housing materials are not hard to find either. If we&#8217;re looking for food, the Moon, for example, is a really, really bad place to look.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Swallow</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-557232</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Swallow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:13:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-557232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reason to explore - food.

Any given bit of land can only produce so much food.  Once eaten the creature has to go somewhere else for its next meal.  When they grow up the children of the creature will need their own hunting grounds.

Humans like birds need a nesting area to bring up their young.  Materials for the nest (house) also need finding.

The food source can be scouted out in advance and its location remembered.  One advantage of big brains and maps.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reason to explore &#8211; food.</p>
<p>Any given bit of land can only produce so much food.  Once eaten the creature has to go somewhere else for its next meal.  When they grow up the children of the creature will need their own hunting grounds.</p>
<p>Humans like birds need a nesting area to bring up their young.  Materials for the nest (house) also need finding.</p>
<p>The food source can be scouted out in advance and its location remembered.  One advantage of big brains and maps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vladislaw</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-555870</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Vladislaw]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 05:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-555870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Donald wrote:

&quot;itâ€™s a project for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years â€” and the first ones are very likely to fail. None of this reflects on Elonâ€™s ambitions, skills, or achievements so far: it is simply a reflection of how hard colonization is, especially of an unremittingly hostile place like Mars, and the difficulty of getting and staying there and successfully living off the land.&quot;

A couple assumptions are going to make it a whole lot easier than a top down government controled, pork laden settlement attempt and a commercial attempt.

A heavy lift that isn&#039;t designed, developed, tested and built at totally insane prices. 

A heavy lift launch vehicle that is reusable.

Speed of commercial firms in pushing technology and innovations in to current production streams. 

Think about the Shuttle and ISS that was still using archaic computer processors 10 - 15 years old. Commercial interests would have been shoveling in new tech a lot faster. 

Look how many iterations of the Merlin engine we have seen in the last decade .. 

If SpaceX can pull off a reusable 200 ton launcher that can drop 150 TONS of cargo on mars multiple times per year. Colonization could happen at whirlwind speed not seen since NASA&#039;s infancy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Donald wrote:</p>
<p>&#8220;itâ€™s a project for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years â€” and the first ones are very likely to fail. None of this reflects on Elonâ€™s ambitions, skills, or achievements so far: it is simply a reflection of how hard colonization is, especially of an unremittingly hostile place like Mars, and the difficulty of getting and staying there and successfully living off the land.&#8221;</p>
<p>A couple assumptions are going to make it a whole lot easier than a top down government controled, pork laden settlement attempt and a commercial attempt.</p>
<p>A heavy lift that isn&#8217;t designed, developed, tested and built at totally insane prices. </p>
<p>A heavy lift launch vehicle that is reusable.</p>
<p>Speed of commercial firms in pushing technology and innovations in to current production streams. </p>
<p>Think about the Shuttle and ISS that was still using archaic computer processors 10 &#8211; 15 years old. Commercial interests would have been shoveling in new tech a lot faster. </p>
<p>Look how many iterations of the Merlin engine we have seen in the last decade .. </p>
<p>If SpaceX can pull off a reusable 200 ton launcher that can drop 150 TONS of cargo on mars multiple times per year. Colonization could happen at whirlwind speed not seen since NASA&#8217;s infancy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-555667</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 04:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-555667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With you entirely on the atheism/space colonization as religion thing.  I&#039;m two years older than Pike and I remember Sputnik too.  Also the Echo satellites a couple years later.  Now &lt;i&gt;those&lt;/i&gt; puppies &lt;i&gt;really&lt;/i&gt; showed up over the &#039;ole backyard.  Brighter than Jupiter or Mars.

As for Elon winning on Mars, I think he will because he is just audacious enough, but not &lt;i&gt;more&lt;/i&gt; than enough.  True genius, I think, is often a matter of consistent finesse.  Elon seems to have that.  There are only a handful of people now on Earth who might get Mars colonization &quot;right.&quot;  Elon is definitely one of them and, hey, he&#039;s also the only one who will have the money to do it in a few years.

Fun times ahead, DFR!  Fun times ahead!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With you entirely on the atheism/space colonization as religion thing.  I&#8217;m two years older than Pike and I remember Sputnik too.  Also the Echo satellites a couple years later.  Now <i>those</i> puppies <i>really</i> showed up over the &#8216;ole backyard.  Brighter than Jupiter or Mars.</p>
<p>As for Elon winning on Mars, I think he will because he is just audacious enough, but not <i>more</i> than enough.  True genius, I think, is often a matter of consistent finesse.  Elon seems to have that.  There are only a handful of people now on Earth who might get Mars colonization &#8220;right.&#8221;  Elon is definitely one of them and, hey, he&#8217;s also the only one who will have the money to do it in a few years.</p>
<p>Fun times ahead, DFR!  Fun times ahead!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald F. Robertson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-553067</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald F. Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-553067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson:  &lt;i&gt;Religious motives have probably impelled as much exploration and expedition as any other force except possibly the lure of financial gain.&lt;/i&gt;

I fully agree.  Although I consider myself agnostic leaning heavily toward atheism, I also admit that my advocacy for human spaceflight is, at bottom, essentially religious.  

I am not the only one honest enough to admit this:  I once quoted John Pike as saying, &quot;You have this very small minority of people who have had this personal &#039;revelation&#039; that [human] spaceflight is important and means something. They have to trick the other ninety-five percent of taxpayers into paying for their own private, religious obsession.&quot; Does Pike share this &#039;religion&#039;?  He laughed, and said, &quot;Yes! My first conscious memory was when I was four years old and went out into the back yard and saw Sputnik-1.&quot;

&lt;i&gt;Elon plays the long game. I think heâ€™s going to win.&lt;/i&gt;

I agree with the first phrase, but I doubt the second.  In the sense of giving commercial space transportation a good push in the seat of the pants, he has already &quot;won.&quot;  But successfully establishing colonies on Mars will be far harder than he thinks -- it&#039;s a project for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years -- and the first ones are very likely to fail.  None of this reflects on Elon&#039;s ambitions, skills, or achievements so far:  it is simply a reflection of how hard colonization is, especially of an unremittingly hostile place like Mars, and the difficulty of getting and staying there and successfully living off the land.  The colonization of Iceland and Greenland are probably good models.  Neither went well, but Iceland was the first post-Roman democracy and, today, remains the longest-surviving one.  More relevantly, it now has a large and established population.  

-- Donald]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dick Eagleson:  <i>Religious motives have probably impelled as much exploration and expedition as any other force except possibly the lure of financial gain.</i></p>
<p>I fully agree.  Although I consider myself agnostic leaning heavily toward atheism, I also admit that my advocacy for human spaceflight is, at bottom, essentially religious.  </p>
<p>I am not the only one honest enough to admit this:  I once quoted John Pike as saying, &#8220;You have this very small minority of people who have had this personal &#8216;revelation&#8217; that [human] spaceflight is important and means something. They have to trick the other ninety-five percent of taxpayers into paying for their own private, religious obsession.&#8221; Does Pike share this &#8216;religion&#8217;?  He laughed, and said, &#8220;Yes! My first conscious memory was when I was four years old and went out into the back yard and saw Sputnik-1.&#8221;</p>
<p><i>Elon plays the long game. I think heâ€™s going to win.</i></p>
<p>I agree with the first phrase, but I doubt the second.  In the sense of giving commercial space transportation a good push in the seat of the pants, he has already &#8220;won.&#8221;  But successfully establishing colonies on Mars will be far harder than he thinks &#8212; it&#8217;s a project for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years &#8212; and the first ones are very likely to fail.  None of this reflects on Elon&#8217;s ambitions, skills, or achievements so far:  it is simply a reflection of how hard colonization is, especially of an unremittingly hostile place like Mars, and the difficulty of getting and staying there and successfully living off the land.  The colonization of Iceland and Greenland are probably good models.  Neither went well, but Iceland was the first post-Roman democracy and, today, remains the longest-surviving one.  More relevantly, it now has a large and established population.  </p>
<p>&#8212; Donald</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-550233</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-550233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#039;t discount the importance of ideology in driving exploration and/or settlement of freshly explored territories.  Sometimes the ideology involves conquest of new lands for the greater glory of, say, Islam.  Sometimes it is reactive, a consequence of being persecuted and driven out of the more settled areas, as with the Mormons starting out in New England and winding up in Utah.  Religious motives have probably impelled as much exploration and expedition as any other force except possibly the lure of financial gain.

SpaceX&#039;s Martian Odyssey seems to involve both.  There is no question that ideology is the impetus, but Elon expects Mars colonization to be profitable too.  He has both a mission and a business plan.  As Vladislaw notes, Elon has deliberately chosen to leave quite a bit of money on the table in the near term in order to retain freedom of action for the longer term.  Elon plays the long game.  I think he&#039;s going to win.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t discount the importance of ideology in driving exploration and/or settlement of freshly explored territories.  Sometimes the ideology involves conquest of new lands for the greater glory of, say, Islam.  Sometimes it is reactive, a consequence of being persecuted and driven out of the more settled areas, as with the Mormons starting out in New England and winding up in Utah.  Religious motives have probably impelled as much exploration and expedition as any other force except possibly the lure of financial gain.</p>
<p>SpaceX&#8217;s Martian Odyssey seems to involve both.  There is no question that ideology is the impetus, but Elon expects Mars colonization to be profitable too.  He has both a mission and a business plan.  As Vladislaw notes, Elon has deliberately chosen to leave quite a bit of money on the table in the near term in order to retain freedom of action for the longer term.  Elon plays the long game.  I think he&#8217;s going to win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dick Eagleson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-550183</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dick Eagleson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 02:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-550183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Chinese leadership is certainly aware that their natives are restless.  As to attempting to address problems, not so much.  All the Chinese leadership can do is play for time with a musical chairs game of favors granted and withdrawn.  There is an endpoint to schemes of this type.  To actually preserve their power the Chinese leaders need to remain in charge of everything.  Their problems, though, mainly derive from &lt;i&gt;being&lt;/i&gt; in charge of everything.  Quite a few of their most intractable problems, for example, are predictable downstream consequences of the disastrous &quot;one-child policy&quot; enacted decades ago by a previous generation of absolute Chinese rulers who were &lt;i&gt;also&lt;/i&gt; - wait for it now - in charge of everything.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Chinese leadership is certainly aware that their natives are restless.  As to attempting to address problems, not so much.  All the Chinese leadership can do is play for time with a musical chairs game of favors granted and withdrawn.  There is an endpoint to schemes of this type.  To actually preserve their power the Chinese leaders need to remain in charge of everything.  Their problems, though, mainly derive from <i>being</i> in charge of everything.  Quite a few of their most intractable problems, for example, are predictable downstream consequences of the disastrous &#8220;one-child policy&#8221; enacted decades ago by a previous generation of absolute Chinese rulers who were <i>also</i> &#8211; wait for it now &#8211; in charge of everything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald F. Robertson</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/22/no-quick-end-for-2015-appropriations-process/#comment-549686</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald F. Robertson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=7254#comment-549686</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, here&#039;s a link to a printable copy of the entire book, &lt;a href=&quot;http://history.nasa.gov/monograph54.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Historical Analogs for Stimulation of Space Commerce&lt;/a&gt;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, here&#8217;s a link to a printable copy of the entire book, <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/monograph54.pdf" rel="nofollow">Historical Analogs for Stimulation of Space Commerce</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
