<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_08_1916226</id>
	<title>US Manned Space Flight Taking a Budget Hit</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244451900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader points out that Congress has quietly begun <a href="http://www.space.com/news/090608-nasa-budget.html">dismantling NASA's manned space flight program</a>.  <i>"Other  recommendations contained in the bill include a $77million reduction in NASA's proposed space operations budget, which includes the space shuttle and international space station; a $6 million reduction in science; and a $332 million shift in funds from the Cross Agency Support account to a new budget line-item included in the subcommittee's mark. Dubbed Construction and Environmental Compliance, the new account would be funded at $441 million. Congressional aides said the new line item and accompanying funds are aimed at consolidating NASA's various construction efforts into a single pot of money."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader points out that Congress has quietly begun dismantling NASA 's manned space flight program .
" Other recommendations contained in the bill include a $ 77million reduction in NASA 's proposed space operations budget , which includes the space shuttle and international space station ; a $ 6 million reduction in science ; and a $ 332 million shift in funds from the Cross Agency Support account to a new budget line-item included in the subcommittee 's mark .
Dubbed Construction and Environmental Compliance , the new account would be funded at $ 441 million .
Congressional aides said the new line item and accompanying funds are aimed at consolidating NASA 's various construction efforts into a single pot of money .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader points out that Congress has quietly begun dismantling NASA's manned space flight program.
"Other  recommendations contained in the bill include a $77million reduction in NASA's proposed space operations budget, which includes the space shuttle and international space station; a $6 million reduction in science; and a $332 million shift in funds from the Cross Agency Support account to a new budget line-item included in the subcommittee's mark.
Dubbed Construction and Environmental Compliance, the new account would be funded at $441 million.
Congressional aides said the new line item and accompanying funds are aimed at consolidating NASA's various construction efforts into a single pot of money.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28271485</id>
	<title>Re:They have yet to take my suggestion</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1244541360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not a new idea.  There was an US Air Force officer who volunteered for a one-way trip to the moon in order to beat the Russians.  The idea was to land him there with a bunch of supplies and then design, build, and launch the return voyage while he was up there playing solitaire.  Unfortunately I can't remember his name and my google fu isn't up to snuff to find it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a new idea .
There was an US Air Force officer who volunteered for a one-way trip to the moon in order to beat the Russians .
The idea was to land him there with a bunch of supplies and then design , build , and launch the return voyage while he was up there playing solitaire .
Unfortunately I ca n't remember his name and my google fu is n't up to snuff to find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a new idea.
There was an US Air Force officer who volunteered for a one-way trip to the moon in order to beat the Russians.
The idea was to land him there with a bunch of supplies and then design, build, and launch the return voyage while he was up there playing solitaire.
Unfortunately I can't remember his name and my google fu isn't up to snuff to find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28262997</id>
	<title>don't worry</title>
	<author>cosanostradamus</author>
	<datestamp>1244542260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.<br>
The Pentagon will pick up the slack. They're almost finished with Phase One of Skynet. It's going to be... wonderful.
<br>
<br>
More <a href="http://blog-me-no-blogs.blogspot.com/2009/06/unnatural-nature-news.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">news.</a> [blogspot.com] <br>
.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
The Pentagon will pick up the slack .
They 're almost finished with Phase One of Skynet .
It 's going to be... wonderful . More news .
[ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
The Pentagon will pick up the slack.
They're almost finished with Phase One of Skynet.
It's going to be... wonderful.


More news.
[blogspot.com] 
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28260095</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1244473260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yep, gotta cut science, engineering and exploration from the budget so we can use the money to fund <b>GM and Chrysler</b>....</p></div><p>Fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , got ta cut science , engineering and exploration from the budget so we can use the money to fund GM and Chrysler....Fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, gotta cut science, engineering and exploration from the budget so we can use the money to fund GM and Chrysler....Fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256815</id>
	<title>Peanuts compared to the billions sunk into GM</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1244456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people (I guess universally hated on Slahsdot) told the Obama administration not to throw good money after bad. They didn't listen, and billions are now lost. So let's cut funds for scientific research (I expect the fury of the Slashdot general public, as well as their apologetic posts finding excuses for anything the Democrats did since the elections. Never mind, I have enough karma)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people ( I guess universally hated on Slahsdot ) told the Obama administration not to throw good money after bad .
They did n't listen , and billions are now lost .
So let 's cut funds for scientific research ( I expect the fury of the Slashdot general public , as well as their apologetic posts finding excuses for anything the Democrats did since the elections .
Never mind , I have enough karma )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people (I guess universally hated on Slahsdot) told the Obama administration not to throw good money after bad.
They didn't listen, and billions are now lost.
So let's cut funds for scientific research (I expect the fury of the Slashdot general public, as well as their apologetic posts finding excuses for anything the Democrats did since the elections.
Never mind, I have enough karma)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256597</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Xonstantine</author>
	<datestamp>1244455620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acorn will be given a generous grant of $4 billion to get out the (Democratic) vote for 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acorn will be given a generous grant of $ 4 billion to get out the ( Democratic ) vote for 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acorn will be given a generous grant of $4 billion to get out the (Democratic) vote for 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</id>
	<title>A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a bad economy, pure science and space exploration seem to be first on the budget chopping block.  However the information learned and technology developed while performing these activities quite often lead to innovations that fuel the economy for years to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a bad economy , pure science and space exploration seem to be first on the budget chopping block .
However the information learned and technology developed while performing these activities quite often lead to innovations that fuel the economy for years to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a bad economy, pure science and space exploration seem to be first on the budget chopping block.
However the information learned and technology developed while performing these activities quite often lead to innovations that fuel the economy for years to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258391</id>
	<title>This makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244462760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sending humans up into space is colossally expensive, and of little scientific interest in itself. (It has been proven that you can send humans up into space.) Actual experiments in space, be they to do with zero gravity, telescopes, or what have you can generally be conducted much more economically by mechanised probes.</p><p>For the past few decades, manned spaceflight was more a PR exercise than anything else. Someone would go up with a few schoolchildren's experiments, make a few transmissions and get some heroic news coverage. This would be great for national prestige, and to be one of those kids whose plant seedlings got taken up on the space shuttle would have been pretty awesome, though the scientific value of such missions hit the point of diminishing returns a while ago.  Now the PR value seems to be declining as well (it has been almost half a century since the first astronauts went up), and the question must be asked: is it really the best use of such sums of money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sending humans up into space is colossally expensive , and of little scientific interest in itself .
( It has been proven that you can send humans up into space .
) Actual experiments in space , be they to do with zero gravity , telescopes , or what have you can generally be conducted much more economically by mechanised probes.For the past few decades , manned spaceflight was more a PR exercise than anything else .
Someone would go up with a few schoolchildren 's experiments , make a few transmissions and get some heroic news coverage .
This would be great for national prestige , and to be one of those kids whose plant seedlings got taken up on the space shuttle would have been pretty awesome , though the scientific value of such missions hit the point of diminishing returns a while ago .
Now the PR value seems to be declining as well ( it has been almost half a century since the first astronauts went up ) , and the question must be asked : is it really the best use of such sums of money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sending humans up into space is colossally expensive, and of little scientific interest in itself.
(It has been proven that you can send humans up into space.
) Actual experiments in space, be they to do with zero gravity, telescopes, or what have you can generally be conducted much more economically by mechanised probes.For the past few decades, manned spaceflight was more a PR exercise than anything else.
Someone would go up with a few schoolchildren's experiments, make a few transmissions and get some heroic news coverage.
This would be great for national prestige, and to be one of those kids whose plant seedlings got taken up on the space shuttle would have been pretty awesome, though the scientific value of such missions hit the point of diminishing returns a while ago.
Now the PR value seems to be declining as well (it has been almost half a century since the first astronauts went up), and the question must be asked: is it really the best use of such sums of money?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256833</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utter bullshit.

We need to spend money to live on earth before we try to explore how to live off of it.

There will be far more technological innovations if the money is pumped directly into research and/or the industry as opposed to the trickled effects of a space exploration mission.

This is a classic case of living beyond one's means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter bullshit .
We need to spend money to live on earth before we try to explore how to live off of it .
There will be far more technological innovations if the money is pumped directly into research and/or the industry as opposed to the trickled effects of a space exploration mission .
This is a classic case of living beyond one 's means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter bullshit.
We need to spend money to live on earth before we try to explore how to live off of it.
There will be far more technological innovations if the money is pumped directly into research and/or the industry as opposed to the trickled effects of a space exploration mission.
This is a classic case of living beyond one's means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257847</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244460360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.</p></div><p>Are you insane? Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids? Any "near earth" asteroids would be on eccentric orbits. I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth. It certainly would be extremely dangerous (you know, with the risk of being stranded in a 100+ year orbit, ejected from the inner solar system, etc, etc).

The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons: they are close and they are "easy" to land on. The hard part about either is getting there and getting back. Asteroids are harder to get to, more dangerous to approach, more difficult to land on, and far more difficult to leave.

You don't know what you are talking about.</p></div><p>First of all, who said anything about returning to Earth? Hell, we haven't returned to Earth from Mars yet either, yet we set out to go there. We've barely returned from the Moon, and that's practically at our doorstep. And landing isn't quite as hard as you make it out to be; landing on Mars is one of the hardest things we've done engineering-wise, yet we've done that via auto-pilot. As long as we picked an asteroid with sufficient mass and with a clear enough neighborhood, it should be just damned hard instead of damned impossible (like we thought Mars was during the years of the Martian Curse).
<br> <br>
So let's do what NASA is incredibly good at: Send Fucking Robots. They're dirt cheap. If you build them right (and the Martian landers have proven that we can), they last fucking forever, and they do more exo-planetary science than the International Space Station has, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
<br> <br>
Quite frankly, we have too much to learn about our solar system to be so fixated on one target like we have been with Mars. Let's look around to see what else we can learn. You never know, it might actually help us get to Mars more quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.Are you insane ?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids ?
Any " near earth " asteroids would be on eccentric orbits .
I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth .
It certainly would be extremely dangerous ( you know , with the risk of being stranded in a 100 + year orbit , ejected from the inner solar system , etc , etc ) .
The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons : they are close and they are " easy " to land on .
The hard part about either is getting there and getting back .
Asteroids are harder to get to , more dangerous to approach , more difficult to land on , and far more difficult to leave .
You do n't know what you are talking about.First of all , who said anything about returning to Earth ?
Hell , we have n't returned to Earth from Mars yet either , yet we set out to go there .
We 've barely returned from the Moon , and that 's practically at our doorstep .
And landing is n't quite as hard as you make it out to be ; landing on Mars is one of the hardest things we 've done engineering-wise , yet we 've done that via auto-pilot .
As long as we picked an asteroid with sufficient mass and with a clear enough neighborhood , it should be just damned hard instead of damned impossible ( like we thought Mars was during the years of the Martian Curse ) .
So let 's do what NASA is incredibly good at : Send Fucking Robots .
They 're dirt cheap .
If you build them right ( and the Martian landers have proven that we can ) , they last fucking forever , and they do more exo-planetary science than the International Space Station has , at a tiny fraction of the cost .
Quite frankly , we have too much to learn about our solar system to be so fixated on one target like we have been with Mars .
Let 's look around to see what else we can learn .
You never know , it might actually help us get to Mars more quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.Are you insane?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids?
Any "near earth" asteroids would be on eccentric orbits.
I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth.
It certainly would be extremely dangerous (you know, with the risk of being stranded in a 100+ year orbit, ejected from the inner solar system, etc, etc).
The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons: they are close and they are "easy" to land on.
The hard part about either is getting there and getting back.
Asteroids are harder to get to, more dangerous to approach, more difficult to land on, and far more difficult to leave.
You don't know what you are talking about.First of all, who said anything about returning to Earth?
Hell, we haven't returned to Earth from Mars yet either, yet we set out to go there.
We've barely returned from the Moon, and that's practically at our doorstep.
And landing isn't quite as hard as you make it out to be; landing on Mars is one of the hardest things we've done engineering-wise, yet we've done that via auto-pilot.
As long as we picked an asteroid with sufficient mass and with a clear enough neighborhood, it should be just damned hard instead of damned impossible (like we thought Mars was during the years of the Martian Curse).
So let's do what NASA is incredibly good at: Send Fucking Robots.
They're dirt cheap.
If you build them right (and the Martian landers have proven that we can), they last fucking forever, and they do more exo-planetary science than the International Space Station has, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Quite frankly, we have too much to learn about our solar system to be so fixated on one target like we have been with Mars.
Let's look around to see what else we can learn.
You never know, it might actually help us get to Mars more quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28267183</id>
	<title>Re:People tried to warn you about Obama.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1244567880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Constellation != all "high-IQ" pursuits.  Obama is funding <a href="http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obamas-2009-stimulus-package-grant-16-billion-r-d-funding" title="nowpublic.com">tons of R&amp;D</a> [nowpublic.com], so unless you consider cancer research to be a "low-IQ" pursuit, you're just plain wrong.  Knocking $800 million off NASA's budget, while not something I approve of, hardly defines a trend away from research, when there's $16 billion going the other way.</p><p>This is why nobody listened to your warnings.  Because your warnings were wrong and stupid, and mouthed by an idiot.</p><p>Calling Obama a bolshevik just seals the deal.  There's no way you can know what the word means and apply it to him in a meaningful way.  You're probably using Bolshevik as a stand-in for Marxist or Communist, which is equally retarded, and is just another stand-in for Socialist, another scare-word people use but don't understand.  When you can't tell the difference between the systems of England and post-revolution Russia, randomly spewing words associated with them does not convince anyone of anything but that you are a loon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Constellation ! = all " high-IQ " pursuits .
Obama is funding tons of R&amp;D [ nowpublic.com ] , so unless you consider cancer research to be a " low-IQ " pursuit , you 're just plain wrong .
Knocking $ 800 million off NASA 's budget , while not something I approve of , hardly defines a trend away from research , when there 's $ 16 billion going the other way.This is why nobody listened to your warnings .
Because your warnings were wrong and stupid , and mouthed by an idiot.Calling Obama a bolshevik just seals the deal .
There 's no way you can know what the word means and apply it to him in a meaningful way .
You 're probably using Bolshevik as a stand-in for Marxist or Communist , which is equally retarded , and is just another stand-in for Socialist , another scare-word people use but do n't understand .
When you ca n't tell the difference between the systems of England and post-revolution Russia , randomly spewing words associated with them does not convince anyone of anything but that you are a loon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Constellation != all "high-IQ" pursuits.
Obama is funding tons of R&amp;D [nowpublic.com], so unless you consider cancer research to be a "low-IQ" pursuit, you're just plain wrong.
Knocking $800 million off NASA's budget, while not something I approve of, hardly defines a trend away from research, when there's $16 billion going the other way.This is why nobody listened to your warnings.
Because your warnings were wrong and stupid, and mouthed by an idiot.Calling Obama a bolshevik just seals the deal.
There's no way you can know what the word means and apply it to him in a meaningful way.
You're probably using Bolshevik as a stand-in for Marxist or Communist, which is equally retarded, and is just another stand-in for Socialist, another scare-word people use but don't understand.
When you can't tell the difference between the systems of England and post-revolution Russia, randomly spewing words associated with them does not convince anyone of anything but that you are a loon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258363</id>
	<title>Re:Huston, the Eagle has landed</title>
	<author>Kittenman</author>
	<datestamp>1244462640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice quote, but it would have been more effective if you'd correctly spelt "Houston".</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice quote , but it would have been more effective if you 'd correctly spelt " Houston " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice quote, but it would have been more effective if you'd correctly spelt "Houston".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256777</id>
	<title>Affect on Armadillo Aerospace?</title>
	<author>malloc</author>
	<datestamp>1244456280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just saw this April 2009 <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/04/armadillo-tests-nasas-ares-i-u.html" title="flightglobal.com">video interview with John Carmack</a> [flightglobal.com] this morning, where he mentions that some of their NASA work is up in the air, pending the budget shakeout.  Does this mean no more NASA work for <a href="http://armadilloaerospace.com/" title="armadilloaerospace.com">Armadillo Aerospace</a> [armadilloaerospace.com]?</p><p>It does emphasize one benefit of private research and development: not subject (as in "we kill you right now") to such political money shuffling.</p><p>-Malloc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just saw this April 2009 video interview with John Carmack [ flightglobal.com ] this morning , where he mentions that some of their NASA work is up in the air , pending the budget shakeout .
Does this mean no more NASA work for Armadillo Aerospace [ armadilloaerospace.com ] ? It does emphasize one benefit of private research and development : not subject ( as in " we kill you right now " ) to such political money shuffling.-Malloc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just saw this April 2009 video interview with John Carmack [flightglobal.com] this morning, where he mentions that some of their NASA work is up in the air, pending the budget shakeout.
Does this mean no more NASA work for Armadillo Aerospace [armadilloaerospace.com]?It does emphasize one benefit of private research and development: not subject (as in "we kill you right now") to such political money shuffling.-Malloc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28269111</id>
	<title>The NASA Prize board would be a better idea</title>
	<author>mark0978</author>
	<datestamp>1244575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the hardware component of NASA were to go away completely we would get way more bang for the buck.  The analysis guys decided what they want to see/know, publish the specs, and let private enterprise create the cool toys.</p><p>The idea works like so:</p><p>We want X,Y,Z and we will pay $4B to the first company to complete the checklist for us and deliver the data to the public domain.</p><p>We'd get much more efficient use of the money and much faster progress.  If you don't succeed you don't make any money, winnowing out the nut jobs that currently decide how NASA will spend money on rockets that don't/can't work.  And yet we still get the data.</p><p>Maybe some small core group of scientists would remain NASA to do this pure research, but all the hardware and software to go get the data would move into the private sector funded by venture capital and rewarded by prizes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the hardware component of NASA were to go away completely we would get way more bang for the buck .
The analysis guys decided what they want to see/know , publish the specs , and let private enterprise create the cool toys.The idea works like so : We want X,Y,Z and we will pay $ 4B to the first company to complete the checklist for us and deliver the data to the public domain.We 'd get much more efficient use of the money and much faster progress .
If you do n't succeed you do n't make any money , winnowing out the nut jobs that currently decide how NASA will spend money on rockets that do n't/ca n't work .
And yet we still get the data.Maybe some small core group of scientists would remain NASA to do this pure research , but all the hardware and software to go get the data would move into the private sector funded by venture capital and rewarded by prizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the hardware component of NASA were to go away completely we would get way more bang for the buck.
The analysis guys decided what they want to see/know, publish the specs, and let private enterprise create the cool toys.The idea works like so:We want X,Y,Z and we will pay $4B to the first company to complete the checklist for us and deliver the data to the public domain.We'd get much more efficient use of the money and much faster progress.
If you don't succeed you don't make any money, winnowing out the nut jobs that currently decide how NASA will spend money on rockets that don't/can't work.
And yet we still get the data.Maybe some small core group of scientists would remain NASA to do this pure research, but all the hardware and software to go get the data would move into the private sector funded by venture capital and rewarded by prizes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>offrdbandit</author>
	<datestamp>1244457360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.</p></div><p>Are you insane? Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids? Any "near earth" asteroids would be on eccentric orbits. I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth. It certainly would be extremely dangerous (you know, with the risk of being stranded in a 100+ year orbit, ejected from the inner solar system, etc, etc).

The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons: they are close and they are "easy" to land on. The hard part about either is getting there and getting back. Asteroids are harder to get to, more dangerous to approach, more difficult to land on, and far more difficult to leave.

You don't know what you are talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.Are you insane ?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids ?
Any " near earth " asteroids would be on eccentric orbits .
I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth .
It certainly would be extremely dangerous ( you know , with the risk of being stranded in a 100 + year orbit , ejected from the inner solar system , etc , etc ) .
The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons : they are close and they are " easy " to land on .
The hard part about either is getting there and getting back .
Asteroids are harder to get to , more dangerous to approach , more difficult to land on , and far more difficult to leave .
You do n't know what you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.Are you insane?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids?
Any "near earth" asteroids would be on eccentric orbits.
I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth.
It certainly would be extremely dangerous (you know, with the risk of being stranded in a 100+ year orbit, ejected from the inner solar system, etc, etc).
The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons: they are close and they are "easy" to land on.
The hard part about either is getting there and getting back.
Asteroids are harder to get to, more dangerous to approach, more difficult to land on, and far more difficult to leave.
You don't know what you are talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865</id>
	<title>They have yet to take my suggestion</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1244456580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The expensive thing about manned space exploration is the added costs of bringing the explorers back. Manned exploration would be cost-competitive with robotic exploration if we just sent astronauts on one-way trips! Any volunteers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The expensive thing about manned space exploration is the added costs of bringing the explorers back .
Manned exploration would be cost-competitive with robotic exploration if we just sent astronauts on one-way trips !
Any volunteers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expensive thing about manned space exploration is the added costs of bringing the explorers back.
Manned exploration would be cost-competitive with robotic exploration if we just sent astronauts on one-way trips!
Any volunteers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258013</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244461020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want innovation?  You fund and use your military.  The vast majority of man's innovations have come about through necessity, and the thing that most necessitates innovation is someone trying to kill you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want innovation ?
You fund and use your military .
The vast majority of man 's innovations have come about through necessity , and the thing that most necessitates innovation is someone trying to kill you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want innovation?
You fund and use your military.
The vast majority of man's innovations have come about through necessity, and the thing that most necessitates innovation is someone trying to kill you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259041</id>
	<title>Those inclined to complain about this</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1244466840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Might ask themselves whether the annual <b>$650 billion military <a href="http://charlotteaction.blogspot.com/2009/05/us-military-budget-saps-economy.html" title="blogspot.com">budget</a> [blogspot.com] </b> (fully half of the world's total military expenditure) might be better spent on things other than raining death on other countries.
</p><p>
You know, like <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0625/p01s01-usgn.html" title="csmonitor.com">schools,</a> [csmonitor.com] <a href="http://www.svherald.com/articles/2009/02/17/news/doc499a4fcabb4d1885020225.txt" title="svherald.com">hospitals,</a> [svherald.com] <a href="http://charlotteaction.blogspot.com/2009/02/proposed-nc-cuts-from-road-repair-to.html" title="blogspot.com">roads,</a> [blogspot.com] <a href="http://cbs13.com/local/sac.metro.budget.2.1010339.html" title="cbs13.com">fire stations,</a> [cbs13.com] <a href="http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/705059840" title="heraldnet.com">police,</a> [heraldnet.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and oh yeah, the manned space programme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Might ask themselves whether the annual $ 650 billion military budget [ blogspot.com ] ( fully half of the world 's total military expenditure ) might be better spent on things other than raining death on other countries .
You know , like schools , [ csmonitor.com ] hospitals , [ svherald.com ] roads , [ blogspot.com ] fire stations , [ cbs13.com ] police , [ heraldnet.com ] ... and oh yeah , the manned space programme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Might ask themselves whether the annual $650 billion military budget [blogspot.com]  (fully half of the world's total military expenditure) might be better spent on things other than raining death on other countries.
You know, like schools, [csmonitor.com] hospitals, [svherald.com] roads, [blogspot.com] fire stations, [cbs13.com] police, [heraldnet.com] ... and oh yeah, the manned space programme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257975</id>
	<title>Obama</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Change I can believe in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Change I can believe in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change I can believe in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263347</id>
	<title>Just one question:</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244546760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this part of the Republican War on Science?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this part of the Republican War on Science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this part of the Republican War on Science?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257265</id>
	<title>Russia, China, India</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1244458140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Russia, China, India, the hope for a human future in space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Russia , China , India , the hope for a human future in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Russia, China, India, the hope for a human future in space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257941</id>
	<title>Re:They have yet to take my suggestion</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1244460720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Manned exploration would be cost-competitive with robotic exploration if we just sent astronauts on one-way trips! Any volunteers?</i></p><p><b>ME!</b></p><p>And I'm not even sure I'm joking (ask me again when it's a possibility and we'll see).  But really, one of my greatest dreams is to be able to visit see the earth from space some time in my life, even briefly, even at the very end.  I'll sign whatever waivers are necessary.  To actually be able to visit Mars, to be the first human to touch down on it, and report your discoveries back to an expectantly waiting humanity?   Yeah, I'd do that.</p><p>Sadly, aside from the fact that no such mission exists or is being planned, it won't happen because <i>willingness to risk my life for the cause of space exploration</i> isn't even close to the biggest thing keeping me from being the next Neil Armstrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Manned exploration would be cost-competitive with robotic exploration if we just sent astronauts on one-way trips !
Any volunteers ? ME ! And I 'm not even sure I 'm joking ( ask me again when it 's a possibility and we 'll see ) .
But really , one of my greatest dreams is to be able to visit see the earth from space some time in my life , even briefly , even at the very end .
I 'll sign whatever waivers are necessary .
To actually be able to visit Mars , to be the first human to touch down on it , and report your discoveries back to an expectantly waiting humanity ?
Yeah , I 'd do that.Sadly , aside from the fact that no such mission exists or is being planned , it wo n't happen because willingness to risk my life for the cause of space exploration is n't even close to the biggest thing keeping me from being the next Neil Armstrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manned exploration would be cost-competitive with robotic exploration if we just sent astronauts on one-way trips!
Any volunteers?ME!And I'm not even sure I'm joking (ask me again when it's a possibility and we'll see).
But really, one of my greatest dreams is to be able to visit see the earth from space some time in my life, even briefly, even at the very end.
I'll sign whatever waivers are necessary.
To actually be able to visit Mars, to be the first human to touch down on it, and report your discoveries back to an expectantly waiting humanity?
Yeah, I'd do that.Sadly, aside from the fact that no such mission exists or is being planned, it won't happen because willingness to risk my life for the cause of space exploration isn't even close to the biggest thing keeping me from being the next Neil Armstrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257331</id>
	<title>GO CHINA! GO CHINA!</title>
	<author>solios</author>
	<datestamp>1244458440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We did the Apollo thing not really to do it, but to rub the Soviet's nose in it. The the NASA manned program feels like it's been coasting on "hey, wasn't that AWESOME?!" for the last thirty years.</p><p>Don't get me wrong - I love the space program and think it's money well spent (overall - Ares/Orion is debatable, but look at the science we've gotten from Hubble and compare the cost of the maintenance flights against, say... the F-22 Raptor program).  However, there's no competition in the manned arena and there hasn't been since the days of the Saturn V and the N-1 (or space stations, if you want to go there - We've fielded one and a fraction.  The russians have done much, <i>much</i> more in that area).</p><p>And there won't <i>be</i> competition until China - who's been excluded from the ISS program - starts making some serious strides towards putting a man on the moon.  Or mars.  Or an asteroid or a comet or whatever.</p><p>So despite the setbacks they've faced, I'm all for the Chinese space program - eventually they'll catch up to NASA/Roscosmos and we won't have a choice - we'll have to get off our asses and start giving a shit about the manned program again, or lose the prestige forever.</p><p>NASA costs pennies compared to the black hole of the bailouts and massive defense boondoggles such as the recent USAF tanker fiasco or the Army's Future Combat Systems.  Pennies - <i>fractions</i> of pennies - on the dollar, with REAL results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did the Apollo thing not really to do it , but to rub the Soviet 's nose in it .
The the NASA manned program feels like it 's been coasting on " hey , was n't that AWESOME ? !
" for the last thirty years.Do n't get me wrong - I love the space program and think it 's money well spent ( overall - Ares/Orion is debatable , but look at the science we 've gotten from Hubble and compare the cost of the maintenance flights against , say... the F-22 Raptor program ) .
However , there 's no competition in the manned arena and there has n't been since the days of the Saturn V and the N-1 ( or space stations , if you want to go there - We 've fielded one and a fraction .
The russians have done much , much more in that area ) .And there wo n't be competition until China - who 's been excluded from the ISS program - starts making some serious strides towards putting a man on the moon .
Or mars .
Or an asteroid or a comet or whatever.So despite the setbacks they 've faced , I 'm all for the Chinese space program - eventually they 'll catch up to NASA/Roscosmos and we wo n't have a choice - we 'll have to get off our asses and start giving a shit about the manned program again , or lose the prestige forever.NASA costs pennies compared to the black hole of the bailouts and massive defense boondoggles such as the recent USAF tanker fiasco or the Army 's Future Combat Systems .
Pennies - fractions of pennies - on the dollar , with REAL results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did the Apollo thing not really to do it, but to rub the Soviet's nose in it.
The the NASA manned program feels like it's been coasting on "hey, wasn't that AWESOME?!
" for the last thirty years.Don't get me wrong - I love the space program and think it's money well spent (overall - Ares/Orion is debatable, but look at the science we've gotten from Hubble and compare the cost of the maintenance flights against, say... the F-22 Raptor program).
However, there's no competition in the manned arena and there hasn't been since the days of the Saturn V and the N-1 (or space stations, if you want to go there - We've fielded one and a fraction.
The russians have done much, much more in that area).And there won't be competition until China - who's been excluded from the ISS program - starts making some serious strides towards putting a man on the moon.
Or mars.
Or an asteroid or a comet or whatever.So despite the setbacks they've faced, I'm all for the Chinese space program - eventually they'll catch up to NASA/Roscosmos and we won't have a choice - we'll have to get off our asses and start giving a shit about the manned program again, or lose the prestige forever.NASA costs pennies compared to the black hole of the bailouts and massive defense boondoggles such as the recent USAF tanker fiasco or the Army's Future Combat Systems.
Pennies - fractions of pennies - on the dollar, with REAL results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256919</id>
	<title>Meanwhile, $ 900,000,000.00 will go to Palestine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/washington/24gaza.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/washington/24gaza.html</a> [nytimes.com].<br> <br>
(or, if you don't trust/like NYT - google "900 million" and pick any of the suggestions.)<br> <br>

Clearly shows where Obama's priorities lie.<br>
Our economy is in the shitter.<br>
100-year-old corporations are shutting down.<br>
Educational system is utterly fucked-up (<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/26/174212" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/26/174212</a> [slashdot.org])<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
{too many examples}<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
And now NASA's budget is getting cut.<br>
Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama want to give the better part of a trillion bucks to a "nation" with a proven track record of terrorism.<br>
<br>
Yeah, change we can believe in.<br> <br>
(O/b/ligatory SFX: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- )</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/washington/24gaza.html [ nytimes.com ] .
( or , if you do n't trust/like NYT - google " 900 million " and pick any of the suggestions .
) Clearly shows where Obama 's priorities lie .
Our economy is in the shitter .
100-year-old corporations are shutting down .
Educational system is utterly fucked-up ( http : //science.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/05/26/174212 [ slashdot.org ] ) .. . { too many examples } .. . And now NASA 's budget is getting cut .
Meanwhile , Hillary and Obama want to give the better part of a trillion bucks to a " nation " with a proven track record of terrorism .
Yeah , change we can believe in .
( O/b/ligatory SFX : FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/washington/24gaza.html [nytimes.com].
(or, if you don't trust/like NYT - google "900 million" and pick any of the suggestions.
) 

Clearly shows where Obama's priorities lie.
Our economy is in the shitter.
100-year-old corporations are shutting down.
Educational system is utterly fucked-up (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/26/174212 [slashdot.org]) ...
{too many examples} ...
And now NASA's budget is getting cut.
Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama want to give the better part of a trillion bucks to a "nation" with a proven track record of terrorism.
Yeah, change we can believe in.
(O/b/ligatory SFX: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257777</id>
	<title>Re:Is sending humans a novalty at this point?</title>
	<author>Rollgunner</author>
	<datestamp>1244460060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, on the ISS when the latest rounds of solar panels were being deployed automatically (via a robot, if you like), one of the tracks jammed and an astronaut had to go out and whack it with one of those $10,000 hammers. <br> <br>

Robots are great, but sometimes, you just need to whack something with a hammer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , on the ISS when the latest rounds of solar panels were being deployed automatically ( via a robot , if you like ) , one of the tracks jammed and an astronaut had to go out and whack it with one of those $ 10,000 hammers .
Robots are great , but sometimes , you just need to whack something with a hammer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, on the ISS when the latest rounds of solar panels were being deployed automatically (via a robot, if you like), one of the tracks jammed and an astronaut had to go out and whack it with one of those $10,000 hammers.
Robots are great, but sometimes, you just need to whack something with a hammer...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257889</id>
	<title>Forgive my lack of eloquence and elegance</title>
	<author>almitchell</author>
	<datestamp>1244460480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but this is just bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but this is just bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but this is just bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257681</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244459700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, gotta cut science, engineering and exploration from the budget so we can use the money to fund science and engineering programs in the schools....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , got ta cut science , engineering and exploration from the budget so we can use the money to fund science and engineering programs in the schools... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, gotta cut science, engineering and exploration from the budget so we can use the money to fund science and engineering programs in the schools....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259751</id>
	<title>Re:So why not?</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1244471100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where it's at is in asteroid mining, maybe even living on asteroids (see "The Island Worlds" by Kotani)<br>Give people a new frontier to live on and explore. With the potential for a weirdly dystopian future coming down fast (inflation, lack of resources, surveillance) I think it's one of the last places people can get away to, personally.</p><p>What else, the bottom of the ocean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where it 's at is in asteroid mining , maybe even living on asteroids ( see " The Island Worlds " by Kotani ) Give people a new frontier to live on and explore .
With the potential for a weirdly dystopian future coming down fast ( inflation , lack of resources , surveillance ) I think it 's one of the last places people can get away to , personally.What else , the bottom of the ocean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where it's at is in asteroid mining, maybe even living on asteroids (see "The Island Worlds" by Kotani)Give people a new frontier to live on and explore.
With the potential for a weirdly dystopian future coming down fast (inflation, lack of resources, surveillance) I think it's one of the last places people can get away to, personally.What else, the bottom of the ocean?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257743</id>
	<title>Re:Time for gubm't to step aside and let others le</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244459940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm an advocate of the commercial space segment, I think you're reaching a bit far here.  Most people calling for it (myself included) believe that NASA needs to get out of the business of building launchers and buy them off the shelf, but continue their efforts to explore the frontier.</p><p>There are plenty of commercial opportunities for launching to LEO, and new NASA programs like COTS are attempting to foster this development by basically assuring the companies that the government will be a reliable customer.  As such, it makes sense that NASA should limit its work on directing the construction of new launch vehicles and help to develop an open market that they and others can purchase from.  Things like COTS, as well as efforts to reform ITAR would go a long way for this.</p><p>However, there is no reasonable commercial reason to do science and exploration, yet there is very high value for society in exploring and doing this science and development.  This is exactly why we formed governments in the first place, to do the things that benefit our society and advance our interests that individuals and private groups are incapable of doing.  Defense isn't really commercially beneficial (neglecting war profiteering which just leaches off of the government effort), but I think most people agree its necessary to some extent, thus why we have governments do it.  In the 1500s and 1600s, governments paid for the initial exploration of the world, and only later did commercial entities come in to exploit and profit from it.  Continued government spending on exploration efforts seems appropriate and proper if we ever want to leave the planet, especially at the low level of funding it has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm an advocate of the commercial space segment , I think you 're reaching a bit far here .
Most people calling for it ( myself included ) believe that NASA needs to get out of the business of building launchers and buy them off the shelf , but continue their efforts to explore the frontier.There are plenty of commercial opportunities for launching to LEO , and new NASA programs like COTS are attempting to foster this development by basically assuring the companies that the government will be a reliable customer .
As such , it makes sense that NASA should limit its work on directing the construction of new launch vehicles and help to develop an open market that they and others can purchase from .
Things like COTS , as well as efforts to reform ITAR would go a long way for this.However , there is no reasonable commercial reason to do science and exploration , yet there is very high value for society in exploring and doing this science and development .
This is exactly why we formed governments in the first place , to do the things that benefit our society and advance our interests that individuals and private groups are incapable of doing .
Defense is n't really commercially beneficial ( neglecting war profiteering which just leaches off of the government effort ) , but I think most people agree its necessary to some extent , thus why we have governments do it .
In the 1500s and 1600s , governments paid for the initial exploration of the world , and only later did commercial entities come in to exploit and profit from it .
Continued government spending on exploration efforts seems appropriate and proper if we ever want to leave the planet , especially at the low level of funding it has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm an advocate of the commercial space segment, I think you're reaching a bit far here.
Most people calling for it (myself included) believe that NASA needs to get out of the business of building launchers and buy them off the shelf, but continue their efforts to explore the frontier.There are plenty of commercial opportunities for launching to LEO, and new NASA programs like COTS are attempting to foster this development by basically assuring the companies that the government will be a reliable customer.
As such, it makes sense that NASA should limit its work on directing the construction of new launch vehicles and help to develop an open market that they and others can purchase from.
Things like COTS, as well as efforts to reform ITAR would go a long way for this.However, there is no reasonable commercial reason to do science and exploration, yet there is very high value for society in exploring and doing this science and development.
This is exactly why we formed governments in the first place, to do the things that benefit our society and advance our interests that individuals and private groups are incapable of doing.
Defense isn't really commercially beneficial (neglecting war profiteering which just leaches off of the government effort), but I think most people agree its necessary to some extent, thus why we have governments do it.
In the 1500s and 1600s, governments paid for the initial exploration of the world, and only later did commercial entities come in to exploit and profit from it.
Continued government spending on exploration efforts seems appropriate and proper if we ever want to leave the planet, especially at the low level of funding it has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28265747</id>
	<title>YAY!</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1244562780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With no more manned space program to sap the funds from all the very worthwhile space exploration and science, we could be doing, there will be that many more discoveries made.
</p><p>Except that the money will just disappear into the general fund.  Still, it's better than completely wasting it on manned space missions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With no more manned space program to sap the funds from all the very worthwhile space exploration and science , we could be doing , there will be that many more discoveries made .
Except that the money will just disappear into the general fund .
Still , it 's better than completely wasting it on manned space missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With no more manned space program to sap the funds from all the very worthwhile space exploration and science, we could be doing, there will be that many more discoveries made.
Except that the money will just disappear into the general fund.
Still, it's better than completely wasting it on manned space missions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257073</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244457420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The shuttle was plainly a bad design, it was blingy but unsafe and inefficient, it's had its day.  A more efficient people-carrier is just right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The shuttle was plainly a bad design , it was blingy but unsafe and inefficient , it 's had its day .
A more efficient people-carrier is just right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shuttle was plainly a bad design, it was blingy but unsafe and inefficient, it's had its day.
A more efficient people-carrier is just right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28262321</id>
	<title>Re:So why not?</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1244490960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that the same one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that the same one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that the same one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257609</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid move</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1244459460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations. Instead of diplomatically engaging with the Muslims, keeping a heavy military presence in their countries in order to "stop terrorism" is only pissing away funds that could be better used elsewhere. </i></p><p>Obama is engaging heavily with Muslim leaders, even making overtures to Iran to prevent the <i>next</i> mid-east debacle (which would make Iraq look like Candy Land).  So it's not a matter of "instead".  As far as the military presence, he's pulling out of Iraq -- not as fast as I'd <i>like</i> by any means, but about as fast as is responsible I must admit.  Afghanistan, now that's the conflict that actually made sense, and with an actual enemy and lines and territory won and lost, our military has a prayer in hell of winning.  It will still be expensive at a time we don't need it, absolutely, but at the same time we can't let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban again.  Hopefully with us focused solely on that, and Pakistan starting to get serious about their Taleban problem now that it's hurting them, we can resolve it soon.  Okay, I don't have that much hope, but it will help.</p><p><i>The full budget requested by NASA was 4 billion dollars (As per TFA, Congress reduced it to $3.2 billion). Guess what? We piss away this much amount in Iraq every two weeks!</i></p><p>I hear ya.  Really, this pissing around with millions here and there, targeting "earmarks" and such that nobody is going to be able to get rid of anyway, is just a distraction that can ultimately just backfire.  You might think the ten million here, half billion there would add up and it does...  to a pretty small fraction of the budget.  There are bigger issues there.  Robbing NASA of $800 million that can be used for doing their special kind of advanced R&amp;D that can benefit us going forward... silly.</p><p>So getting back to one of the things that does matter, I wonder how much cheese we will save when at long last we're not more than a token presence in Iraq.  I know we're ramping up in Afghanistan, so that offsets any gains.  I am willing to bet it'll be enough that scraping that $800 mil off NASA's budget won't seem like it was much use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations .
Instead of diplomatically engaging with the Muslims , keeping a heavy military presence in their countries in order to " stop terrorism " is only pissing away funds that could be better used elsewhere .
Obama is engaging heavily with Muslim leaders , even making overtures to Iran to prevent the next mid-east debacle ( which would make Iraq look like Candy Land ) .
So it 's not a matter of " instead " .
As far as the military presence , he 's pulling out of Iraq -- not as fast as I 'd like by any means , but about as fast as is responsible I must admit .
Afghanistan , now that 's the conflict that actually made sense , and with an actual enemy and lines and territory won and lost , our military has a prayer in hell of winning .
It will still be expensive at a time we do n't need it , absolutely , but at the same time we ca n't let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban again .
Hopefully with us focused solely on that , and Pakistan starting to get serious about their Taleban problem now that it 's hurting them , we can resolve it soon .
Okay , I do n't have that much hope , but it will help.The full budget requested by NASA was 4 billion dollars ( As per TFA , Congress reduced it to $ 3.2 billion ) .
Guess what ?
We piss away this much amount in Iraq every two weeks ! I hear ya .
Really , this pissing around with millions here and there , targeting " earmarks " and such that nobody is going to be able to get rid of anyway , is just a distraction that can ultimately just backfire .
You might think the ten million here , half billion there would add up and it does... to a pretty small fraction of the budget .
There are bigger issues there .
Robbing NASA of $ 800 million that can be used for doing their special kind of advanced R&amp;D that can benefit us going forward... silly.So getting back to one of the things that does matter , I wonder how much cheese we will save when at long last we 're not more than a token presence in Iraq .
I know we 're ramping up in Afghanistan , so that offsets any gains .
I am willing to bet it 'll be enough that scraping that $ 800 mil off NASA 's budget wo n't seem like it was much use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations.
Instead of diplomatically engaging with the Muslims, keeping a heavy military presence in their countries in order to "stop terrorism" is only pissing away funds that could be better used elsewhere.
Obama is engaging heavily with Muslim leaders, even making overtures to Iran to prevent the next mid-east debacle (which would make Iraq look like Candy Land).
So it's not a matter of "instead".
As far as the military presence, he's pulling out of Iraq -- not as fast as I'd like by any means, but about as fast as is responsible I must admit.
Afghanistan, now that's the conflict that actually made sense, and with an actual enemy and lines and territory won and lost, our military has a prayer in hell of winning.
It will still be expensive at a time we don't need it, absolutely, but at the same time we can't let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban again.
Hopefully with us focused solely on that, and Pakistan starting to get serious about their Taleban problem now that it's hurting them, we can resolve it soon.
Okay, I don't have that much hope, but it will help.The full budget requested by NASA was 4 billion dollars (As per TFA, Congress reduced it to $3.2 billion).
Guess what?
We piss away this much amount in Iraq every two weeks!I hear ya.
Really, this pissing around with millions here and there, targeting "earmarks" and such that nobody is going to be able to get rid of anyway, is just a distraction that can ultimately just backfire.
You might think the ten million here, half billion there would add up and it does...  to a pretty small fraction of the budget.
There are bigger issues there.
Robbing NASA of $800 million that can be used for doing their special kind of advanced R&amp;D that can benefit us going forward... silly.So getting back to one of the things that does matter, I wonder how much cheese we will save when at long last we're not more than a token presence in Iraq.
I know we're ramping up in Afghanistan, so that offsets any gains.
I am willing to bet it'll be enough that scraping that $800 mil off NASA's budget won't seem like it was much use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256903</id>
	<title>Is sending humans a novalty at this point?</title>
	<author>ViennaSt</author>
	<datestamp>1244456760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With robotics coming such a long way since the 60s, it is more efficient and cheaper to just send robots to do all the exploring and data/sample collection in space. Until the average American thinks the cost of human presence in space is a priority for the tax payer dollar, space flight will have to be unmanned in the meantime.  We are just going to have to wait for China or another rising global leader to send humans to Mars until the US population is willing to put in the extra effort and dollar to compete in a second space race and reinflate their ego as the "pioneers of space".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With robotics coming such a long way since the 60s , it is more efficient and cheaper to just send robots to do all the exploring and data/sample collection in space .
Until the average American thinks the cost of human presence in space is a priority for the tax payer dollar , space flight will have to be unmanned in the meantime .
We are just going to have to wait for China or another rising global leader to send humans to Mars until the US population is willing to put in the extra effort and dollar to compete in a second space race and reinflate their ego as the " pioneers of space " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With robotics coming such a long way since the 60s, it is more efficient and cheaper to just send robots to do all the exploring and data/sample collection in space.
Until the average American thinks the cost of human presence in space is a priority for the tax payer dollar, space flight will have to be unmanned in the meantime.
We are just going to have to wait for China or another rising global leader to send humans to Mars until the US population is willing to put in the extra effort and dollar to compete in a second space race and reinflate their ego as the "pioneers of space".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28264523</id>
	<title>Re:They have yet to take my suggestion</title>
	<author>MariusBoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244557260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. Plenty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Plenty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Plenty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263451</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid move</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1244548140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but at the same time we can't let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban again</p></div></blockquote><p>Why? what right do you have to be there?</p><p>Actually, you don't have any right to be there...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but at the same time we ca n't let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban againWhy ?
what right do you have to be there ? Actually , you do n't have any right to be there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but at the same time we can't let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban againWhy?
what right do you have to be there?Actually, you don't have any right to be there...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256917</id>
	<title>Time for gubm't to step aside and let others lead</title>
	<author>XavierItzmann</author>
	<datestamp>1244456760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is time for the government to step aside from manned space flight and let private enterprise lead, if there is a market.<p>

If there is no market for manned space flight, then using your taxpayer dollars for it is simple misallocation and waste of resources.  Ask the Soviets what the ultimate outcome of such State resource management is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is time for the government to step aside from manned space flight and let private enterprise lead , if there is a market .
If there is no market for manned space flight , then using your taxpayer dollars for it is simple misallocation and waste of resources .
Ask the Soviets what the ultimate outcome of such State resource management is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is time for the government to step aside from manned space flight and let private enterprise lead, if there is a market.
If there is no market for manned space flight, then using your taxpayer dollars for it is simple misallocation and waste of resources.
Ask the Soviets what the ultimate outcome of such State resource management is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257165</id>
	<title>Please don't blame it on the "bad" economy</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1244457780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is exactly how they would like it portrayed.  The real truth is we are lucky to have any budget for NASA currently.  Considering the reckless, if not criminal, debt being piled up in just the first year I will be surprised if NASA doesn't get bigger cuts going forward.  How long can the funny money last?  The real threat to scientific investment by the US government is all the new entitlements and "stimulus of the moment" bills coming down the pike.  Eventually reality will bite us hard,  we cannot print our way into having it all, someone pays the bill.</p><p>NASA's budget has always been pitiful.  It will continue to be so because it isn't the science of the rich and powerful climate groups who have the money to buy influence to get even more money.  I expect NASA money to be directed into more "Climate" areas as a way of funneling money to payoff people who voted right or supported the right people.</p><p>Each year we seem to get new reasons to blame NASA's budget shortfall but in the end it really all boils down to NASA is being kept around because they have to keep it.  If it were not for other nations reaching for space currently or the military needing to keep progress going I would have had no doubt that NASA would be reduced to unmanned flights.</p><p>Until NASA becomes a real public interest it won't get money.  NASA generates very few votes.  It would probably take a meteor or Extraterrestrial's to get people interested enough to where they get the funding many of us here like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is exactly how they would like it portrayed .
The real truth is we are lucky to have any budget for NASA currently .
Considering the reckless , if not criminal , debt being piled up in just the first year I will be surprised if NASA does n't get bigger cuts going forward .
How long can the funny money last ?
The real threat to scientific investment by the US government is all the new entitlements and " stimulus of the moment " bills coming down the pike .
Eventually reality will bite us hard , we can not print our way into having it all , someone pays the bill.NASA 's budget has always been pitiful .
It will continue to be so because it is n't the science of the rich and powerful climate groups who have the money to buy influence to get even more money .
I expect NASA money to be directed into more " Climate " areas as a way of funneling money to payoff people who voted right or supported the right people.Each year we seem to get new reasons to blame NASA 's budget shortfall but in the end it really all boils down to NASA is being kept around because they have to keep it .
If it were not for other nations reaching for space currently or the military needing to keep progress going I would have had no doubt that NASA would be reduced to unmanned flights.Until NASA becomes a real public interest it wo n't get money .
NASA generates very few votes .
It would probably take a meteor or Extraterrestrial 's to get people interested enough to where they get the funding many of us here like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is exactly how they would like it portrayed.
The real truth is we are lucky to have any budget for NASA currently.
Considering the reckless, if not criminal, debt being piled up in just the first year I will be surprised if NASA doesn't get bigger cuts going forward.
How long can the funny money last?
The real threat to scientific investment by the US government is all the new entitlements and "stimulus of the moment" bills coming down the pike.
Eventually reality will bite us hard,  we cannot print our way into having it all, someone pays the bill.NASA's budget has always been pitiful.
It will continue to be so because it isn't the science of the rich and powerful climate groups who have the money to buy influence to get even more money.
I expect NASA money to be directed into more "Climate" areas as a way of funneling money to payoff people who voted right or supported the right people.Each year we seem to get new reasons to blame NASA's budget shortfall but in the end it really all boils down to NASA is being kept around because they have to keep it.
If it were not for other nations reaching for space currently or the military needing to keep progress going I would have had no doubt that NASA would be reduced to unmanned flights.Until NASA becomes a real public interest it won't get money.
NASA generates very few votes.
It would probably take a meteor or Extraterrestrial's to get people interested enough to where they get the funding many of us here like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28264485</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>MariusBoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244557140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The military is just the most violent part of the mafia system called the state. Subsiding soldiers to do anything but die is giving in to blackmail. We should be putting money into science because it is the right thing to do not because it enables you to go kill the muslim (yellow, brown, commie etc.) man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The military is just the most violent part of the mafia system called the state .
Subsiding soldiers to do anything but die is giving in to blackmail .
We should be putting money into science because it is the right thing to do not because it enables you to go kill the muslim ( yellow , brown , commie etc .
) man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The military is just the most violent part of the mafia system called the state.
Subsiding soldiers to do anything but die is giving in to blackmail.
We should be putting money into science because it is the right thing to do not because it enables you to go kill the muslim (yellow, brown, commie etc.
) man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257155</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>Waste55</author>
	<datestamp>1244457660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is Orion half-assed when it is capable of more than Apollo? Do you really think avionics on board Orion for example are going to be less advance than a craft that is over 40 years old?
<br> <br>
Orion is even included in DIRECT's architecture as well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Orion half-assed when it is capable of more than Apollo ?
Do you really think avionics on board Orion for example are going to be less advance than a craft that is over 40 years old ?
Orion is even included in DIRECT 's architecture as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Orion half-assed when it is capable of more than Apollo?
Do you really think avionics on board Orion for example are going to be less advance than a craft that is over 40 years old?
Orion is even included in DIRECT's architecture as well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257337</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244458440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations.</p></div><p>You seriously believe this - that the ineffective and lame Republicans are somehow holding Obama to continuing overseas operations?  That they are somehow doing this with an effectively filibuster-proof majority in congress (taking RINO's into account)?</p><p>I'd love to hear your theories about the 9/11 attacks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations.You seriously believe this - that the ineffective and lame Republicans are somehow holding Obama to continuing overseas operations ?
That they are somehow doing this with an effectively filibuster-proof majority in congress ( taking RINO 's into account ) ? I 'd love to hear your theories about the 9/11 attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations.You seriously believe this - that the ineffective and lame Republicans are somehow holding Obama to continuing overseas operations?
That they are somehow doing this with an effectively filibuster-proof majority in congress (taking RINO's into account)?I'd love to hear your theories about the 9/11 attacks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257313</id>
	<title>Re:They have yet to take my suggestion</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1244458380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about anyone else, but I'd have a hard time passing up the chance to be the first person on Mars, even if it was just a one way trip.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about anyone else , but I 'd have a hard time passing up the chance to be the first person on Mars , even if it was just a one way trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about anyone else, but I'd have a hard time passing up the chance to be the first person on Mars, even if it was just a one way trip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256759</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1244456220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually this not completely true.  While it seems some space exploration may be on the chopping block, scientific research is a part of the Obama stimulus package and the top notch research/educational institute for which I work is a beneficiary for this year and in 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this not completely true .
While it seems some space exploration may be on the chopping block , scientific research is a part of the Obama stimulus package and the top notch research/educational institute for which I work is a beneficiary for this year and in 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this not completely true.
While it seems some space exploration may be on the chopping block, scientific research is a part of the Obama stimulus package and the top notch research/educational institute for which I work is a beneficiary for this year and in 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257095</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>transami</author>
	<datestamp>1244457480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bush's "goals" were all a setup. There is no real intention of a manned mission to Mars. His father did the same kind of thing when he was in office. Make big promises only to have the whole thing undercut quietly later on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush 's " goals " were all a setup .
There is no real intention of a manned mission to Mars .
His father did the same kind of thing when he was in office .
Make big promises only to have the whole thing undercut quietly later on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush's "goals" were all a setup.
There is no real intention of a manned mission to Mars.
His father did the same kind of thing when he was in office.
Make big promises only to have the whole thing undercut quietly later on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735</id>
	<title>Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The shuttle replacement is over-budget, under-spec, and without a realistic mission. We have trouble building and servicing a base going around the Earth, in zero-g... why does NASA think we can do this without busting timelines or budgets on the moon?</p><p>I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids. Then NASA would have two things going for it - something never done, and a bs fallback line to feed axe wielding politicians (we need these missions to learn how to blow up incoming astroids - you want to tell your constituents why they need to live in a tent camp for the next 5 years when we evacuate all of New Mexico?).</p><p>Now all NASA has is a half-assed Apollo clone, no clear goal, and a loud insurgent campaign (DIRECT). I just hope this doesn't blow-back and foul up the fairly successful non-manned space missions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The shuttle replacement is over-budget , under-spec , and without a realistic mission .
We have trouble building and servicing a base going around the Earth , in zero-g... why does NASA think we can do this without busting timelines or budgets on the moon ? I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids .
Then NASA would have two things going for it - something never done , and a bs fallback line to feed axe wielding politicians ( we need these missions to learn how to blow up incoming astroids - you want to tell your constituents why they need to live in a tent camp for the next 5 years when we evacuate all of New Mexico ?
) .Now all NASA has is a half-assed Apollo clone , no clear goal , and a loud insurgent campaign ( DIRECT ) .
I just hope this does n't blow-back and foul up the fairly successful non-manned space missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shuttle replacement is over-budget, under-spec, and without a realistic mission.
We have trouble building and servicing a base going around the Earth, in zero-g... why does NASA think we can do this without busting timelines or budgets on the moon?I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.
Then NASA would have two things going for it - something never done, and a bs fallback line to feed axe wielding politicians (we need these missions to learn how to blow up incoming astroids - you want to tell your constituents why they need to live in a tent camp for the next 5 years when we evacuate all of New Mexico?
).Now all NASA has is a half-assed Apollo clone, no clear goal, and a loud insurgent campaign (DIRECT).
I just hope this doesn't blow-back and foul up the fairly successful non-manned space missions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259361</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244468820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it is reusable.  Gee, now we don't have to build an entirely new rocket every time we want to go into space (we do have to refit it extensively though).  Somewhere along the line we're probably saving more money, even though it <b>may</b> be more inefficient in some areas - care to cite any?</p><p>Furthermore, how is it unsafe?  How safe do you want space travel to be?  It's <b>space travel</b>, which is a heck of a lot harder than anything you have ever done or ever will do.  Unless you feel like showing data showing that the shuttle is more unsafe than anything else, stfu about things you don't comprehend and apparently don't want to comprehend beyond what you are spoonfed from other willfully ignorant idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it is reusable .
Gee , now we do n't have to build an entirely new rocket every time we want to go into space ( we do have to refit it extensively though ) .
Somewhere along the line we 're probably saving more money , even though it may be more inefficient in some areas - care to cite any ? Furthermore , how is it unsafe ?
How safe do you want space travel to be ?
It 's space travel , which is a heck of a lot harder than anything you have ever done or ever will do .
Unless you feel like showing data showing that the shuttle is more unsafe than anything else , stfu about things you do n't comprehend and apparently do n't want to comprehend beyond what you are spoonfed from other willfully ignorant idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it is reusable.
Gee, now we don't have to build an entirely new rocket every time we want to go into space (we do have to refit it extensively though).
Somewhere along the line we're probably saving more money, even though it may be more inefficient in some areas - care to cite any?Furthermore, how is it unsafe?
How safe do you want space travel to be?
It's space travel, which is a heck of a lot harder than anything you have ever done or ever will do.
Unless you feel like showing data showing that the shuttle is more unsafe than anything else, stfu about things you don't comprehend and apparently don't want to comprehend beyond what you are spoonfed from other willfully ignorant idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257631</id>
	<title>Robots all the way!</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1244459520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Manned space flight is a complete waste of money right now. It achieves very little and makes everything an order of magnitude heavier and more complex. We need less astronauts and more Mars rovers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Manned space flight is a complete waste of money right now .
It achieves very little and makes everything an order of magnitude heavier and more complex .
We need less astronauts and more Mars rovers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manned space flight is a complete waste of money right now.
It achieves very little and makes everything an order of magnitude heavier and more complex.
We need less astronauts and more Mars rovers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28270027</id>
	<title>Re:Seven hours in Iraq</title>
	<author>findoutmoretoday</author>
	<datestamp>1244578500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>'That works out to 11.16 million per hour.'<br><br>I have to remember that when my wife says my new car is expensive, I will answer: 6 sec</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>'That works out to 11.16 million per hour .
'I have to remember that when my wife says my new car is expensive , I will answer : 6 sec</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'That works out to 11.16 million per hour.
'I have to remember that when my wife says my new car is expensive, I will answer: 6 sec</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259009</id>
	<title>Re:They have yet to take my suggestion</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1244466600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure a considerable number of people would be willing to take a one-way trip just so they could be in space. What we have a deficiency of is people willing to <b>let</b> other people take risks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure a considerable number of people would be willing to take a one-way trip just so they could be in space .
What we have a deficiency of is people willing to let other people take risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure a considerable number of people would be willing to take a one-way trip just so they could be in space.
What we have a deficiency of is people willing to let other people take risks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28276559</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1244624760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>doesn't matter if the Chinese get orbital control first we're fucked anyway</htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't matter if the Chinese get orbital control first we 're fucked anyway</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't matter if the Chinese get orbital control first we're fucked anyway</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256837</id>
	<title>Welcome To The : +1, Helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; order-of-magnitude reduction in U.S. credit financing.</p><p>Yours In Space,<br><a href="http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur.html" title="russianspaceweb.com" rel="nofollow">Kilgore Trout</a> [russianspaceweb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  order-of-magnitude reduction in U.S. credit financing.Yours In Space,Kilgore Trout [ russianspaceweb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  order-of-magnitude reduction in U.S. credit financing.Yours In Space,Kilgore Trout [russianspaceweb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257657</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>spacemandave</author>
	<datestamp>1244459640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, an astounding amount of ignorance is on display in this post.


Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs, or NEOs if you prefer) may indeed be easier to visit than the Moon, and they are quite a bit easier to visit than Mars.  Mainly this is due to the lack of appreciable gravity, so that the escape velocity from the surface adds only a negligible delta V to the total delta V budget required (for both landing and taking off again).


You're not going to find yourself on a 100+ year orbit on an NEA.  If you did find yourself on a 100+ year orbit and on on your way out of the inner solar system, then, by definition, you would have landed on a Halley-type comet (or perhaps even a long-period comet if you were *really* on your way out).


Take as a typical NEA 433 Eros.  The NEAR spacecraft successfully landed on it, despite the fact that the spacecraft was designed to be an orbiter (which, I think, succinctly illustrates how easy it is to land on an asteroid).   Its perihelion distance (closest approach to the Sun) is 1.13 AU (1 AU is the Earth-Sun distance) and has a period of a bit less than 2 years.


Once nice thing about asteroids is that they basically represent remnants of the original solar nebula from which planets were formed, and most of them never differentiated (melted and formed iron cores and rocky mantles).  That means that they are relatively rich in many raw materials compared to the surfaces of planet-sized bodies.  A carbonaceous asteroid contains valuable metals (often as little blobs of pure metal), water (up to 30\% by weight in many cases), and organics (kerogen).  Some other asteroids are nothing but metal, and would require very minimal processing to make them useful (unlike many ores found on Earth).


Going to asteroids makes a lot of sense.  The main difficulty with an asteroid vs. a lunar mission is that the mission length to an asteroid would be longer than one to the Moon (although depending on the asteroid, it could be much shorter than a Mars trip).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , an astounding amount of ignorance is on display in this post .
Near Earth Asteroids ( NEAs , or NEOs if you prefer ) may indeed be easier to visit than the Moon , and they are quite a bit easier to visit than Mars .
Mainly this is due to the lack of appreciable gravity , so that the escape velocity from the surface adds only a negligible delta V to the total delta V budget required ( for both landing and taking off again ) .
You 're not going to find yourself on a 100 + year orbit on an NEA .
If you did find yourself on a 100 + year orbit and on on your way out of the inner solar system , then , by definition , you would have landed on a Halley-type comet ( or perhaps even a long-period comet if you were * really * on your way out ) .
Take as a typical NEA 433 Eros .
The NEAR spacecraft successfully landed on it , despite the fact that the spacecraft was designed to be an orbiter ( which , I think , succinctly illustrates how easy it is to land on an asteroid ) .
Its perihelion distance ( closest approach to the Sun ) is 1.13 AU ( 1 AU is the Earth-Sun distance ) and has a period of a bit less than 2 years .
Once nice thing about asteroids is that they basically represent remnants of the original solar nebula from which planets were formed , and most of them never differentiated ( melted and formed iron cores and rocky mantles ) .
That means that they are relatively rich in many raw materials compared to the surfaces of planet-sized bodies .
A carbonaceous asteroid contains valuable metals ( often as little blobs of pure metal ) , water ( up to 30 \ % by weight in many cases ) , and organics ( kerogen ) .
Some other asteroids are nothing but metal , and would require very minimal processing to make them useful ( unlike many ores found on Earth ) .
Going to asteroids makes a lot of sense .
The main difficulty with an asteroid vs. a lunar mission is that the mission length to an asteroid would be longer than one to the Moon ( although depending on the asteroid , it could be much shorter than a Mars trip ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, an astounding amount of ignorance is on display in this post.
Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs, or NEOs if you prefer) may indeed be easier to visit than the Moon, and they are quite a bit easier to visit than Mars.
Mainly this is due to the lack of appreciable gravity, so that the escape velocity from the surface adds only a negligible delta V to the total delta V budget required (for both landing and taking off again).
You're not going to find yourself on a 100+ year orbit on an NEA.
If you did find yourself on a 100+ year orbit and on on your way out of the inner solar system, then, by definition, you would have landed on a Halley-type comet (or perhaps even a long-period comet if you were *really* on your way out).
Take as a typical NEA 433 Eros.
The NEAR spacecraft successfully landed on it, despite the fact that the spacecraft was designed to be an orbiter (which, I think, succinctly illustrates how easy it is to land on an asteroid).
Its perihelion distance (closest approach to the Sun) is 1.13 AU (1 AU is the Earth-Sun distance) and has a period of a bit less than 2 years.
Once nice thing about asteroids is that they basically represent remnants of the original solar nebula from which planets were formed, and most of them never differentiated (melted and formed iron cores and rocky mantles).
That means that they are relatively rich in many raw materials compared to the surfaces of planet-sized bodies.
A carbonaceous asteroid contains valuable metals (often as little blobs of pure metal), water (up to 30\% by weight in many cases), and organics (kerogen).
Some other asteroids are nothing but metal, and would require very minimal processing to make them useful (unlike many ores found on Earth).
Going to asteroids makes a lot of sense.
The main difficulty with an asteroid vs. a lunar mission is that the mission length to an asteroid would be longer than one to the Moon (although depending on the asteroid, it could be much shorter than a Mars trip).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257341</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid move</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1244458500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If there is one area in which the US is unquestionably ahead of everybody else, it is in its space programs. Cutting funds to these programs is a completely stupid idea. You need to strengthen your competitive edge,</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's because we spend far more than any other country, not because we are efficient. I'm not sure that's the same as "competitive".</p><p>Plus, it could be argued that unmanned missions are scientifically more cost-effective (a long, complicated, contentious debate).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is one area in which the US is unquestionably ahead of everybody else , it is in its space programs .
Cutting funds to these programs is a completely stupid idea .
You need to strengthen your competitive edge , That 's because we spend far more than any other country , not because we are efficient .
I 'm not sure that 's the same as " competitive " .Plus , it could be argued that unmanned missions are scientifically more cost-effective ( a long , complicated , contentious debate ) .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is one area in which the US is unquestionably ahead of everybody else, it is in its space programs.
Cutting funds to these programs is a completely stupid idea.
You need to strengthen your competitive edge, That's because we spend far more than any other country, not because we are efficient.
I'm not sure that's the same as "competitive".Plus, it could be argued that unmanned missions are scientifically more cost-effective (a long, complicated, contentious debate).
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28273483</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>Breez911</author>
	<datestamp>1244553420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Untill the creation evolution arguement gets imperical evidence to give absolute evidence proving one side or the other is correct; All the money spent on scientific research; could be 100\% waste.<p>
Untill science can prove "Gravity" is not the hand of "God", and explaine it, so a grade school child can comprehend it. All spaceflight funding should be discontinued.</p><p>
Ameria nolonger has the $$$, to continue the gamble, especially with tax payer $s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Untill the creation evolution arguement gets imperical evidence to give absolute evidence proving one side or the other is correct ; All the money spent on scientific research ; could be 100 \ % waste .
Untill science can prove " Gravity " is not the hand of " God " , and explaine it , so a grade school child can comprehend it .
All spaceflight funding should be discontinued .
Ameria nolonger has the $ $ $ , to continue the gamble , especially with tax payer $ s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Untill the creation evolution arguement gets imperical evidence to give absolute evidence proving one side or the other is correct; All the money spent on scientific research; could be 100\% waste.
Untill science can prove "Gravity" is not the hand of "God", and explaine it, so a grade school child can comprehend it.
All spaceflight funding should be discontinued.
Ameria nolonger has the $$$, to continue the gamble, especially with tax payer $s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413</id>
	<title>So why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244458740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Okay, so what's the national interest in manned space flight?  I'd be firmly against cutting NASA's more scientific work, but the manned space program doesn't do nearly as much for science as other NASA programs.
</p><p>
It's cool to get people off the planet, but it costs a whole lot of money to get them into low Earth orbit, let alone somewhere interesting.
</p><p>
Manned space flight seems to have lost the inspirational value it had in the 1960s, it doesn't produce good scientific returns compared to the unmanned probes, it takes money and attention from the really useful space stuff, it's hurt our satellite-launching capability, and if there's commercial value in sending people into LEO some company will take it up.  Why should we be doing it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so what 's the national interest in manned space flight ?
I 'd be firmly against cutting NASA 's more scientific work , but the manned space program does n't do nearly as much for science as other NASA programs .
It 's cool to get people off the planet , but it costs a whole lot of money to get them into low Earth orbit , let alone somewhere interesting .
Manned space flight seems to have lost the inspirational value it had in the 1960s , it does n't produce good scientific returns compared to the unmanned probes , it takes money and attention from the really useful space stuff , it 's hurt our satellite-launching capability , and if there 's commercial value in sending people into LEO some company will take it up .
Why should we be doing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Okay, so what's the national interest in manned space flight?
I'd be firmly against cutting NASA's more scientific work, but the manned space program doesn't do nearly as much for science as other NASA programs.
It's cool to get people off the planet, but it costs a whole lot of money to get them into low Earth orbit, let alone somewhere interesting.
Manned space flight seems to have lost the inspirational value it had in the 1960s, it doesn't produce good scientific returns compared to the unmanned probes, it takes money and attention from the really useful space stuff, it's hurt our satellite-launching capability, and if there's commercial value in sending people into LEO some company will take it up.
Why should we be doing it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257957</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1244460780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In a bad economy, pure science and space exploration seem to be first on the budget chopping block."</p><p>Dump the manned program and devote the remaining resources to advancing robotic systems. We can afford to wait centuries to send meat tourists, while learning how to economically exploit space by remote control.</p><p>Human explorers were fine when they were cheap and expendable. The loss of a ship and crew was nothing near as damaging to exploration as the loss of a Shuttle is today. Now humans are expensive and robots are cheap, so leave the tourists at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In a bad economy , pure science and space exploration seem to be first on the budget chopping block .
" Dump the manned program and devote the remaining resources to advancing robotic systems .
We can afford to wait centuries to send meat tourists , while learning how to economically exploit space by remote control.Human explorers were fine when they were cheap and expendable .
The loss of a ship and crew was nothing near as damaging to exploration as the loss of a Shuttle is today .
Now humans are expensive and robots are cheap , so leave the tourists at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In a bad economy, pure science and space exploration seem to be first on the budget chopping block.
"Dump the manned program and devote the remaining resources to advancing robotic systems.
We can afford to wait centuries to send meat tourists, while learning how to economically exploit space by remote control.Human explorers were fine when they were cheap and expendable.
The loss of a ship and crew was nothing near as damaging to exploration as the loss of a Shuttle is today.
Now humans are expensive and robots are cheap, so leave the tourists at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256757</id>
	<title>Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama will put stimulus as he promised for science...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama will put stimulus as he promised for science.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama will put stimulus as he promised for science...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258557</id>
	<title>Seven hours in Iraq</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244463660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Other recommendations contained in the bill include a $77million reduction in NASA's proposed space operations budget</i>

</p><p>When I read this I decided to see what that is relative to the Iraq war.

</p><p> <a href="http://zfacts.com/p/447.html" title="zfacts.com">I'm using this chart as a reference.</a> [zfacts.com]  It says we've been at it for about 7 years, and it's cost about $670 billion in total.

</p><p>So, 7 years is about 2500 days.  Divide that through and you get about $268,000,000  per day.  That works out to 11.16 million per hour.

</p><p>77 million / 11.16 = 6.89 hours.

</p><p>7 hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other recommendations contained in the bill include a $ 77million reduction in NASA 's proposed space operations budget When I read this I decided to see what that is relative to the Iraq war .
I 'm using this chart as a reference .
[ zfacts.com ] It says we 've been at it for about 7 years , and it 's cost about $ 670 billion in total .
So , 7 years is about 2500 days .
Divide that through and you get about $ 268,000,000 per day .
That works out to 11.16 million per hour .
77 million / 11.16 = 6.89 hours .
7 hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Other recommendations contained in the bill include a $77million reduction in NASA's proposed space operations budget

When I read this I decided to see what that is relative to the Iraq war.
I'm using this chart as a reference.
[zfacts.com]  It says we've been at it for about 7 years, and it's cost about $670 billion in total.
So, 7 years is about 2500 days.
Divide that through and you get about $268,000,000  per day.
That works out to 11.16 million per hour.
77 million / 11.16 = 6.89 hours.
7 hours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258433</id>
	<title>Re:So why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244463000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just getting a person into orbit is such a waste. you've already put in half the energy required to get them to the end of the universe theoretically. it so wasteful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just getting a person into orbit is such a waste .
you 've already put in half the energy required to get them to the end of the universe theoretically .
it so wasteful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just getting a person into orbit is such a waste.
you've already put in half the energy required to get them to the end of the universe theoretically.
it so wasteful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257143</id>
	<title>Huston, the Eagle has landed</title>
	<author>transami</author>
	<datestamp>1244457660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without our biggest dreams, even our smallest hopes are lost.</p><p>And so the Spirit of our country is lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without our biggest dreams , even our smallest hopes are lost.And so the Spirit of our country is lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without our biggest dreams, even our smallest hopes are lost.And so the Spirit of our country is lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28266985</id>
	<title>Did anyone actually read all of the article?</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1244567280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, really. I quote paragraphs 3 &amp; 4 in the article linked to:<br>Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), the subcommittee's chairman, described the move as a "time-out" in the budget process as the White House awaits the findings of a 10-member panel tasked by the White House to reassess NASA's post-shuttle exploration plans. That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine, is expected to report back with its findings in August.</p><p>In his opening statement at the markup hearing, Mollohan said the cut should not be viewed as a diminution of the subcommittee's support for NASA's human spaceflight activities. "Rather, it's a deferral taken without prejudice; it is a pause, a time-out, to allow the president to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision<br>--- end excerpt ---</p><p>Which is perfectly reasonable.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , really .
I quote paragraphs 3 &amp; 4 in the article linked to : Rep. Alan Mollohan ( D-W.Va. ) , the subcommittee 's chairman , described the move as a " time-out " in the budget process as the White House awaits the findings of a 10-member panel tasked by the White House to reassess NASA 's post-shuttle exploration plans .
That panel , led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine , is expected to report back with its findings in August.In his opening statement at the markup hearing , Mollohan said the cut should not be viewed as a diminution of the subcommittee 's support for NASA 's human spaceflight activities .
" Rather , it 's a deferral taken without prejudice ; it is a pause , a time-out , to allow the president to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision--- end excerpt ---Which is perfectly reasonable .
        mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, really.
I quote paragraphs 3 &amp; 4 in the article linked to:Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), the subcommittee's chairman, described the move as a "time-out" in the budget process as the White House awaits the findings of a 10-member panel tasked by the White House to reassess NASA's post-shuttle exploration plans.
That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine, is expected to report back with its findings in August.In his opening statement at the markup hearing, Mollohan said the cut should not be viewed as a diminution of the subcommittee's support for NASA's human spaceflight activities.
"Rather, it's a deferral taken without prejudice; it is a pause, a time-out, to allow the president to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision--- end excerpt ---Which is perfectly reasonable.
        mark
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256879</id>
	<title>Two agencies Bush didn't screw up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>(1) NASA. Censored documents on global warming and climate change to meet his views, but at least the funding was relatively fine.
(2) The U.S. Mint, because how dumb do you have to be to screw up the seigniorage from the state quarter program?

Based on this, we can conclude that the Mint will do something stupid, like a series of sharp-cornered triangular dimes with a series of vice presidents on the front, in order to provide stimulus for the band-aid industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) NASA .
Censored documents on global warming and climate change to meet his views , but at least the funding was relatively fine .
( 2 ) The U.S. Mint , because how dumb do you have to be to screw up the seigniorage from the state quarter program ?
Based on this , we can conclude that the Mint will do something stupid , like a series of sharp-cornered triangular dimes with a series of vice presidents on the front , in order to provide stimulus for the band-aid industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) NASA.
Censored documents on global warming and climate change to meet his views, but at least the funding was relatively fine.
(2) The U.S. Mint, because how dumb do you have to be to screw up the seigniorage from the state quarter program?
Based on this, we can conclude that the Mint will do something stupid, like a series of sharp-cornered triangular dimes with a series of vice presidents on the front, in order to provide stimulus for the band-aid industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263981</id>
	<title>Re:People tried to warn you about Obama.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244553840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obama really does subscribe to this tribalistic, Bolshevik form of Mugabeism - he really is a true believer.</i></p><p>Talk about flamebait. Why don't you just call him a genocidal maniac who's worse than Hitler?</p><p>If you can look at the state of Zimbabwe and Mugabe's mass killings and mutilations and honestly make this comparison, you are truly barking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama really does subscribe to this tribalistic , Bolshevik form of Mugabeism - he really is a true believer.Talk about flamebait .
Why do n't you just call him a genocidal maniac who 's worse than Hitler ? If you can look at the state of Zimbabwe and Mugabe 's mass killings and mutilations and honestly make this comparison , you are truly barking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama really does subscribe to this tribalistic, Bolshevik form of Mugabeism - he really is a true believer.Talk about flamebait.
Why don't you just call him a genocidal maniac who's worse than Hitler?If you can look at the state of Zimbabwe and Mugabe's mass killings and mutilations and honestly make this comparison, you are truly barking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28266007</id>
	<title>Invertable Factoids</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1244563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come it is that the cancellation of regular increases in the manned spaceflight program during a period when no manned spaceflight is planned is being called the "dismantling of the manned spaceflight program" in the summary? NASA's budget and program planning show an intent to keep the program running at the present level while they decide on what the next program is to be. Per TFA:</p><p>"In his opening statement at the markup hearing, Mollohan said the cut should not be viewed as a diminution of the subcommittee's support for NASA's human spaceflight activities. "Rather, it's a deferral taken without prejudice; it is a pause, a time-out, to allow the president to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision."</p><p>A summary so clearly contrary to TFA without the summary calling TFA wrong or a lie indicates no attention being paid to the facts. Could be an agenda with no support looking for an outlet, could be just a wild guess used instead of reading TFA. Either way, it's a good case for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors doing at least minimal research comparing the summary and TFA. Not doing so causes them to make the same mistake as the submitter.</p><p>It's criticism, in my opinion warranted, plainly presented, posted calmly, and you can like it or not. It is therefore not, per moderator guidelines, flame bait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come it is that the cancellation of regular increases in the manned spaceflight program during a period when no manned spaceflight is planned is being called the " dismantling of the manned spaceflight program " in the summary ?
NASA 's budget and program planning show an intent to keep the program running at the present level while they decide on what the next program is to be .
Per TFA : " In his opening statement at the markup hearing , Mollohan said the cut should not be viewed as a diminution of the subcommittee 's support for NASA 's human spaceflight activities .
" Rather , it 's a deferral taken without prejudice ; it is a pause , a time-out , to allow the president to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision .
" A summary so clearly contrary to TFA without the summary calling TFA wrong or a lie indicates no attention being paid to the facts .
Could be an agenda with no support looking for an outlet , could be just a wild guess used instead of reading TFA .
Either way , it 's a good case for / .
editors doing at least minimal research comparing the summary and TFA .
Not doing so causes them to make the same mistake as the submitter.It 's criticism , in my opinion warranted , plainly presented , posted calmly , and you can like it or not .
It is therefore not , per moderator guidelines , flame bait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come it is that the cancellation of regular increases in the manned spaceflight program during a period when no manned spaceflight is planned is being called the "dismantling of the manned spaceflight program" in the summary?
NASA's budget and program planning show an intent to keep the program running at the present level while they decide on what the next program is to be.
Per TFA:"In his opening statement at the markup hearing, Mollohan said the cut should not be viewed as a diminution of the subcommittee's support for NASA's human spaceflight activities.
"Rather, it's a deferral taken without prejudice; it is a pause, a time-out, to allow the president to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision.
"A summary so clearly contrary to TFA without the summary calling TFA wrong or a lie indicates no attention being paid to the facts.
Could be an agenda with no support looking for an outlet, could be just a wild guess used instead of reading TFA.
Either way, it's a good case for /.
editors doing at least minimal research comparing the summary and TFA.
Not doing so causes them to make the same mistake as the submitter.It's criticism, in my opinion warranted, plainly presented, posted calmly, and you can like it or not.
It is therefore not, per moderator guidelines, flame bait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257227</id>
	<title>I hope all you Obamanauts are happy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244457960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's working out great, isn't he.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's working out great , is n't he .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's working out great, isn't he.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257583</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244459340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.  I don't know what I'd do without a pen that writes upside down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
I do n't know what I 'd do without a pen that writes upside down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
I don't know what I'd do without a pen that writes upside down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263157</id>
	<title>Re: A shame and ironic</title>
	<author>amilo100</author>
	<datestamp>1244544240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree with you. Learning to build billion dollar fire-y death traps like the space station is invaluable to the modern market economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with you .
Learning to build billion dollar fire-y death traps like the space station is invaluable to the modern market economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with you.
Learning to build billion dollar fire-y death traps like the space station is invaluable to the modern market economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258227</id>
	<title>Re:So why not?</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244461980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, for one, efficiency gains and life support would be a main benefit. Manned missions can't really carry nuclear fuels to power electronic devices, they can't burn fossil fuels and so on, so the result is going to at minimum be more efficient technology that pollutes less and less.</p><p>I would say that is a great plus seeing how the world is a frightened little schoolgirl over global warming. Gains in these areas when shared with US firms and universities could mean the US is leading the pack at efficiency and selling the tech or products using the tech to the rest of the world. In the Apollo missions, we stayed in space a relative short time. Now we are looking at permanent semi-permanent bases as goals which means that the research has to be done with stuff in effect and working by the time it happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for one , efficiency gains and life support would be a main benefit .
Manned missions ca n't really carry nuclear fuels to power electronic devices , they ca n't burn fossil fuels and so on , so the result is going to at minimum be more efficient technology that pollutes less and less.I would say that is a great plus seeing how the world is a frightened little schoolgirl over global warming .
Gains in these areas when shared with US firms and universities could mean the US is leading the pack at efficiency and selling the tech or products using the tech to the rest of the world .
In the Apollo missions , we stayed in space a relative short time .
Now we are looking at permanent semi-permanent bases as goals which means that the research has to be done with stuff in effect and working by the time it happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for one, efficiency gains and life support would be a main benefit.
Manned missions can't really carry nuclear fuels to power electronic devices, they can't burn fossil fuels and so on, so the result is going to at minimum be more efficient technology that pollutes less and less.I would say that is a great plus seeing how the world is a frightened little schoolgirl over global warming.
Gains in these areas when shared with US firms and universities could mean the US is leading the pack at efficiency and selling the tech or products using the tech to the rest of the world.
In the Apollo missions, we stayed in space a relative short time.
Now we are looking at permanent semi-permanent bases as goals which means that the research has to be done with stuff in effect and working by the time it happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937</id>
	<title>Stupid move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there is one area in which the US is unquestionably ahead of everybody else, it is in its space programs.
Cutting funds to these programs is a completely stupid idea. You need to strengthen your competitive edge, not let it degrade.
<br> <br>
Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations. Instead of diplomatically engaging with the Muslims, keeping a heavy military presence in their countries in order to "stop terrorism" is only pissing away funds that could be better used elsewhere.
<br> <br>
The full budget requested by NASA was 4 billion dollars (As per TFA, Congress reduced it to $3.2 billion).
Guess what? We piss away this much amount in Iraq every two weeks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is one area in which the US is unquestionably ahead of everybody else , it is in its space programs .
Cutting funds to these programs is a completely stupid idea .
You need to strengthen your competitive edge , not let it degrade .
Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations .
Instead of diplomatically engaging with the Muslims , keeping a heavy military presence in their countries in order to " stop terrorism " is only pissing away funds that could be better used elsewhere .
The full budget requested by NASA was 4 billion dollars ( As per TFA , Congress reduced it to $ 3.2 billion ) .
Guess what ?
We piss away this much amount in Iraq every two weeks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is one area in which the US is unquestionably ahead of everybody else, it is in its space programs.
Cutting funds to these programs is a completely stupid idea.
You need to strengthen your competitive edge, not let it degrade.
Obama needs to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans he is trying to appease by continuing overseas military operations.
Instead of diplomatically engaging with the Muslims, keeping a heavy military presence in their countries in order to "stop terrorism" is only pissing away funds that could be better used elsewhere.
The full budget requested by NASA was 4 billion dollars (As per TFA, Congress reduced it to $3.2 billion).
Guess what?
We piss away this much amount in Iraq every two weeks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258799</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>dtolman</author>
	<datestamp>1244465160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry - but thats complete and utter bullshit. Save your apoplexy for subjects that you didn't study at the Armageddon School of Asteroid studies. Mars is not close. Asteroids don't randomly shoot through the solar system. They are not surrounded by asteroid fields, or whatever craziness you think makes landing difficult. In fact, the practically 0g environment makes them the EASIEST objects to take off from.</p><p>This idea is so "out there", that its been studied by NASA for the Orion spacecraft. Here's a wikipedia link, since the actual study isn't in easy to watch movie form. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion\_Asteroid\_Mission" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion\_Asteroid\_Mission</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry - but thats complete and utter bullshit .
Save your apoplexy for subjects that you did n't study at the Armageddon School of Asteroid studies .
Mars is not close .
Asteroids do n't randomly shoot through the solar system .
They are not surrounded by asteroid fields , or whatever craziness you think makes landing difficult .
In fact , the practically 0g environment makes them the EASIEST objects to take off from.This idea is so " out there " , that its been studied by NASA for the Orion spacecraft .
Here 's a wikipedia link , since the actual study is n't in easy to watch movie form .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion \ _Asteroid \ _Mission [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry - but thats complete and utter bullshit.
Save your apoplexy for subjects that you didn't study at the Armageddon School of Asteroid studies.
Mars is not close.
Asteroids don't randomly shoot through the solar system.
They are not surrounded by asteroid fields, or whatever craziness you think makes landing difficult.
In fact, the practically 0g environment makes them the EASIEST objects to take off from.This idea is so "out there", that its been studied by NASA for the Orion spacecraft.
Here's a wikipedia link, since the actual study isn't in easy to watch movie form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion\_Asteroid\_Mission [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257993</id>
	<title>Money saving measures</title>
	<author>pjpII</author>
	<datestamp>1244460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no! Does this mean they'll have to use a sound stage in Vancouver?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !
Does this mean they 'll have to use a sound stage in Vancouver ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!
Does this mean they'll have to use a sound stage in Vancouver?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257185</id>
	<title>People tried to warn you about Obama.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244457840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People tried to warn you that an Obama administration would mark a massive shift in focus away from high-IQ pursuits and towards low-IQ pursuits, but nobody wanted to listen:<p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Obama: cut Constellation to pay for education</b> <br>
November 20, 2007<br>
<a href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/" title="spacepolitics.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/</a> [spacepolitics.com]</p> </div><p>
The consistently weird thing about Obama is that all of the very worst predictions about him keep coming true [Bill Clinton, for instance, was far more inconsistent in his politics] - Obama really does subscribe to this tribalistic, Bolshevik form of Mugabeism - he really is a true believer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People tried to warn you that an Obama administration would mark a massive shift in focus away from high-IQ pursuits and towards low-IQ pursuits , but nobody wanted to listen : Obama : cut Constellation to pay for education November 20 , 2007 http : //www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/ [ spacepolitics.com ] The consistently weird thing about Obama is that all of the very worst predictions about him keep coming true [ Bill Clinton , for instance , was far more inconsistent in his politics ] - Obama really does subscribe to this tribalistic , Bolshevik form of Mugabeism - he really is a true believer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People tried to warn you that an Obama administration would mark a massive shift in focus away from high-IQ pursuits and towards low-IQ pursuits, but nobody wanted to listen: Obama: cut Constellation to pay for education 
November 20, 2007
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/ [spacepolitics.com] 
The consistently weird thing about Obama is that all of the very worst predictions about him keep coming true [Bill Clinton, for instance, was far more inconsistent in his politics] - Obama really does subscribe to this tribalistic, Bolshevik form of Mugabeism - he really is a true believer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257577</id>
	<title>Democrats gutting space program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244459340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always been clear that the Democrats would gut the space program.</p><p>Sad, by electing Obama, we've put the last hopes of space progress behind us.  We're a smaller nation as a result.  Pretty much the plan, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always been clear that the Democrats would gut the space program.Sad , by electing Obama , we 've put the last hopes of space progress behind us .
We 're a smaller nation as a result .
Pretty much the plan , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always been clear that the Democrats would gut the space program.Sad, by electing Obama, we've put the last hopes of space progress behind us.
We're a smaller nation as a result.
Pretty much the plan, I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258675</id>
	<title>Re:This makes sense</title>
	<author>turkeydance</author>
	<datestamp>1244464260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>space exploration is "sport" for national governments.
don't "have to" do it, but do it for prestige.
hey y'all...watch this!</htmltext>
<tokenext>space exploration is " sport " for national governments .
do n't " have to " do it , but do it for prestige .
hey y'all...watch this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>space exploration is "sport" for national governments.
don't "have to" do it, but do it for prestige.
hey y'all...watch this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258391</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28264485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28270027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28276559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28262321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28264523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28260095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28273483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28271485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28267183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1916226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28270027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28264523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28271485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28262321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28276559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257681
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28260095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28267183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28263981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258013
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28264485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28273483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28259361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28258799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1916226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28256903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1916226.28257777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
