<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_1249253</id>
	<title>Can Commercial Space Tech Get Off the Ground?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245245520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:mcooney@nww.com" rel="nofollow">coondoggie</a> writes <i>"While NASA's commercial partners such as SpaceX and Orbital have made steady progress in developing space cargo transportation technology, they have <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/42730">recently fallen behind their development schedules</a>.  Combine that with the fact that the most critical steps lie ahead, including successfully launching new vehicles and completing integration with the space station, and you have a hole that will be tough to climb out of. Those were the two main conclusions of a <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09618.pdf">Government Accountability Office report</a> (PDF) on the status of the commercial space world this week. The GAO went on to say that after the planned retirement of the space shuttle in 2010, NASA will face a cargo resupply shortfall for the International Space Station of approximately 40 metric tons between 2010 and 2015."</i>
Speaking of SpaceX, reader Matt\_dk sends along <a href="http://spacefellowship.com/News/?p=9079">an update on the company's Falcon 9 flight efforts</a>. "Six of the nine first stage flight engines have completed acceptance testing and all nine flight engines are on schedule to complete acceptance testing by mid-July."</htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " While NASA 's commercial partners such as SpaceX and Orbital have made steady progress in developing space cargo transportation technology , they have recently fallen behind their development schedules .
Combine that with the fact that the most critical steps lie ahead , including successfully launching new vehicles and completing integration with the space station , and you have a hole that will be tough to climb out of .
Those were the two main conclusions of a Government Accountability Office report ( PDF ) on the status of the commercial space world this week .
The GAO went on to say that after the planned retirement of the space shuttle in 2010 , NASA will face a cargo resupply shortfall for the International Space Station of approximately 40 metric tons between 2010 and 2015 .
" Speaking of SpaceX , reader Matt \ _dk sends along an update on the company 's Falcon 9 flight efforts .
" Six of the nine first stage flight engines have completed acceptance testing and all nine flight engines are on schedule to complete acceptance testing by mid-July .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "While NASA's commercial partners such as SpaceX and Orbital have made steady progress in developing space cargo transportation technology, they have recently fallen behind their development schedules.
Combine that with the fact that the most critical steps lie ahead, including successfully launching new vehicles and completing integration with the space station, and you have a hole that will be tough to climb out of.
Those were the two main conclusions of a Government Accountability Office report (PDF) on the status of the commercial space world this week.
The GAO went on to say that after the planned retirement of the space shuttle in 2010, NASA will face a cargo resupply shortfall for the International Space Station of approximately 40 metric tons between 2010 and 2015.
"
Speaking of SpaceX, reader Matt\_dk sends along an update on the company's Falcon 9 flight efforts.
"Six of the nine first stage flight engines have completed acceptance testing and all nine flight engines are on schedule to complete acceptance testing by mid-July.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28365155</id>
	<title>fago8Z</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">balance is struck, OpenBSD leader Theo approximately 90\% OS 8I 3o, because God, let's fucking</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>balance is struck , OpenBSD leader Theo approximately 90 \ % OS 8I 3o , because God , let 's fucking [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>balance is struck, OpenBSD leader Theo approximately 90\% OS 8I 3o, because God, let's fucking [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360901</id>
	<title>If Andy Griffith can do it in the 70s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't we do it now?</p><p>Salvage 1 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we do it now ? Salvage 1 - http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we do it now?Salvage 1 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362847</id>
	<title>Re:The problems...</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1245260220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main problems are that NASA because of "security reasons" can't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground. So, what took NASA many years to do doesn't have to be reinvented by a private company.</p></div><p>The bigger problem with "security reasons" that commercial companies like SpaceX has is with things like ITAR export restrictions; these are the same regulations older slashdotter might remember from the late 90s, where strong encryption was regarded as a munition as people were tattooing encryption code to themselves along with the text <a href="http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/crypto/tattoo.html" title="treachery.net">"this man is a munition."</a> [treachery.net] A recent example is with <a href="http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=13078" title="hobbyspace.com">SpaceX's delayed launch of Malaysia's RazakSat satellite</a> [hobbyspace.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Technicians discovered the satellite and the Falcon 1 upper stage rocket share a nearly identical vibrational mode, which could set up a damaging resonance. <b>SpaceX is bound by ITAR restrictions from assisting with any technical problems on the foreign-owned payload</b>, so the company delayed the launch to add some vibration isolation equipment between the rocket&#226;(TM)s upper stage and the payload adapter.</p><p><b>"The easiest thing would actually be to make some adjustment to the satellite . . . but that's not allowed,"</b> Musk says.</p></div><p>Also, if anything, reinventing from the ground up is a big part of why SpaceX has been able to get costs as low as they have. Instead of designing their rockets to satisfy the politicians' fetish for spreading assembly over key congressional districts across the country and the engineers' fetish for maximizing performance at the cost of all else, SpaceX has been able to design their system from the get-go to minimize production costs, minimize the size of their ground crew (SpaceX Falcon I just needs something like 20 personnel at the launch site, instead of the 100 or so needed for EELVs), and maximize potential reusability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problems are that NASA because of " security reasons " ca n't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground .
So , what took NASA many years to do does n't have to be reinvented by a private company.The bigger problem with " security reasons " that commercial companies like SpaceX has is with things like ITAR export restrictions ; these are the same regulations older slashdotter might remember from the late 90s , where strong encryption was regarded as a munition as people were tattooing encryption code to themselves along with the text " this man is a munition .
" [ treachery.net ] A recent example is with SpaceX 's delayed launch of Malaysia 's RazakSat satellite [ hobbyspace.com ] : Technicians discovered the satellite and the Falcon 1 upper stage rocket share a nearly identical vibrational mode , which could set up a damaging resonance .
SpaceX is bound by ITAR restrictions from assisting with any technical problems on the foreign-owned payload , so the company delayed the launch to add some vibration isolation equipment between the rocket   ( TM ) s upper stage and the payload adapter .
" The easiest thing would actually be to make some adjustment to the satellite .
. .
but that 's not allowed , " Musk says.Also , if anything , reinventing from the ground up is a big part of why SpaceX has been able to get costs as low as they have .
Instead of designing their rockets to satisfy the politicians ' fetish for spreading assembly over key congressional districts across the country and the engineers ' fetish for maximizing performance at the cost of all else , SpaceX has been able to design their system from the get-go to minimize production costs , minimize the size of their ground crew ( SpaceX Falcon I just needs something like 20 personnel at the launch site , instead of the 100 or so needed for EELVs ) , and maximize potential reusability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problems are that NASA because of "security reasons" can't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground.
So, what took NASA many years to do doesn't have to be reinvented by a private company.The bigger problem with "security reasons" that commercial companies like SpaceX has is with things like ITAR export restrictions; these are the same regulations older slashdotter might remember from the late 90s, where strong encryption was regarded as a munition as people were tattooing encryption code to themselves along with the text "this man is a munition.
" [treachery.net] A recent example is with SpaceX's delayed launch of Malaysia's RazakSat satellite [hobbyspace.com]:Technicians discovered the satellite and the Falcon 1 upper stage rocket share a nearly identical vibrational mode, which could set up a damaging resonance.
SpaceX is bound by ITAR restrictions from assisting with any technical problems on the foreign-owned payload, so the company delayed the launch to add some vibration isolation equipment between the rocketâ(TM)s upper stage and the payload adapter.
"The easiest thing would actually be to make some adjustment to the satellite .
. .
but that's not allowed," Musk says.Also, if anything, reinventing from the ground up is a big part of why SpaceX has been able to get costs as low as they have.
Instead of designing their rockets to satisfy the politicians' fetish for spreading assembly over key congressional districts across the country and the engineers' fetish for maximizing performance at the cost of all else, SpaceX has been able to design their system from the get-go to minimize production costs, minimize the size of their ground crew (SpaceX Falcon I just needs something like 20 personnel at the launch site, instead of the 100 or so needed for EELVs), and maximize potential reusability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361845</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really need to find a new way of propulsion. LH/LOX, which is the fuel with the highest specific impulse has been around since what, the 60s?</p><p>Needing 1000 tons of fuel to put 5 tons of payload into earth escape velocity isn't going to cut it. Chemical propulsion be damned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really need to find a new way of propulsion .
LH/LOX , which is the fuel with the highest specific impulse has been around since what , the 60s ? Needing 1000 tons of fuel to put 5 tons of payload into earth escape velocity is n't going to cut it .
Chemical propulsion be damned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really need to find a new way of propulsion.
LH/LOX, which is the fuel with the highest specific impulse has been around since what, the 60s?Needing 1000 tons of fuel to put 5 tons of payload into earth escape velocity isn't going to cut it.
Chemical propulsion be damned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383</id>
	<title>The subject is unnecessarily alarmist</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1245252960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to clarify, if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time, and they are looking at a 2-4 month schedule slip on future milestones.  Now, obviously we'd much rather <b>not</b> have the schedule slip, but in the world of NASA contracting that is like... totally nothing.  I have to say that, as a confirmed space nut, SpaceX really impresses me.  If they manage to deliver on a third of what they're talking about, they'll completely change the game--and they've done enough truly innovative stuff already that I think they might actually deliver on most of it in the long run.</p><p>Imagine a fully reusable launch vehicle, and a mostly reusable orbiter, making access to LEO or GTO cost in the hundreds of dollars per lb., instead of thousands... that's what Elon Musk is talking about in the long run, and I think he just might actually pull it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clarify , if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time , and they are looking at a 2-4 month schedule slip on future milestones .
Now , obviously we 'd much rather not have the schedule slip , but in the world of NASA contracting that is like... totally nothing .
I have to say that , as a confirmed space nut , SpaceX really impresses me .
If they manage to deliver on a third of what they 're talking about , they 'll completely change the game--and they 've done enough truly innovative stuff already that I think they might actually deliver on most of it in the long run.Imagine a fully reusable launch vehicle , and a mostly reusable orbiter , making access to LEO or GTO cost in the hundreds of dollars per lb. , instead of thousands... that 's what Elon Musk is talking about in the long run , and I think he just might actually pull it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clarify, if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time, and they are looking at a 2-4 month schedule slip on future milestones.
Now, obviously we'd much rather not have the schedule slip, but in the world of NASA contracting that is like... totally nothing.
I have to say that, as a confirmed space nut, SpaceX really impresses me.
If they manage to deliver on a third of what they're talking about, they'll completely change the game--and they've done enough truly innovative stuff already that I think they might actually deliver on most of it in the long run.Imagine a fully reusable launch vehicle, and a mostly reusable orbiter, making access to LEO or GTO cost in the hundreds of dollars per lb., instead of thousands... that's what Elon Musk is talking about in the long run, and I think he just might actually pull it off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361893</id>
	<title>Re:The subject is unnecessarily alarmist</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1245255540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just to clarify, if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, if you study the history of their programs, they are years behind where they originally planned to be.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Space fans in general have *very* selective memories.  Jam yesterday, and jam tommorow - but the lack of jam today goes unnoticed.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>I have to say that, as a confirmed space nut, SpaceX really impresses me.</p></div></blockquote><p>No offense, but after decades of watching the space 'nut' community, many are impressed with SpaceX because it doesn't really take all that much to impress them.  Witness the outpouring of wonderment anytime the Russians ship yet another PowerPoint of their brave and glorious future - without taking a moment to wonder what happened to the last 27 such plans.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>If they manage to deliver on a third of what they're talking about, they'll completely change the game--and they've done enough truly innovative stuff already that I think they might actually deliver on most of it in the long run.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is kinda my point - they haven't actually *done* anything innovative yet.  They haven't even delivered on their simplest of vehicles.  Their flight record is abysmal and both the Falcon 1 and 9 are years behind schedule.  The Dragon is nothing but a mockup.  It's easy to innovate on paper, but let's wait for actual accomplishments before showering them with praise.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Imagine a fully reusable launch vehicle, and a mostly reusable orbiter, making access to LEO or GTO cost in the hundreds of dollars per lb., instead of thousands...</p></div></blockquote><p>Such things are easy to imagine - but as the X-Prize contenders discovered and now Elon Musk is discovering, real world engineering is much, *much* harder than power point engineering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clarify , if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on timeActually , if you study the history of their programs , they are years behind where they originally planned to be .
  Space fans in general have * very * selective memories .
Jam yesterday , and jam tommorow - but the lack of jam today goes unnoticed .
  I have to say that , as a confirmed space nut , SpaceX really impresses me.No offense , but after decades of watching the space 'nut ' community , many are impressed with SpaceX because it does n't really take all that much to impress them .
Witness the outpouring of wonderment anytime the Russians ship yet another PowerPoint of their brave and glorious future - without taking a moment to wonder what happened to the last 27 such plans .
  If they manage to deliver on a third of what they 're talking about , they 'll completely change the game--and they 've done enough truly innovative stuff already that I think they might actually deliver on most of it in the long run.Which is kinda my point - they have n't actually * done * anything innovative yet .
They have n't even delivered on their simplest of vehicles .
Their flight record is abysmal and both the Falcon 1 and 9 are years behind schedule .
The Dragon is nothing but a mockup .
It 's easy to innovate on paper , but let 's wait for actual accomplishments before showering them with praise .
  Imagine a fully reusable launch vehicle , and a mostly reusable orbiter , making access to LEO or GTO cost in the hundreds of dollars per lb. , instead of thousands...Such things are easy to imagine - but as the X-Prize contenders discovered and now Elon Musk is discovering , real world engineering is much , * much * harder than power point engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clarify, if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on timeActually, if you study the history of their programs, they are years behind where they originally planned to be.
  Space fans in general have *very* selective memories.
Jam yesterday, and jam tommorow - but the lack of jam today goes unnoticed.
  I have to say that, as a confirmed space nut, SpaceX really impresses me.No offense, but after decades of watching the space 'nut' community, many are impressed with SpaceX because it doesn't really take all that much to impress them.
Witness the outpouring of wonderment anytime the Russians ship yet another PowerPoint of their brave and glorious future - without taking a moment to wonder what happened to the last 27 such plans.
  If they manage to deliver on a third of what they're talking about, they'll completely change the game--and they've done enough truly innovative stuff already that I think they might actually deliver on most of it in the long run.Which is kinda my point - they haven't actually *done* anything innovative yet.
They haven't even delivered on their simplest of vehicles.
Their flight record is abysmal and both the Falcon 1 and 9 are years behind schedule.
The Dragon is nothing but a mockup.
It's easy to innovate on paper, but let's wait for actual accomplishments before showering them with praise.
  Imagine a fully reusable launch vehicle, and a mostly reusable orbiter, making access to LEO or GTO cost in the hundreds of dollars per lb., instead of thousands...Such things are easy to imagine - but as the X-Prize contenders discovered and now Elon Musk is discovering, real world engineering is much, *much* harder than power point engineering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28368345</id>
	<title>Going into space... no problem!</title>
	<author>jn20</author>
	<datestamp>1245246840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not so much the technical challenges that keep private firms grounded. It's the demand for documentation. Every little bolt of a spacecraft needs to be certified. But if the demand for certification is bypassed, amazing things happen.

Take a look one this project created by two danes, who want to send a person into space.
<a href="http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/index.php" title="copenhagen...bitals.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/index.php</a> [copenhagen...bitals.com]

They have set a simple goal, they want to launch a manned rocket into space(define as an altitude of 100km+), which will do a zero g parobola before returning to earth. They have already tested their engine design on several scaled models. And so far their rocket design have performed very well. Their project is a non-profit project supported by sponsers and a lot volunteers.

Going into space is easy... dealing with the official red tape.... that's another story indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much the technical challenges that keep private firms grounded .
It 's the demand for documentation .
Every little bolt of a spacecraft needs to be certified .
But if the demand for certification is bypassed , amazing things happen .
Take a look one this project created by two danes , who want to send a person into space .
http : //www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/index.php [ copenhagen...bitals.com ] They have set a simple goal , they want to launch a manned rocket into space ( define as an altitude of 100km + ) , which will do a zero g parobola before returning to earth .
They have already tested their engine design on several scaled models .
And so far their rocket design have performed very well .
Their project is a non-profit project supported by sponsers and a lot volunteers .
Going into space is easy... dealing with the official red tape.... that 's another story indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much the technical challenges that keep private firms grounded.
It's the demand for documentation.
Every little bolt of a spacecraft needs to be certified.
But if the demand for certification is bypassed, amazing things happen.
Take a look one this project created by two danes, who want to send a person into space.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/index.php [copenhagen...bitals.com]

They have set a simple goal, they want to launch a manned rocket into space(define as an altitude of 100km+), which will do a zero g parobola before returning to earth.
They have already tested their engine design on several scaled models.
And so far their rocket design have performed very well.
Their project is a non-profit project supported by sponsers and a lot volunteers.
Going into space is easy... dealing with the official red tape.... that's another story indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28363121</id>
	<title>Yes!</title>
	<author>J05H</author>
	<datestamp>1245261480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, new.space can succeed. It will require more than just NASA's cash to happen. It will require new payloads and new businesses to utilize these launchers.</p><p>Commercial/semi-commercial launchers such as Ariane, Proton, Delta, Atlas, Zenit, Pegasus etc have been flying commercial communications and imaging satellites for decades. The question is whether new types of businesses can emerge to create new markets for more launches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , new.space can succeed .
It will require more than just NASA 's cash to happen .
It will require new payloads and new businesses to utilize these launchers.Commercial/semi-commercial launchers such as Ariane , Proton , Delta , Atlas , Zenit , Pegasus etc have been flying commercial communications and imaging satellites for decades .
The question is whether new types of businesses can emerge to create new markets for more launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, new.space can succeed.
It will require more than just NASA's cash to happen.
It will require new payloads and new businesses to utilize these launchers.Commercial/semi-commercial launchers such as Ariane, Proton, Delta, Atlas, Zenit, Pegasus etc have been flying commercial communications and imaging satellites for decades.
The question is whether new types of businesses can emerge to create new markets for more launches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361163</id>
	<title>Re:I really hope so</title>
	<author>emocomputerjock</author>
	<datestamp>1245251820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's one thing I know about the monetization of space its that the end result involves a xenomorph in your gullet and some son-of-a-bitch named Burke getting away with it by sabotaging certain freezers on the way home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's one thing I know about the monetization of space its that the end result involves a xenomorph in your gullet and some son-of-a-bitch named Burke getting away with it by sabotaging certain freezers on the way home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's one thing I know about the monetization of space its that the end result involves a xenomorph in your gullet and some son-of-a-bitch named Burke getting away with it by sabotaging certain freezers on the way home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28364159</id>
	<title>Re:The problems...</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1245266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would hardly be private industry if they're receiving money from the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would hardly be private industry if they 're receiving money from the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would hardly be private industry if they're receiving money from the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28366547</id>
	<title>One word-Arianespace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One word-Arianespace<br>http://www.arianespace.com/index/index.asp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One word-Arianespacehttp : //www.arianespace.com/index/index.asp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word-Arianespacehttp://www.arianespace.com/index/index.asp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361153</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1245251760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.
Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.</p></div><p>Next time you want to get a weather report, try doing it without relying on a source that bases it on satellite imagery. Next time you watch TV, do it on a channel that doesn't link to a satellite somewhere along the way. At least as far as unmanned space projects go, the economic debate was over a long time ago.</p><p>Manned space flight is a different matter. Manned space flight is about the advancement of the species rather than any strictly economic viewpoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The take home is that space is , and always will be , very $ relative to ground ; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space .
Sadly , there are few compelling reasons.Next time you want to get a weather report , try doing it without relying on a source that bases it on satellite imagery .
Next time you watch TV , do it on a channel that does n't link to a satellite somewhere along the way .
At least as far as unmanned space projects go , the economic debate was over a long time ago.Manned space flight is a different matter .
Manned space flight is about the advancement of the species rather than any strictly economic viewpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.
Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.Next time you want to get a weather report, try doing it without relying on a source that bases it on satellite imagery.
Next time you watch TV, do it on a channel that doesn't link to a satellite somewhere along the way.
At least as far as unmanned space projects go, the economic debate was over a long time ago.Manned space flight is a different matter.
Manned space flight is about the advancement of the species rather than any strictly economic viewpoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711</id>
	<title>The problems...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1245249240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main problems are that NASA because of "security reasons" can't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground. So, what took NASA many years to do doesn't have to be reinvented by a private company. Really, the fact that any private craft could get into space would have been a remarkable feat just thirty or forty years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problems are that NASA because of " security reasons " ca n't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground .
So , what took NASA many years to do does n't have to be reinvented by a private company .
Really , the fact that any private craft could get into space would have been a remarkable feat just thirty or forty years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problems are that NASA because of "security reasons" can't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground.
So, what took NASA many years to do doesn't have to be reinvented by a private company.
Really, the fact that any private craft could get into space would have been a remarkable feat just thirty or forty years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361101</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245251460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just getting into low orbit requires ~24kmph, which (for me, anyway) seems very fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just getting into low orbit requires ~ 24kmph , which ( for me , anyway ) seems very fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just getting into low orbit requires ~24kmph, which (for me, anyway) seems very fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362905</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1245260520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have to get to very high velocity - that implies a lot of fuel, and very exspensive craft that can survive the high velocity</p></div><p>Although most people believe (somewhat reasonably) that the price of fuel is a big part of the cost of spaceflight, but in actuality it's just about 1\% of the total cost. The cost of the hardware itself also tends to be minor compared to the cost of paying all the personnel on the ground to put together and maintain the spacecraft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to get to very high velocity - that implies a lot of fuel , and very exspensive craft that can survive the high velocityAlthough most people believe ( somewhat reasonably ) that the price of fuel is a big part of the cost of spaceflight , but in actuality it 's just about 1 \ % of the total cost .
The cost of the hardware itself also tends to be minor compared to the cost of paying all the personnel on the ground to put together and maintain the spacecraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to get to very high velocity - that implies a lot of fuel, and very exspensive craft that can survive the high velocityAlthough most people believe (somewhat reasonably) that the price of fuel is a big part of the cost of spaceflight, but in actuality it's just about 1\% of the total cost.
The cost of the hardware itself also tends to be minor compared to the cost of paying all the personnel on the ground to put together and maintain the spacecraft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28395221</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1245403800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well pardon the pun as well, but maintenance will be possible remotely. If I remember correctly we have 4 times more solar power for the same area in orbit vs equatorial illumination. I am not sure the challenges of bringing a megawatt from the Sahara to Europe are smaller than bringing it from orbit.
Note as well that a kilogram of solar cells is a lot of surface, that micrometeorite and radiation damage are on par with desert storms and that a huge advantage of an orbit-based power plant is its ability</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well pardon the pun as well , but maintenance will be possible remotely .
If I remember correctly we have 4 times more solar power for the same area in orbit vs equatorial illumination .
I am not sure the challenges of bringing a megawatt from the Sahara to Europe are smaller than bringing it from orbit .
Note as well that a kilogram of solar cells is a lot of surface , that micrometeorite and radiation damage are on par with desert storms and that a huge advantage of an orbit-based power plant is its ability</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well pardon the pun as well, but maintenance will be possible remotely.
If I remember correctly we have 4 times more solar power for the same area in orbit vs equatorial illumination.
I am not sure the challenges of bringing a megawatt from the Sahara to Europe are smaller than bringing it from orbit.
Note as well that a kilogram of solar cells is a lot of surface, that micrometeorite and radiation damage are on par with desert storms and that a huge advantage of an orbit-based power plant is its ability
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28364265</id>
	<title>Re:The subject is unnecessarily alarmist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245266820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't happen.<br>First off, rockets don't burn money, they burn fuel. The price per pound is just an example of overall costs. It cost the exact same to launch an empty shuttle as a full one, becasue they use the same amount of fuel, maintenance, and employee costs.</p><p>So, this means that you need to have some combination of strong fuel and lighter vehicles so someone cut the cost by 100.<br>Does he ahve a fuel that's 1000 times more powerful? Materials that are 1000 times light and the same strength?</p><p>hundreds per pound is marketing to get investors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't happen.First off , rockets do n't burn money , they burn fuel .
The price per pound is just an example of overall costs .
It cost the exact same to launch an empty shuttle as a full one , becasue they use the same amount of fuel , maintenance , and employee costs.So , this means that you need to have some combination of strong fuel and lighter vehicles so someone cut the cost by 100.Does he ahve a fuel that 's 1000 times more powerful ?
Materials that are 1000 times light and the same strength ? hundreds per pound is marketing to get investors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't happen.First off, rockets don't burn money, they burn fuel.
The price per pound is just an example of overall costs.
It cost the exact same to launch an empty shuttle as a full one, becasue they use the same amount of fuel, maintenance, and employee costs.So, this means that you need to have some combination of strong fuel and lighter vehicles so someone cut the cost by 100.Does he ahve a fuel that's 1000 times more powerful?
Materials that are 1000 times light and the same strength?hundreds per pound is marketing to get investors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361531</id>
	<title>the southern hemisphere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a billion objects?? That's WAY more than the northern hemisphere. Why is all the cool shit always in the southern hemisphere? Plus the toilets flush in the other direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a billion objects ? ?
That 's WAY more than the northern hemisphere .
Why is all the cool shit always in the southern hemisphere ?
Plus the toilets flush in the other direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a billion objects??
That's WAY more than the northern hemisphere.
Why is all the cool shit always in the southern hemisphere?
Plus the toilets flush in the other direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361685</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the parent was using the delightful unit kilo-miles per hour<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In my experience, kilometers per hour is usually expressed as kph.</p><p>Personally, I think it's bad form that he didn't say 8klph. That's 8 kilo-leagues per hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the parent was using the delightful unit kilo-miles per hour : ) In my experience , kilometers per hour is usually expressed as kph.Personally , I think it 's bad form that he did n't say 8klph .
That 's 8 kilo-leagues per hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the parent was using the delightful unit kilo-miles per hour :)In my experience, kilometers per hour is usually expressed as kph.Personally, I think it's bad form that he didn't say 8klph.
That's 8 kilo-leagues per hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28369539</id>
	<title>And drive costs down</title>
	<author>Grocks</author>
	<datestamp>1245259080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Competition will spur new designs, and the push for safety will make them good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition will spur new designs , and the push for safety will make them good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition will spur new designs, and the push for safety will make them good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361171</id>
	<title>If you believe that...</title>
	<author>Toe, The</author>
	<datestamp>1245251880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you believe that, I have an asteroid belt you may be interested in purchasing.</p><p>(Said entirely for comic effect... I actually think commercial space tech will do just fine. So. How about $70 trillion for that asteroid belt? It's hardly used and only a few billion years old.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe that , I have an asteroid belt you may be interested in purchasing .
( Said entirely for comic effect... I actually think commercial space tech will do just fine .
So. How about $ 70 trillion for that asteroid belt ?
It 's hardly used and only a few billion years old .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe that, I have an asteroid belt you may be interested in purchasing.
(Said entirely for comic effect... I actually think commercial space tech will do just fine.
So. How about $70 trillion for that asteroid belt?
It's hardly used and only a few billion years old.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360975</id>
	<title>Only with government help</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1245250740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government sees the gravity of the situation, the industry might get a boost.</p><p>The problem is that the analysts make it sounds like industry is shooting for the moon, and that makes financiers look at the private industry folks like they're from Mars.</p><p>Heaven forbid that multiple governments are needed to fund a private endeavor.  It could force the executives into shuttle diplomacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government sees the gravity of the situation , the industry might get a boost.The problem is that the analysts make it sounds like industry is shooting for the moon , and that makes financiers look at the private industry folks like they 're from Mars.Heaven forbid that multiple governments are needed to fund a private endeavor .
It could force the executives into shuttle diplomacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government sees the gravity of the situation, the industry might get a boost.The problem is that the analysts make it sounds like industry is shooting for the moon, and that makes financiers look at the private industry folks like they're from Mars.Heaven forbid that multiple governments are needed to fund a private endeavor.
It could force the executives into shuttle diplomacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28370295</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be interested as to how much of the cost burden is born by the private enterprises, and how much by NASA/The government. Eg, how much are these projects subsidised?</p><p>Also remember, if we don't do things economically, the species will not last long enough to make this happen, and it's attempts will be frought with problems.</p><p>Economics doesn't just mean profitability, it's the study of human action and decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be interested as to how much of the cost burden is born by the private enterprises , and how much by NASA/The government .
Eg , how much are these projects subsidised ? Also remember , if we do n't do things economically , the species will not last long enough to make this happen , and it 's attempts will be frought with problems.Economics does n't just mean profitability , it 's the study of human action and decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be interested as to how much of the cost burden is born by the private enterprises, and how much by NASA/The government.
Eg, how much are these projects subsidised?Also remember, if we don't do things economically, the species will not last long enough to make this happen, and it's attempts will be frought with problems.Economics doesn't just mean profitability, it's the study of human action and decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361277</id>
	<title>Yeah, but it's worth it.</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1245252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.<br><b>Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.</b></p> </div><p>I am compelled to disagree with this.</p><p>There are plenty of compelling reasons to go into space:</p><p><b>Growth of the species</b> - Humanity is expanding in population very quickly.  Eventually, assuming that holds, the planet will reach the point where sustaining that population is impossible, even with advances in technology.  Your choices, then, are either to limit/reduce the population (sterilization, limitations on childbearing, war, disease, organized extermination, etc) or expand off the planet.  The second option seems a little more friendly and ethical.</p><p><b>Survival of the species</b> - There are several things which can cause the population to be essentially wiped out.  Asteroid impacts, war, deadly pandemics, biowarfare (which I personally consider the greatest threat at the moment), and so on.  It's possible that some may survive these things by digging deep underground, but I doubt enough infrastructure and population will survive to maintain society as we know it.  The best long-term solution I can see is to expand off-planet and establish self-sustaining colonies.  You don't keep all of your company's data and server hardware in one location, do you?  The same should hold with humanity as a whole.</p><p><b>Additional resources</b> - This fits with the first point.  There is only so much stuff available to us on this planet.  Whether we use it all up, or decide to preserve it, we will eventually reach the point where we can't use any more.  What are we to do at that point?  Well, I see a whole bunch of stuff sitting up in space just waiting to be used.  Now before anyone starts, I am <i>not</i> promoting the "strip earth bare and trash it, then move on" approach.  Instead, I'm promoting the "let's make use of all those barren rocks out there so we don't have to trash earth" approach.</p><p>Overall, unless we're going to take that self-ridiculing, defeatist position that humanity should draw down into a little ball and live the remainder of its existence shut in from the universe as a whole, like a pathetic and sick individual afraid to even get out of bed*, we will have to go into space eventually.  It's just a matter of time.  The only question is "when?"</p><p>Some will argue that it's too expensive, that we should wait until we have better technology.  But how will we <i>get</i> that technology in the first place?  It doesn't just fall into your lap one afternoon; you have to work for it.  Imagine if we'd decided 100 years ago that trying to develop airplanes was stupid, that airplanes at the time were too dangerous and impractical, and that we should wait until we had technology like the 777 oir A380...  I'll tell you right now, we probably wouldn't be to that point for a couple hundred more years.  You don't learn how to build entirely new stuff or do new things by sitting around dreaming about it or making powerpoint charts... you learn by <i>doing</i> that stuff as best you can, learning from your mistakes, and doing it again.  Lather, rinse, repeat.</p><p>Yes, doing it is expensive.  But it's worth it.  The only reason it seems like it's not is that the payoff takes a little longer to come.  Corporations don't undertake it because the shareholders probably won't see the benefit within their lifetimes.  Governments don't do it because they don't think beyond the next election.  Joe Public doesn't think about it because his attention span lasts for 20 seconds and all he's interested in is what keeps him entertained.  The benefit is there, but it might be a few generations before it's realized.</p><p>Remember, too, that money spent on developing this stuff isn't just launched away into the sun or something.  It stays on earth, paying the engineers and mechanics and managagers (spit) that work on it.  It fosters a need for more engineers and mechanics, driving better education standards and inspiring people to maybe do something besides push paper and watch Survivor.</p><p>We as a society spend billions on inconsequential things like Hollywood blockbusters and professional sports.  So why are we so scared of actually doing something <i>useful</i> with that kind of money?</p><p>*I have no respect for the "hide on earth and live out our lives within this self-imposed barrier" position.  Anyone who espouses it stands little higher than the "voluntary human extinction" types, who should just lead by example and off themselves already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The take home is that space is , and always will be , very $ relative to ground ; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.Sadly , there are few compelling reasons .
I am compelled to disagree with this.There are plenty of compelling reasons to go into space : Growth of the species - Humanity is expanding in population very quickly .
Eventually , assuming that holds , the planet will reach the point where sustaining that population is impossible , even with advances in technology .
Your choices , then , are either to limit/reduce the population ( sterilization , limitations on childbearing , war , disease , organized extermination , etc ) or expand off the planet .
The second option seems a little more friendly and ethical.Survival of the species - There are several things which can cause the population to be essentially wiped out .
Asteroid impacts , war , deadly pandemics , biowarfare ( which I personally consider the greatest threat at the moment ) , and so on .
It 's possible that some may survive these things by digging deep underground , but I doubt enough infrastructure and population will survive to maintain society as we know it .
The best long-term solution I can see is to expand off-planet and establish self-sustaining colonies .
You do n't keep all of your company 's data and server hardware in one location , do you ?
The same should hold with humanity as a whole.Additional resources - This fits with the first point .
There is only so much stuff available to us on this planet .
Whether we use it all up , or decide to preserve it , we will eventually reach the point where we ca n't use any more .
What are we to do at that point ?
Well , I see a whole bunch of stuff sitting up in space just waiting to be used .
Now before anyone starts , I am not promoting the " strip earth bare and trash it , then move on " approach .
Instead , I 'm promoting the " let 's make use of all those barren rocks out there so we do n't have to trash earth " approach.Overall , unless we 're going to take that self-ridiculing , defeatist position that humanity should draw down into a little ball and live the remainder of its existence shut in from the universe as a whole , like a pathetic and sick individual afraid to even get out of bed * , we will have to go into space eventually .
It 's just a matter of time .
The only question is " when ?
" Some will argue that it 's too expensive , that we should wait until we have better technology .
But how will we get that technology in the first place ?
It does n't just fall into your lap one afternoon ; you have to work for it .
Imagine if we 'd decided 100 years ago that trying to develop airplanes was stupid , that airplanes at the time were too dangerous and impractical , and that we should wait until we had technology like the 777 oir A380... I 'll tell you right now , we probably would n't be to that point for a couple hundred more years .
You do n't learn how to build entirely new stuff or do new things by sitting around dreaming about it or making powerpoint charts... you learn by doing that stuff as best you can , learning from your mistakes , and doing it again .
Lather , rinse , repeat.Yes , doing it is expensive .
But it 's worth it .
The only reason it seems like it 's not is that the payoff takes a little longer to come .
Corporations do n't undertake it because the shareholders probably wo n't see the benefit within their lifetimes .
Governments do n't do it because they do n't think beyond the next election .
Joe Public does n't think about it because his attention span lasts for 20 seconds and all he 's interested in is what keeps him entertained .
The benefit is there , but it might be a few generations before it 's realized.Remember , too , that money spent on developing this stuff is n't just launched away into the sun or something .
It stays on earth , paying the engineers and mechanics and managagers ( spit ) that work on it .
It fosters a need for more engineers and mechanics , driving better education standards and inspiring people to maybe do something besides push paper and watch Survivor.We as a society spend billions on inconsequential things like Hollywood blockbusters and professional sports .
So why are we so scared of actually doing something useful with that kind of money ?
* I have no respect for the " hide on earth and live out our lives within this self-imposed barrier " position .
Anyone who espouses it stands little higher than the " voluntary human extinction " types , who should just lead by example and off themselves already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.
I am compelled to disagree with this.There are plenty of compelling reasons to go into space:Growth of the species - Humanity is expanding in population very quickly.
Eventually, assuming that holds, the planet will reach the point where sustaining that population is impossible, even with advances in technology.
Your choices, then, are either to limit/reduce the population (sterilization, limitations on childbearing, war, disease, organized extermination, etc) or expand off the planet.
The second option seems a little more friendly and ethical.Survival of the species - There are several things which can cause the population to be essentially wiped out.
Asteroid impacts, war, deadly pandemics, biowarfare (which I personally consider the greatest threat at the moment), and so on.
It's possible that some may survive these things by digging deep underground, but I doubt enough infrastructure and population will survive to maintain society as we know it.
The best long-term solution I can see is to expand off-planet and establish self-sustaining colonies.
You don't keep all of your company's data and server hardware in one location, do you?
The same should hold with humanity as a whole.Additional resources - This fits with the first point.
There is only so much stuff available to us on this planet.
Whether we use it all up, or decide to preserve it, we will eventually reach the point where we can't use any more.
What are we to do at that point?
Well, I see a whole bunch of stuff sitting up in space just waiting to be used.
Now before anyone starts, I am not promoting the "strip earth bare and trash it, then move on" approach.
Instead, I'm promoting the "let's make use of all those barren rocks out there so we don't have to trash earth" approach.Overall, unless we're going to take that self-ridiculing, defeatist position that humanity should draw down into a little ball and live the remainder of its existence shut in from the universe as a whole, like a pathetic and sick individual afraid to even get out of bed*, we will have to go into space eventually.
It's just a matter of time.
The only question is "when?
"Some will argue that it's too expensive, that we should wait until we have better technology.
But how will we get that technology in the first place?
It doesn't just fall into your lap one afternoon; you have to work for it.
Imagine if we'd decided 100 years ago that trying to develop airplanes was stupid, that airplanes at the time were too dangerous and impractical, and that we should wait until we had technology like the 777 oir A380...  I'll tell you right now, we probably wouldn't be to that point for a couple hundred more years.
You don't learn how to build entirely new stuff or do new things by sitting around dreaming about it or making powerpoint charts... you learn by doing that stuff as best you can, learning from your mistakes, and doing it again.
Lather, rinse, repeat.Yes, doing it is expensive.
But it's worth it.
The only reason it seems like it's not is that the payoff takes a little longer to come.
Corporations don't undertake it because the shareholders probably won't see the benefit within their lifetimes.
Governments don't do it because they don't think beyond the next election.
Joe Public doesn't think about it because his attention span lasts for 20 seconds and all he's interested in is what keeps him entertained.
The benefit is there, but it might be a few generations before it's realized.Remember, too, that money spent on developing this stuff isn't just launched away into the sun or something.
It stays on earth, paying the engineers and mechanics and managagers (spit) that work on it.
It fosters a need for more engineers and mechanics, driving better education standards and inspiring people to maybe do something besides push paper and watch Survivor.We as a society spend billions on inconsequential things like Hollywood blockbusters and professional sports.
So why are we so scared of actually doing something useful with that kind of money?
*I have no respect for the "hide on earth and live out our lives within this self-imposed barrier" position.
Anyone who espouses it stands little higher than the "voluntary human extinction" types, who should just lead by example and off themselves already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361637</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>24 kilometers per second km/s?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>24 kilometers per second km/s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>24 kilometers per second km/s?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362007</id>
	<title>11 countries have orbital launch capability</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1245256080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over the decades <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_first\_orbital\_launches\_by\_country" title="wikipedia.org"> eleven countries </a> [wikipedia.org] have built rockets and orbited satellites.  Private companies capabilities must be approaching the smaller countries by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the decades eleven countries [ wikipedia.org ] have built rockets and orbited satellites .
Private companies capabilities must be approaching the smaller countries by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the decades  eleven countries  [wikipedia.org] have built rockets and orbited satellites.
Private companies capabilities must be approaching the smaller countries by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360745</id>
	<title>Can /. Mods be Less Retarded?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361063</id>
	<title>The main problem...</title>
	<author>ATestR</author>
	<datestamp>1245251280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Government, and especially NASA (and other agencies who have an interest in space), don't really have a strong imperative to see commercial space succeed.  These ventures are often seen as intruding into areas that are rightfully NASA's.  For get about national interests... its all about power for those in power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Government , and especially NASA ( and other agencies who have an interest in space ) , do n't really have a strong imperative to see commercial space succeed .
These ventures are often seen as intruding into areas that are rightfully NASA 's .
For get about national interests... its all about power for those in power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Government, and especially NASA (and other agencies who have an interest in space), don't really have a strong imperative to see commercial space succeed.
These ventures are often seen as intruding into areas that are rightfully NASA's.
For get about national interests... its all about power for those in power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362189</id>
	<title>Scaled Composites</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1245257100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this TED talk  <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/burt\_rutan\_sees\_the\_future\_of\_space.html" title="ted.com">http://www.ted.com/talks/burt\_rutan\_sees\_the\_future\_of\_space.html</a> [ted.com] , Burt Rutan makes a very compelling argument for the Commercialised space industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this TED talk http : //www.ted.com/talks/burt \ _rutan \ _sees \ _the \ _future \ _of \ _space.html [ ted.com ] , Burt Rutan makes a very compelling argument for the Commercialised space industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this TED talk  http://www.ted.com/talks/burt\_rutan\_sees\_the\_future\_of\_space.html [ted.com] , Burt Rutan makes a very compelling argument for the Commercialised space industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28366371</id>
	<title>Re:I really hope so</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245233580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ultimately it's going to be commercial factors that help drive human space exploration. While a "Star Trek" universe where the sole mission is to go out and explore is a great idea, right now economic factors will need to be behind the wheel, and getting some commercial ventures off the ground will help drive up space flight.</i></p><p>How appropriate this comment should be made the same morning I was watching an episode of Enterprise from season 1 called Acquisition, in which the Ferengi knock out the crew and try to steal everything valuable on the ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimately it 's going to be commercial factors that help drive human space exploration .
While a " Star Trek " universe where the sole mission is to go out and explore is a great idea , right now economic factors will need to be behind the wheel , and getting some commercial ventures off the ground will help drive up space flight.How appropriate this comment should be made the same morning I was watching an episode of Enterprise from season 1 called Acquisition , in which the Ferengi knock out the crew and try to steal everything valuable on the ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimately it's going to be commercial factors that help drive human space exploration.
While a "Star Trek" universe where the sole mission is to go out and explore is a great idea, right now economic factors will need to be behind the wheel, and getting some commercial ventures off the ground will help drive up space flight.How appropriate this comment should be made the same morning I was watching an episode of Enterprise from season 1 called Acquisition, in which the Ferengi knock out the crew and try to steal everything valuable on the ship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362195</id>
	<title>Misleading caption</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1245257100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article subject line is misleading. One thing is certain, the commercial space business will not go back to where it came from, the blossoming has passed the point of no return. Given time, it will get off the ground. Given time, pigs will fly too, and birds will breathe nitrogen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article subject line is misleading .
One thing is certain , the commercial space business will not go back to where it came from , the blossoming has passed the point of no return .
Given time , it will get off the ground .
Given time , pigs will fly too , and birds will breathe nitrogen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article subject line is misleading.
One thing is certain, the commercial space business will not go back to where it came from, the blossoming has passed the point of no return.
Given time, it will get off the ground.
Given time, pigs will fly too, and birds will breathe nitrogen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362239</id>
	<title>Private enterprise not in it for the long haul</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245257280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's rare to see people in business with a passion for doing something -- something other than making obscene piles of cash, that is. In this environment, it's all about the fast buck and fuck the rest. Complain all you want about government inefficiency and waste, they seem to be the only ones with pockets deep enough and time-frames long enough to contemplate truly big projects. Something like the Panama Canal, it needed a government to make it happen; it also needed a government's military resources to knock together the right heads. Look at how many rockets we had to blow up with the early space program just to get the failure rate down to something approaching acceptable? If this were a purely private project, it would have been canceled years before success.</p><p>Companies are very good at addressing short-term concerns for short-term gain. Want paperclips? Companies can make you paperclips. Want fashion? Ipods? Flatscreen tv's? Companies can do that. Want a green economy? Government is going to have to lead the march and drag private industry along kicking and screaming.</p><p>Industry's only interest is self-interest. Maximize shareholder wealth, that's the imperative. Government's role is to do the people's will and make sure that social concerns are met. Companies doesn't care about pollution, doesn't care about poisoning the water and the sky. Any efforts by government to address these concerns will be actively lobbied against and subverted.</p><p>Now to be fair, there are exceptions out there like SpaceX and Scaled Composites but they only underline how difficult it is to go it alone on such huge projects. Of course, when government sponsors things you end up getting defense conglomerates sucking at the teat and disasters like this new Constellation manned launch vehicle boondoggle. I hope they can pull it together but things sound pretty grim. It'd be nice if SpaceX can prove they have the chops and government can reinforce that success by steering business their way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rare to see people in business with a passion for doing something -- something other than making obscene piles of cash , that is .
In this environment , it 's all about the fast buck and fuck the rest .
Complain all you want about government inefficiency and waste , they seem to be the only ones with pockets deep enough and time-frames long enough to contemplate truly big projects .
Something like the Panama Canal , it needed a government to make it happen ; it also needed a government 's military resources to knock together the right heads .
Look at how many rockets we had to blow up with the early space program just to get the failure rate down to something approaching acceptable ?
If this were a purely private project , it would have been canceled years before success.Companies are very good at addressing short-term concerns for short-term gain .
Want paperclips ?
Companies can make you paperclips .
Want fashion ?
Ipods ? Flatscreen tv 's ?
Companies can do that .
Want a green economy ?
Government is going to have to lead the march and drag private industry along kicking and screaming.Industry 's only interest is self-interest .
Maximize shareholder wealth , that 's the imperative .
Government 's role is to do the people 's will and make sure that social concerns are met .
Companies does n't care about pollution , does n't care about poisoning the water and the sky .
Any efforts by government to address these concerns will be actively lobbied against and subverted.Now to be fair , there are exceptions out there like SpaceX and Scaled Composites but they only underline how difficult it is to go it alone on such huge projects .
Of course , when government sponsors things you end up getting defense conglomerates sucking at the teat and disasters like this new Constellation manned launch vehicle boondoggle .
I hope they can pull it together but things sound pretty grim .
It 'd be nice if SpaceX can prove they have the chops and government can reinforce that success by steering business their way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rare to see people in business with a passion for doing something -- something other than making obscene piles of cash, that is.
In this environment, it's all about the fast buck and fuck the rest.
Complain all you want about government inefficiency and waste, they seem to be the only ones with pockets deep enough and time-frames long enough to contemplate truly big projects.
Something like the Panama Canal, it needed a government to make it happen; it also needed a government's military resources to knock together the right heads.
Look at how many rockets we had to blow up with the early space program just to get the failure rate down to something approaching acceptable?
If this were a purely private project, it would have been canceled years before success.Companies are very good at addressing short-term concerns for short-term gain.
Want paperclips?
Companies can make you paperclips.
Want fashion?
Ipods? Flatscreen tv's?
Companies can do that.
Want a green economy?
Government is going to have to lead the march and drag private industry along kicking and screaming.Industry's only interest is self-interest.
Maximize shareholder wealth, that's the imperative.
Government's role is to do the people's will and make sure that social concerns are met.
Companies doesn't care about pollution, doesn't care about poisoning the water and the sky.
Any efforts by government to address these concerns will be actively lobbied against and subverted.Now to be fair, there are exceptions out there like SpaceX and Scaled Composites but they only underline how difficult it is to go it alone on such huge projects.
Of course, when government sponsors things you end up getting defense conglomerates sucking at the teat and disasters like this new Constellation manned launch vehicle boondoggle.
I hope they can pull it together but things sound pretty grim.
It'd be nice if SpaceX can prove they have the chops and government can reinforce that success by steering business their way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28366205</id>
	<title>Re:The subject is unnecessarily alarmist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245232860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclosure:  I am a Lockheed Constellation contractor.</p><p>I agree that the subject is somewhat more alarmist than it should be.  There are concerns about SpaceX's aggressive schedule, but the to-date 2-4 month slip is natural.  Shift happens.  They are simply discovering that the devil is in the details, and, believe me, there are a lot of details.  Of course NASA is going to be concerned about their supply needs on ISS, but it is far too early to start questioning SpaceX's ability to deliver.</p><p>To the "NASA is evil and wants to suppress the space industry" conspiracy buffs:  That is stupid.  It's akin to suggesting that the air force is trying to squash the airliner industry.  NASA wants affordable and reliable space transport more than anyone.  It is a serious pain in the ass to drag millions of dollars out of congress, and they would much rather put those hard fought dollars to work in science and exploration rather than cargo hauling.  NASA has even been criticized for not capitalizing on commercial space launch opportunities as Russia and China have done.  I, however, applaud them for staying out of the way.  NASA's goal is "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research."  No part of that statement involves commercial interests.</p><p>As such, there is no competition between Constellation and SpaceX even though their capabilities overlap.  Of course NASA needs their own project to get to the ISS.  Considering their massive investment in ISS, it would be woefully irresponsible for NASA to put all of their faith in a budding industry.  However, putting the two in competition is - again - like comparing an airliner and a hurricane hunter.  The two projects have very different long term goals.  Constellation's success is not going to put SpaceX out of business, and SpaceX's success is not going to cancel Constellation.</p><p>Personally, I hope the space industry thrives, and everyone I work with does as well.  I know it's hard to believe, but people at NASA and their evil, teat-suckling, bloated-tick contractors are space fanbois...  We love the idea of cheap spaceflight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclosure : I am a Lockheed Constellation contractor.I agree that the subject is somewhat more alarmist than it should be .
There are concerns about SpaceX 's aggressive schedule , but the to-date 2-4 month slip is natural .
Shift happens .
They are simply discovering that the devil is in the details , and , believe me , there are a lot of details .
Of course NASA is going to be concerned about their supply needs on ISS , but it is far too early to start questioning SpaceX 's ability to deliver.To the " NASA is evil and wants to suppress the space industry " conspiracy buffs : That is stupid .
It 's akin to suggesting that the air force is trying to squash the airliner industry .
NASA wants affordable and reliable space transport more than anyone .
It is a serious pain in the ass to drag millions of dollars out of congress , and they would much rather put those hard fought dollars to work in science and exploration rather than cargo hauling .
NASA has even been criticized for not capitalizing on commercial space launch opportunities as Russia and China have done .
I , however , applaud them for staying out of the way .
NASA 's goal is " to pioneer the future in space exploration , scientific discovery , and aeronautics research .
" No part of that statement involves commercial interests.As such , there is no competition between Constellation and SpaceX even though their capabilities overlap .
Of course NASA needs their own project to get to the ISS .
Considering their massive investment in ISS , it would be woefully irresponsible for NASA to put all of their faith in a budding industry .
However , putting the two in competition is - again - like comparing an airliner and a hurricane hunter .
The two projects have very different long term goals .
Constellation 's success is not going to put SpaceX out of business , and SpaceX 's success is not going to cancel Constellation.Personally , I hope the space industry thrives , and everyone I work with does as well .
I know it 's hard to believe , but people at NASA and their evil , teat-suckling , bloated-tick contractors are space fanbois... We love the idea of cheap spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclosure:  I am a Lockheed Constellation contractor.I agree that the subject is somewhat more alarmist than it should be.
There are concerns about SpaceX's aggressive schedule, but the to-date 2-4 month slip is natural.
Shift happens.
They are simply discovering that the devil is in the details, and, believe me, there are a lot of details.
Of course NASA is going to be concerned about their supply needs on ISS, but it is far too early to start questioning SpaceX's ability to deliver.To the "NASA is evil and wants to suppress the space industry" conspiracy buffs:  That is stupid.
It's akin to suggesting that the air force is trying to squash the airliner industry.
NASA wants affordable and reliable space transport more than anyone.
It is a serious pain in the ass to drag millions of dollars out of congress, and they would much rather put those hard fought dollars to work in science and exploration rather than cargo hauling.
NASA has even been criticized for not capitalizing on commercial space launch opportunities as Russia and China have done.
I, however, applaud them for staying out of the way.
NASA's goal is "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.
"  No part of that statement involves commercial interests.As such, there is no competition between Constellation and SpaceX even though their capabilities overlap.
Of course NASA needs their own project to get to the ISS.
Considering their massive investment in ISS, it would be woefully irresponsible for NASA to put all of their faith in a budding industry.
However, putting the two in competition is - again - like comparing an airliner and a hurricane hunter.
The two projects have very different long term goals.
Constellation's success is not going to put SpaceX out of business, and SpaceX's success is not going to cancel Constellation.Personally, I hope the space industry thrives, and everyone I work with does as well.
I know it's hard to believe, but people at NASA and their evil, teat-suckling, bloated-tick contractors are space fanbois...  We love the idea of cheap spaceflight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361213</id>
	<title>Re:I really hope so</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1245252060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true.  The thing to keep in mind though, is that economic issues are more or less a proxy for where society needs resources and skills the most.  There are a lot of people who would like to see private space flight succeed for no other reason than "because it's cool".  But society doesn't really place much value on "because it's cool", at least not enough to send things like engineers who might otherwise have been working on projects like climate change or new energy sources to go work somewhere else.</p><p>The one real reason to be funding space exploration right now is mainly because there are a lot of potential benefits that we can;t really quantify yet.  However, private enterprise is not very good at working towards potential breakthroughs in the distant future.  Sure every once in a while a company takes a leap of faith on something big that pays off in the long run, but more often than not private investment is on a much shorter time frame than we're talking about here with much less risk.  That doesn't mean that such research isn't worthwhile, just that most of the time it's more suitable for governments to undertake than the private sector.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
The thing to keep in mind though , is that economic issues are more or less a proxy for where society needs resources and skills the most .
There are a lot of people who would like to see private space flight succeed for no other reason than " because it 's cool " .
But society does n't really place much value on " because it 's cool " , at least not enough to send things like engineers who might otherwise have been working on projects like climate change or new energy sources to go work somewhere else.The one real reason to be funding space exploration right now is mainly because there are a lot of potential benefits that we can ; t really quantify yet .
However , private enterprise is not very good at working towards potential breakthroughs in the distant future .
Sure every once in a while a company takes a leap of faith on something big that pays off in the long run , but more often than not private investment is on a much shorter time frame than we 're talking about here with much less risk .
That does n't mean that such research is n't worthwhile , just that most of the time it 's more suitable for governments to undertake than the private sector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
The thing to keep in mind though, is that economic issues are more or less a proxy for where society needs resources and skills the most.
There are a lot of people who would like to see private space flight succeed for no other reason than "because it's cool".
But society doesn't really place much value on "because it's cool", at least not enough to send things like engineers who might otherwise have been working on projects like climate change or new energy sources to go work somewhere else.The one real reason to be funding space exploration right now is mainly because there are a lot of potential benefits that we can;t really quantify yet.
However, private enterprise is not very good at working towards potential breakthroughs in the distant future.
Sure every once in a while a company takes a leap of faith on something big that pays off in the long run, but more often than not private investment is on a much shorter time frame than we're talking about here with much less risk.
That doesn't mean that such research isn't worthwhile, just that most of the time it's more suitable for governments to undertake than the private sector.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360995</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1245250860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have to get to very high velocity</p></div><p>Not for all purposes. You only need fuel for acceleration, plus some missions might not be particularly time critical. Robotic mineral mining for example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to get to very high velocityNot for all purposes .
You only need fuel for acceleration , plus some missions might not be particularly time critical .
Robotic mineral mining for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to get to very high velocityNot for all purposes.
You only need fuel for acceleration, plus some missions might not be particularly time critical.
Robotic mineral mining for example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28363849</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, but it's worth it.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245264660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of which is a compelling reason for commercial space flight.</p><p>You do remember what this thread is about, right?<br>
&nbsp; Ironically you list would constitute as 'few'; which is what he said.<br>Space flight will not help with population growth unless you have away to move people off the planet as fast as it is growing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of which is a compelling reason for commercial space flight.You do remember what this thread is about , right ?
  Ironically you list would constitute as 'few ' ; which is what he said.Space flight will not help with population growth unless you have away to move people off the planet as fast as it is growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of which is a compelling reason for commercial space flight.You do remember what this thread is about, right?
  Ironically you list would constitute as 'few'; which is what he said.Space flight will not help with population growth unless you have away to move people off the planet as fast as it is growing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28367237</id>
	<title>Re:The subject is unnecessarily alarmist</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1245238020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just to clarify, if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time, and they are looking at a 2-4 month schedule slip on future milestones. Now, obviously we'd much rather not have the schedule slip, but in the world of NASA contracting that is like... totally nothing. I have to say that, as a confirmed space nut, SpaceX really impresses me.</p></div><p>It's also worth comparing to something like NASA's Ares I launcher, which has projected costs upwards of $40 billion and just recently announced a schedule slip of 18 months; many are doubtful that even limitless funding and time would enable it to work around its fundamental design faults.</p><p>By comparison, the entire COTS program (both SpaceX and Orbital combined) has a total budget of less than $500 million (yes, almost 100x less than the Ares I despite having similar capabilities). Having a schedule slip of just 2-4 months is pretty unprecedented for a program like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clarify , if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time , and they are looking at a 2-4 month schedule slip on future milestones .
Now , obviously we 'd much rather not have the schedule slip , but in the world of NASA contracting that is like... totally nothing .
I have to say that , as a confirmed space nut , SpaceX really impresses me.It 's also worth comparing to something like NASA 's Ares I launcher , which has projected costs upwards of $ 40 billion and just recently announced a schedule slip of 18 months ; many are doubtful that even limitless funding and time would enable it to work around its fundamental design faults.By comparison , the entire COTS program ( both SpaceX and Orbital combined ) has a total budget of less than $ 500 million ( yes , almost 100x less than the Ares I despite having similar capabilities ) .
Having a schedule slip of just 2-4 months is pretty unprecedented for a program like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clarify, if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time, and they are looking at a 2-4 month schedule slip on future milestones.
Now, obviously we'd much rather not have the schedule slip, but in the world of NASA contracting that is like... totally nothing.
I have to say that, as a confirmed space nut, SpaceX really impresses me.It's also worth comparing to something like NASA's Ares I launcher, which has projected costs upwards of $40 billion and just recently announced a schedule slip of 18 months; many are doubtful that even limitless funding and time would enable it to work around its fundamental design faults.By comparison, the entire COTS program (both SpaceX and Orbital combined) has a total budget of less than $500 million (yes, almost 100x less than the Ares I despite having similar capabilities).
Having a schedule slip of just 2-4 months is pretty unprecedented for a program like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361203</id>
	<title>Re:The problems...</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1245252060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, what you're saying is private industry can't work without government assistance.  Forget the ideological orgasms over these projects.  The fact is they're riding on some long coat tails to get into space, and we all know how exponentially difficult it is to progress to the next steps in their grand plans.  I'm waiting for the day the US "licenses" the Space Shuttle to a private company, gives them subsidies as large as our Space Shuttle budget, then having to listen to the "I drink your milkshake" ranting of free marketers about how private industry knows how to do it better and more efficiently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're saying is private industry ca n't work without government assistance .
Forget the ideological orgasms over these projects .
The fact is they 're riding on some long coat tails to get into space , and we all know how exponentially difficult it is to progress to the next steps in their grand plans .
I 'm waiting for the day the US " licenses " the Space Shuttle to a private company , gives them subsidies as large as our Space Shuttle budget , then having to listen to the " I drink your milkshake " ranting of free marketers about how private industry knows how to do it better and more efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what you're saying is private industry can't work without government assistance.
Forget the ideological orgasms over these projects.
The fact is they're riding on some long coat tails to get into space, and we all know how exponentially difficult it is to progress to the next steps in their grand plans.
I'm waiting for the day the US "licenses" the Space Shuttle to a private company, gives them subsidies as large as our Space Shuttle budget, then having to listen to the "I drink your milkshake" ranting of free marketers about how private industry knows how to do it better and more efficiently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361789</id>
	<title>Re:The problems...</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1245255000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Clintons sold all that tech to China a decade ago.  There shouldn't be any new security concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Clintons sold all that tech to China a decade ago .
There should n't be any new security concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Clintons sold all that tech to China a decade ago.
There shouldn't be any new security concerns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362989</id>
	<title>Re:The subject is unnecessarily alarmist</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1245260820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They haven't even delivered on their simplest of vehicles.</p> </div><p>Wrong.  The contract called for a successful flight.  There was a successful flight.  The contract delivery occurred.  It's pretty simple.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Their flight record is abysmal...</p></div><p>Wrong.  One partially successful flight and one completely successful flight in three launches of a brand new vehicle is completely normal, historically.  Looking at actual flight statistics for inexperienced manufacturers reveals 70\% experienced a failure in the first two flights.  Even an experienced manufacturer that has built rockets before has a 20\% failure rate in the first two flights.  SpaceX's flight record is not abysmal; it's bog standard.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and both the Falcon 1 and 9 are years behind schedule.</p></div><p>Whose schedule?  The company was founded in 2002.  In just 7 years, they've built one rocket that successfully reached orbit and have nearly finished building a second much larger one.  Possibly Elon Musk stated desired ready dates when he founded the company, but those are wishes, not schedules.  The contract with an actual <i>schedule</i>, COTS resupply for NASA, has met every milestone on time.  That's not years behind schedule.  That's not behind schedule at all.  That's on time.  Claiming years behind schedule is plain stupid.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Dragon is nothing but a mockup.</p></div><p>Wrong.  From the SpaceX website:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thursday, May 14th, 2009
</p><p>
It's been an incredibly busy year so far at SpaceX and we continue to move full steam ahead. Of particular note are recent developments with respect to the Dragon spacecraft.
</p><p>
The image below shows the first joining of a full flight fidelity Dragon capsule and trunk section earlier this year on the manufacturing floor at our Hawthorne headquarters.</p> </div><p>Maybe you just don't understand what "full flight fidelity" means.  It's ok.  It is rocket science, after all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's easy to innovate on paper, but let's wait for actual accomplishments before showering them with praise.</p></div><p>One rocket, to orbit, development funded entirely from private money.  They didn't have NASA contracts, starting out.  I call that an actual accomplishment.  Launches of that rocket for sale for millions of dollars less than their competition.  I call that an actual accomplishment.
</p><p>
You're either stupid, a liar, or both.  Your statements concerning SpaceX are blatantly, provably false.  Your word choices are overwhelmingly negative in connotation.  I smell either a Lockheed/Boeing shill or a NASA Constellation partisan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't even delivered on their simplest of vehicles .
Wrong. The contract called for a successful flight .
There was a successful flight .
The contract delivery occurred .
It 's pretty simple.Their flight record is abysmal...Wrong .
One partially successful flight and one completely successful flight in three launches of a brand new vehicle is completely normal , historically .
Looking at actual flight statistics for inexperienced manufacturers reveals 70 \ % experienced a failure in the first two flights .
Even an experienced manufacturer that has built rockets before has a 20 \ % failure rate in the first two flights .
SpaceX 's flight record is not abysmal ; it 's bog standard .
...and both the Falcon 1 and 9 are years behind schedule.Whose schedule ?
The company was founded in 2002 .
In just 7 years , they 've built one rocket that successfully reached orbit and have nearly finished building a second much larger one .
Possibly Elon Musk stated desired ready dates when he founded the company , but those are wishes , not schedules .
The contract with an actual schedule , COTS resupply for NASA , has met every milestone on time .
That 's not years behind schedule .
That 's not behind schedule at all .
That 's on time .
Claiming years behind schedule is plain stupid.The Dragon is nothing but a mockup.Wrong .
From the SpaceX website : Thursday , May 14th , 2009 It 's been an incredibly busy year so far at SpaceX and we continue to move full steam ahead .
Of particular note are recent developments with respect to the Dragon spacecraft .
The image below shows the first joining of a full flight fidelity Dragon capsule and trunk section earlier this year on the manufacturing floor at our Hawthorne headquarters .
Maybe you just do n't understand what " full flight fidelity " means .
It 's ok. It is rocket science , after all.It 's easy to innovate on paper , but let 's wait for actual accomplishments before showering them with praise.One rocket , to orbit , development funded entirely from private money .
They did n't have NASA contracts , starting out .
I call that an actual accomplishment .
Launches of that rocket for sale for millions of dollars less than their competition .
I call that an actual accomplishment .
You 're either stupid , a liar , or both .
Your statements concerning SpaceX are blatantly , provably false .
Your word choices are overwhelmingly negative in connotation .
I smell either a Lockheed/Boeing shill or a NASA Constellation partisan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't even delivered on their simplest of vehicles.
Wrong.  The contract called for a successful flight.
There was a successful flight.
The contract delivery occurred.
It's pretty simple.Their flight record is abysmal...Wrong.
One partially successful flight and one completely successful flight in three launches of a brand new vehicle is completely normal, historically.
Looking at actual flight statistics for inexperienced manufacturers reveals 70\% experienced a failure in the first two flights.
Even an experienced manufacturer that has built rockets before has a 20\% failure rate in the first two flights.
SpaceX's flight record is not abysmal; it's bog standard.
...and both the Falcon 1 and 9 are years behind schedule.Whose schedule?
The company was founded in 2002.
In just 7 years, they've built one rocket that successfully reached orbit and have nearly finished building a second much larger one.
Possibly Elon Musk stated desired ready dates when he founded the company, but those are wishes, not schedules.
The contract with an actual schedule, COTS resupply for NASA, has met every milestone on time.
That's not years behind schedule.
That's not behind schedule at all.
That's on time.
Claiming years behind schedule is plain stupid.The Dragon is nothing but a mockup.Wrong.
From the SpaceX website:Thursday, May 14th, 2009

It's been an incredibly busy year so far at SpaceX and we continue to move full steam ahead.
Of particular note are recent developments with respect to the Dragon spacecraft.
The image below shows the first joining of a full flight fidelity Dragon capsule and trunk section earlier this year on the manufacturing floor at our Hawthorne headquarters.
Maybe you just don't understand what "full flight fidelity" means.
It's ok.  It is rocket science, after all.It's easy to innovate on paper, but let's wait for actual accomplishments before showering them with praise.One rocket, to orbit, development funded entirely from private money.
They didn't have NASA contracts, starting out.
I call that an actual accomplishment.
Launches of that rocket for sale for millions of dollars less than their competition.
I call that an actual accomplishment.
You're either stupid, a liar, or both.
Your statements concerning SpaceX are blatantly, provably false.
Your word choices are overwhelmingly negative in connotation.
I smell either a Lockheed/Boeing shill or a NASA Constellation partisan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361479</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1245253500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Just getting into low orbit requires ~24kmph, which (for me, anyway) seems very fast.</i> <br> <br>
Getting into orbit requires a lot more speed than 24 km/h.  That's the speed of your average cyclist.  To get into orbit you need to be getting into the 27,000 km/h range.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just getting into low orbit requires ~ 24kmph , which ( for me , anyway ) seems very fast .
Getting into orbit requires a lot more speed than 24 km/h .
That 's the speed of your average cyclist .
To get into orbit you need to be getting into the 27,000 km/h range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just getting into low orbit requires ~24kmph, which (for me, anyway) seems very fast.
Getting into orbit requires a lot more speed than 24 km/h.
That's the speed of your average cyclist.
To get into orbit you need to be getting into the 27,000 km/h range.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707</id>
	<title>Answer:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789</id>
	<title>I really hope so</title>
	<author>mc1138</author>
	<datestamp>1245249720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ultimately it's going to be commercial  factors that help drive human space exploration. While a "Star Trek" universe where the sole mission is to go out and explore is a great idea, right now economic factors will need to be behind the wheel, and getting some commercial ventures off the ground will help drive up space flight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimately it 's going to be commercial factors that help drive human space exploration .
While a " Star Trek " universe where the sole mission is to go out and explore is a great idea , right now economic factors will need to be behind the wheel , and getting some commercial ventures off the ground will help drive up space flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimately it's going to be commercial  factors that help drive human space exploration.
While a "Star Trek" universe where the sole mission is to go out and explore is a great idea, right now economic factors will need to be behind the wheel, and getting some commercial ventures off the ground will help drive up space flight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28363989</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1245265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuel itself isn't expensive... but the fallout from having to carry a lot of it is.  Your vehicle gets bigger, you need more exotic materials, you spend a <i>lot</i> of effort trying to trim off every ounce of unneeded mass, because everything snowballs.  Carrying more weight?  Well, you need more fuel.  More fuel requires a bigger structure, which means more weight, which means more powerful engines, which means more weight, which means more fuel... and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuel itself is n't expensive... but the fallout from having to carry a lot of it is .
Your vehicle gets bigger , you need more exotic materials , you spend a lot of effort trying to trim off every ounce of unneeded mass , because everything snowballs .
Carrying more weight ?
Well , you need more fuel .
More fuel requires a bigger structure , which means more weight , which means more powerful engines , which means more weight , which means more fuel... and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuel itself isn't expensive... but the fallout from having to carry a lot of it is.
Your vehicle gets bigger, you need more exotic materials, you spend a lot of effort trying to trim off every ounce of unneeded mass, because everything snowballs.
Carrying more weight?
Well, you need more fuel.
More fuel requires a bigger structure, which means more weight, which means more powerful engines, which means more weight, which means more fuel... and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361319</id>
	<title>Re:Answer: ...for how long?</title>
	<author>sammyo</author>
	<datestamp>1245252540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but for more than 37 seconds? And about that great ball of fire....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but for more than 37 seconds ?
And about that great ball of fire... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but for more than 37 seconds?
And about that great ball of fire....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360869</id>
	<title>Stupid space puns dumped here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Get all of your dumb space puns out of the way here</b></p><p>It depends. Can the Commercial Space Technology get enough <i>momentum</i> to support the project? Can the companies behind these projects meet the <i>orbiting</i> budgets required to fund such a task? One needs to <i>fuel</i> the <i>explosive</i> innovation of space travel. Setting up commercial space technology is exactly <i>rocket science</i>, you know. Only dedication and large amounts of money can get these projects <i>off of the launch pad</i>.</p><p>I think part of the limitation is the <i>atmosphere</i> in high schools about space and space travel. In the 60's, children dreamed about space travel; <i>warp</i> to today: it's almost as if we've headed with an incredible <i>velocity</i> to escape assignments and discussion about the space program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get all of your dumb space puns out of the way hereIt depends .
Can the Commercial Space Technology get enough momentum to support the project ?
Can the companies behind these projects meet the orbiting budgets required to fund such a task ?
One needs to fuel the explosive innovation of space travel .
Setting up commercial space technology is exactly rocket science , you know .
Only dedication and large amounts of money can get these projects off of the launch pad.I think part of the limitation is the atmosphere in high schools about space and space travel .
In the 60 's , children dreamed about space travel ; warp to today : it 's almost as if we 've headed with an incredible velocity to escape assignments and discussion about the space program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get all of your dumb space puns out of the way hereIt depends.
Can the Commercial Space Technology get enough momentum to support the project?
Can the companies behind these projects meet the orbiting budgets required to fund such a task?
One needs to fuel the explosive innovation of space travel.
Setting up commercial space technology is exactly rocket science, you know.
Only dedication and large amounts of money can get these projects off of the launch pad.I think part of the limitation is the atmosphere in high schools about space and space travel.
In the 60's, children dreamed about space travel; warp to today: it's almost as if we've headed with an incredible velocity to escape assignments and discussion about the space program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28371191</id>
	<title>It can</title>
	<author>artderue</author>
	<datestamp>1245319560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think new space can succeed !

<a href="http://www.artmineur.fr/" title="artmineur.fr" rel="nofollow">http://www.artmineur.fr/</a> [artmineur.fr]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think new space can succeed !
http : //www.artmineur.fr/ [ artmineur.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think new space can succeed !
http://www.artmineur.fr/ [artmineur.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361591</id>
	<title>Stairway to heaven</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245254100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until getting into space becomes cheap enough to be used for more than big industry satellite ventures and adventures for the stupidly rich, no.  Until then there will not be much commercial space flight, at least in the sense the headline implies.  Once we have a way to get to space that doesn't involve immense cost and burning insane amounts of fuel, yes, we'll have awesome space tech.<br> <br>

Where's the damn space elevator already?  Stupid sci-fi books getting my hopes up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until getting into space becomes cheap enough to be used for more than big industry satellite ventures and adventures for the stupidly rich , no .
Until then there will not be much commercial space flight , at least in the sense the headline implies .
Once we have a way to get to space that does n't involve immense cost and burning insane amounts of fuel , yes , we 'll have awesome space tech .
Where 's the damn space elevator already ?
Stupid sci-fi books getting my hopes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until getting into space becomes cheap enough to be used for more than big industry satellite ventures and adventures for the stupidly rich, no.
Until then there will not be much commercial space flight, at least in the sense the headline implies.
Once we have a way to get to space that doesn't involve immense cost and burning insane amounts of fuel, yes, we'll have awesome space tech.
Where's the damn space elevator already?
Stupid sci-fi books getting my hopes up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360813</id>
	<title>If not then..</title>
	<author>GeorgeStone22</author>
	<datestamp>1245249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If not then it's never going to be space tech, is it. It will be tech tech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If not then it 's never going to be space tech , is it .
It will be tech tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not then it's never going to be space tech, is it.
It will be tech tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793</id>
	<title>Isn't space like really exspensive ?</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1245249720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to get to very high velocity - that implies a lot of fuel, and very exspensive craft that can survive the high velocity<br>It's hard to do repair, so you have to spend a lot for high reliability equipment<br>Space is a harsh environment - you have temperature extremes, radiation, vacumn welding</p><p>many people get the low gravity equivalent of car sickness</p><p>although it is not publicized by nasa, in low gravity, liquid containment - like when you go to the bathroom - is difficult;' as a result, there is a lot of intestinal illness in space (think about that !)</p><p>The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.<br>Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.</p><p>I have been doing biotech high technology startups for 20+years, and aside from the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dom boom era, there is very little money or enthusiasm for gee wiz technology</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to get to very high velocity - that implies a lot of fuel , and very exspensive craft that can survive the high velocityIt 's hard to do repair , so you have to spend a lot for high reliability equipmentSpace is a harsh environment - you have temperature extremes , radiation , vacumn weldingmany people get the low gravity equivalent of car sicknessalthough it is not publicized by nasa , in low gravity , liquid containment - like when you go to the bathroom - is difficult ; ' as a result , there is a lot of intestinal illness in space ( think about that !
) The take home is that space is , and always will be , very $ relative to ground ; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.Sadly , there are few compelling reasons.I have been doing biotech high technology startups for 20 + years , and aside from the .dom boom era , there is very little money or enthusiasm for gee wiz technology</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to get to very high velocity - that implies a lot of fuel, and very exspensive craft that can survive the high velocityIt's hard to do repair, so you have to spend a lot for high reliability equipmentSpace is a harsh environment - you have temperature extremes, radiation, vacumn weldingmany people get the low gravity equivalent of car sicknessalthough it is not publicized by nasa, in low gravity, liquid containment - like when you go to the bathroom - is difficult;' as a result, there is a lot of intestinal illness in space (think about that !
)The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.I have been doing biotech high technology startups for 20+years, and aside from the .dom boom era, there is very little money or enthusiasm for gee wiz technology</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28366205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28364159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28369539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28370295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28364265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28363989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28366371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28367237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1249253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28363849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1249253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28363989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361101
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361479
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361685
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28363849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28370295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1249253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28367237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28366205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28364265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1249253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1249253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1249253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1249253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28362847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28364159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1249253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28360789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28366371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28369539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1249253.28361213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
