<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_1611233</id>
	<title>Spaceport America Begins Construction</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245440040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://harmono.dromo.us/" rel="nofollow">eldavojohn</a> writes <i>"While a lot of people are wondering if <a href="//science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/17/1249253&amp;tid=160">commercial spaceflight will ever make it</a>, Spaceport America is holding its <a href="http://www.space.com/news/090618-spaceport-america.html">groundbreaking ceremony</a> today.  You can watch it live <a href="http://www.spaceportamerica.com/">at their site</a> at 11am MST.  The spaceport is aiming for a diverse clientele, including the delivery of small national security purpose satellites into Earth orbit as well as research and development for scientific purposes. After getting <a href="//science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/17/0341210&amp;tid=187">their FAA license</a> and <a href="//science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/28/1722205&amp;tid=160">securing funding</a>, the 27 square mile development project has officially begun.  The target date for completion is the end of 2010 &mdash; let's all hope for success in the milestone goal!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " While a lot of people are wondering if commercial spaceflight will ever make it , Spaceport America is holding its groundbreaking ceremony today .
You can watch it live at their site at 11am MST .
The spaceport is aiming for a diverse clientele , including the delivery of small national security purpose satellites into Earth orbit as well as research and development for scientific purposes .
After getting their FAA license and securing funding , the 27 square mile development project has officially begun .
The target date for completion is the end of 2010    let 's all hope for success in the milestone goal !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "While a lot of people are wondering if commercial spaceflight will ever make it, Spaceport America is holding its groundbreaking ceremony today.
You can watch it live at their site at 11am MST.
The spaceport is aiming for a diverse clientele, including the delivery of small national security purpose satellites into Earth orbit as well as research and development for scientific purposes.
After getting their FAA license and securing funding, the 27 square mile development project has officially begun.
The target date for completion is the end of 2010 — let's all hope for success in the milestone goal!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395459</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245404700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Couldn't we just use a Scramjet..."</p><p>As long as we're using our imaginations, we can just use matter/anti-matter engines...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Could n't we just use a Scramjet... " As long as we 're using our imaginations , we can just use matter/anti-matter engines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Couldn't we just use a Scramjet..."As long as we're using our imaginations, we can just use matter/anti-matter engines...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395819</id>
	<title>Re:Will it be open to the public?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to remember that these launches are not your typical "rocket launches". The actual spaceship is carried under a plane, so you will be essentially seeing the same thing as going to the airport...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to remember that these launches are not your typical " rocket launches " .
The actual spaceship is carried under a plane , so you will be essentially seeing the same thing as going to the airport.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to remember that these launches are not your typical "rocket launches".
The actual spaceship is carried under a plane, so you will be essentially seeing the same thing as going to the airport...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395435</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245404520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to see space planes.  Or, more accurately, I don't want to see time, research, money, and blood, sweat and tears, spent on space planes, that could be spent on outer space.  The space elevator idea seems to be much more appropriate, IMHO.  <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/08/1924233/Inflatable-Tower-Could-Climb-To-the-Edge-of-Space?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/08/1924233/Inflatable-Tower-Could-Climb-To-the-Edge-of-Space?art\_pos=1</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>The goal is not to waste energy transporting junk from one point on earth to another point on earth, rather the goal should be to put men "out there", to live, work, study, and to make new homes for man.</p><p>Space planes may be alright, when we are ready to put people onto another planet.  They can fly down to the surface, instead of being dropped like a box of rocks.  Floating down on wings is likely to prove more survivable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to see space planes .
Or , more accurately , I do n't want to see time , research , money , and blood , sweat and tears , spent on space planes , that could be spent on outer space .
The space elevator idea seems to be much more appropriate , IMHO .
http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/08/1924233/Inflatable-Tower-Could-Climb-To-the-Edge-of-Space ? art \ _pos = 1 [ slashdot.org ] The goal is not to waste energy transporting junk from one point on earth to another point on earth , rather the goal should be to put men " out there " , to live , work , study , and to make new homes for man.Space planes may be alright , when we are ready to put people onto another planet .
They can fly down to the surface , instead of being dropped like a box of rocks .
Floating down on wings is likely to prove more survivable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to see space planes.
Or, more accurately, I don't want to see time, research, money, and blood, sweat and tears, spent on space planes, that could be spent on outer space.
The space elevator idea seems to be much more appropriate, IMHO.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/08/1924233/Inflatable-Tower-Could-Climb-To-the-Edge-of-Space?art\_pos=1 [slashdot.org]The goal is not to waste energy transporting junk from one point on earth to another point on earth, rather the goal should be to put men "out there", to live, work, study, and to make new homes for man.Space planes may be alright, when we are ready to put people onto another planet.
They can fly down to the surface, instead of being dropped like a box of rocks.
Floating down on wings is likely to prove more survivable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395791</id>
	<title>Mos Eisley?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Spaceport America" is such a dull name. What, would Lucas have threatened to sue if they named it something like "Mos Eisley". I mean, just think of the T-Shirt potential in the duty-free zone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Spaceport America " is such a dull name .
What , would Lucas have threatened to sue if they named it something like " Mos Eisley " .
I mean , just think of the T-Shirt potential in the duty-free zone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Spaceport America" is such a dull name.
What, would Lucas have threatened to sue if they named it something like "Mos Eisley".
I mean, just think of the T-Shirt potential in the duty-free zone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396545</id>
	<title>Re:The Artist Concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks bland to me. It's a circle with some blue lights, what is so stunning about that?</p><p>Oh, I see, it's the sunset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks bland to me .
It 's a circle with some blue lights , what is so stunning about that ? Oh , I see , it 's the sunset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks bland to me.
It's a circle with some blue lights, what is so stunning about that?Oh, I see, it's the sunset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28403537</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>hcdejong</author>
	<datestamp>1245527820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-EN/defaulten.html" title="lamborghini-tractors.com">Ahem</a> [lamborghini-tractors.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle Ahem [ lamborghini-tractors.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle Ahem [lamborghini-tractors.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394905</id>
	<title>Re:The Artist Concept</title>
	<author>smallshot</author>
	<datestamp>1245402780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I absolutely love the artist's concept, but I sincerely doubt it will look much like that by the time the engineers and builders get finished with it. It doesn't look very cost effective.<br> <br> <a href="http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img\_display.php?pic=070904\_virgingalactic\_02.jpg&amp;cap=The+sun+nears+the+horizon+in+this+new+depiction+of+Spaceport+America+in+New+Mexico\%2C+the+future+home+of+Virgin+Galactic\%E2\%80\%99s+suborbital+spaceliner+fleet.+Credit\%3A+Virgin+Galactic\%2FFoster+and+Partners" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">Midday and different angle of spaceport concept art</a> [space.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely love the artist 's concept , but I sincerely doubt it will look much like that by the time the engineers and builders get finished with it .
It does n't look very cost effective .
Midday and different angle of spaceport concept art [ space.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely love the artist's concept, but I sincerely doubt it will look much like that by the time the engineers and builders get finished with it.
It doesn't look very cost effective.
Midday and different angle of spaceport concept art [space.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28397077</id>
	<title>I can't wait</title>
	<author>Datamonstar</author>
	<datestamp>1245412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... to be old and grizzled, sitting down at a dimly lit table hugging a filthy glass of Tekravian whiskey and retelling my horrific experiences as a crew member aboard the the first Durnigan-class commercial cruiser, and how we ended up stranded in the Telmos sector. AFTER it had been declared a red zone due to the 100 year long Dar'mra mating cycle. Let me tell you... there's a whole lot of them in that sector and boy do they mean business! <br>  <br>    Yeah, that story always gets me at least a drink and a girl for the night. Good times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... to be old and grizzled , sitting down at a dimly lit table hugging a filthy glass of Tekravian whiskey and retelling my horrific experiences as a crew member aboard the the first Durnigan-class commercial cruiser , and how we ended up stranded in the Telmos sector .
AFTER it had been declared a red zone due to the 100 year long Dar'mra mating cycle .
Let me tell you... there 's a whole lot of them in that sector and boy do they mean business !
Yeah , that story always gets me at least a drink and a girl for the night .
Good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to be old and grizzled, sitting down at a dimly lit table hugging a filthy glass of Tekravian whiskey and retelling my horrific experiences as a crew member aboard the the first Durnigan-class commercial cruiser, and how we ended up stranded in the Telmos sector.
AFTER it had been declared a red zone due to the 100 year long Dar'mra mating cycle.
Let me tell you... there's a whole lot of them in that sector and boy do they mean business!
Yeah, that story always gets me at least a drink and a girl for the night.
Good times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28400871</id>
	<title>national security purpose</title>
	<author>tenco</author>
	<datestamp>1245502380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice euphemism for "military".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice euphemism for " military " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice euphemism for "military".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395611</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the situation is looking brighter</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1245405300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, Firestar was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... um, I'm not sure how to break this to you, so I'll just come right out and say it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <b>fiction</b>.</p><p>I enjoyed the novel, and there are a lot of interesting ideas in it (as well as some things Flynn got so wrong it was almost hilarious) but it is not, and should not be taken as, a realistic study of the way large-scale commercialized space flight will eventually work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , Firestar was ... um , I 'm not sure how to break this to you , so I 'll just come right out and say it ... fiction.I enjoyed the novel , and there are a lot of interesting ideas in it ( as well as some things Flynn got so wrong it was almost hilarious ) but it is not , and should not be taken as , a realistic study of the way large-scale commercialized space flight will eventually work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, Firestar was ... um, I'm not sure how to break this to you, so I'll just come right out and say it ... fiction.I enjoyed the novel, and there are a lot of interesting ideas in it (as well as some things Flynn got so wrong it was almost hilarious) but it is not, and should not be taken as, a realistic study of the way large-scale commercialized space flight will eventually work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28398687</id>
	<title>Re:The Artist Concept</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1245426300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the <a href="http://marathon.bungie.org/story/thatmarathonsymbol.html" title="bungie.org">UESC Marathon emblem</a> [bungie.org]. Or a little bit like the <a href="http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Tzeentch" title="wikia.com">mark of Tzeentch</a> [wikia.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the UESC Marathon emblem [ bungie.org ] .
Or a little bit like the mark of Tzeentch [ wikia.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the UESC Marathon emblem [bungie.org].
Or a little bit like the mark of Tzeentch [wikia.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321</id>
	<title>Maybe the situation is looking brighter</title>
	<author>CRCulver</author>
	<datestamp>1245444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the 1990s, one of the most realistic-seeming depictions of the rise of private spacefaring was Michael Fynn's future history beginning with <i> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812530063?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=3636363-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creativeASIN=0812530063" title="amazon.com">Firestar</a> [amazon.com] </i>. Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles. If Spaceport America has successfully dealt with the FAA, then I would like to think that things are looking up from here (though Flynn suggested companies like FedEx would massively support the endeavour, which seems unlikely now in the age of the internet).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 1990s , one of the most realistic-seeming depictions of the rise of private spacefaring was Michael Fynn 's future history beginning with Firestar [ amazon.com ] .
Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles .
If Spaceport America has successfully dealt with the FAA , then I would like to think that things are looking up from here ( though Flynn suggested companies like FedEx would massively support the endeavour , which seems unlikely now in the age of the internet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 1990s, one of the most realistic-seeming depictions of the rise of private spacefaring was Michael Fynn's future history beginning with  Firestar [amazon.com] .
Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.
If Spaceport America has successfully dealt with the FAA, then I would like to think that things are looking up from here (though Flynn suggested companies like FedEx would massively support the endeavour, which seems unlikely now in the age of the internet).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395673</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the situation is looking brighter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.</p></div><p>The simple reason for that is that any organization capable of launching a payload into space is - by extension - capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere on the planet.<br>And that tends to complicate things...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.The simple reason for that is that any organization capable of launching a payload into space is - by extension - capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere on the planet.And that tends to complicate things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.The simple reason for that is that any organization capable of launching a payload into space is - by extension - capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere on the planet.And that tends to complicate things...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435</id>
	<title>The Artist Concept</title>
	<author>qortra</author>
	<datestamp>1245444480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img\_display.php?pic=090618-spaceportam1-02.jpg&amp;cap=An+artist's+concept+of+Spaceport+America\%2C+a+suborbital+spaceport+under+construction+in+New+Mexico.+Credit\%3A+Spaceport+America+Conceptual+Images+URS\%2FFoster+\%2B+Partners+" title="space.com">Artist Concept of the spaceport</a> [space.com] is really quite stunning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Artist Concept of the spaceport [ space.com ] is really quite stunning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Artist Concept of the spaceport [space.com] is really quite stunning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394913</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the situation is looking brighter</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245402780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.</i></p><p>While there is surely some insight to the idea, ultimately governments can and do change (for a wide variety of meanings of the word) over the course of only a few years, while the minimum energy required to reach orbit is unlikely to change on any practical time scale.  So sure, when you aren't even allowed to get off the ground the government seems like the biggest obstacle, but when that obstacle is cleared the problem of getting out of our gravity well is right there where it always was and it's not going away.</p><p>As far as FedEx goes, I think 'space planes' like Spaceship One are what they would be after more than something that can actually reach orbit.  No reason to spend the fuel to get up that high when you can already do same-day shipping to anywhere on earth, probably with a bigger payload too.  *shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.While there is surely some insight to the idea , ultimately governments can and do change ( for a wide variety of meanings of the word ) over the course of only a few years , while the minimum energy required to reach orbit is unlikely to change on any practical time scale .
So sure , when you are n't even allowed to get off the ground the government seems like the biggest obstacle , but when that obstacle is cleared the problem of getting out of our gravity well is right there where it always was and it 's not going away.As far as FedEx goes , I think 'space planes ' like Spaceship One are what they would be after more than something that can actually reach orbit .
No reason to spend the fuel to get up that high when you can already do same-day shipping to anywhere on earth , probably with a bigger payload too .
* shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.While there is surely some insight to the idea, ultimately governments can and do change (for a wide variety of meanings of the word) over the course of only a few years, while the minimum energy required to reach orbit is unlikely to change on any practical time scale.
So sure, when you aren't even allowed to get off the ground the government seems like the biggest obstacle, but when that obstacle is cleared the problem of getting out of our gravity well is right there where it always was and it's not going away.As far as FedEx goes, I think 'space planes' like Spaceship One are what they would be after more than something that can actually reach orbit.
No reason to spend the fuel to get up that high when you can already do same-day shipping to anywhere on earth, probably with a bigger payload too.
*shrug*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395499</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the situation is looking brighter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245404880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the 1990s, one of the most realistic-seeming depictions of the rise of private spacefaring was Michael Fynn's future history beginning with  Firestar [amazon.com] . Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles. If Spaceport America has successfully dealt with the FAA, then I would like to think that things are looking up from here (though Flynn suggested companies like FedEx would massively support the endeavour, which seems unlikely now in the age of the internet).</p></div><p>Scifi tends to attract people with a diverse libertarian bent. Socially liberal with dirty minds (looking at you, Heinlein), but also a lot of support for Randian concepts of scientific supermen who could work miracles if only they weren't held down by governments and the mediocre.</p><p>Spaceflight is hard. While FAA red tape can be daunting, the science is still the hard part. And just remember when you hear people arguing about government red tape, inspection and regulation is supposed to protect the public. If you want to see what deregulation brings, just look at our financial crisis. Government wasn't the problem, government abdication of responsibility was the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 1990s , one of the most realistic-seeming depictions of the rise of private spacefaring was Michael Fynn 's future history beginning with Firestar [ amazon.com ] .
Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles .
If Spaceport America has successfully dealt with the FAA , then I would like to think that things are looking up from here ( though Flynn suggested companies like FedEx would massively support the endeavour , which seems unlikely now in the age of the internet ) .Scifi tends to attract people with a diverse libertarian bent .
Socially liberal with dirty minds ( looking at you , Heinlein ) , but also a lot of support for Randian concepts of scientific supermen who could work miracles if only they were n't held down by governments and the mediocre.Spaceflight is hard .
While FAA red tape can be daunting , the science is still the hard part .
And just remember when you hear people arguing about government red tape , inspection and regulation is supposed to protect the public .
If you want to see what deregulation brings , just look at our financial crisis .
Government was n't the problem , government abdication of responsibility was the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 1990s, one of the most realistic-seeming depictions of the rise of private spacefaring was Michael Fynn's future history beginning with  Firestar [amazon.com] .
Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.
If Spaceport America has successfully dealt with the FAA, then I would like to think that things are looking up from here (though Flynn suggested companies like FedEx would massively support the endeavour, which seems unlikely now in the age of the internet).Scifi tends to attract people with a diverse libertarian bent.
Socially liberal with dirty minds (looking at you, Heinlein), but also a lot of support for Randian concepts of scientific supermen who could work miracles if only they weren't held down by governments and the mediocre.Spaceflight is hard.
While FAA red tape can be daunting, the science is still the hard part.
And just remember when you hear people arguing about government red tape, inspection and regulation is supposed to protect the public.
If you want to see what deregulation brings, just look at our financial crisis.
Government wasn't the problem, government abdication of responsibility was the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394687</id>
	<title>I'm not too impressed with artistic concepts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245402060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would prefer illustrations be equate to actual existing structure, like the one showing the berthen vessel interacting with the port of entry <a href="http://cgi.4chan.org/r/src/1245440745232.jpg" title="4chan.org" rel="nofollow">as in this picture.</a> [4chan.org]  If engineers would only model more structures after nature, this planet would be a lot more safe and with less research and development costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer illustrations be equate to actual existing structure , like the one showing the berthen vessel interacting with the port of entry as in this picture .
[ 4chan.org ] If engineers would only model more structures after nature , this planet would be a lot more safe and with less research and development costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer illustrations be equate to actual existing structure, like the one showing the berthen vessel interacting with the port of entry as in this picture.
[4chan.org]  If engineers would only model more structures after nature, this planet would be a lot more safe and with less research and development costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</id>
	<title>Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1245402360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So something I've been wondering for a while. Why haven't space planes been developed? Is it just lack of an engine?<br>
&nbsp; - Rotary = efficient at low altitudes<br>
&nbsp; - Jet = efficient at medium<br>
&nbsp; - ?? = high to orbital?</p><p>Couldn't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way? It would still get us up to 25\% of the way there and that is a large amount of rocket fuel (and cost) you've just saved. It would have a weight associated with it but it might still be less than carrying up to 20\%~ less rocket fuel for part of the trip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So something I 've been wondering for a while .
Why have n't space planes been developed ?
Is it just lack of an engine ?
  - Rotary = efficient at low altitudes   - Jet = efficient at medium   - ? ?
= high to orbital ? Could n't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way ?
It would still get us up to 25 \ % of the way there and that is a large amount of rocket fuel ( and cost ) you 've just saved .
It would have a weight associated with it but it might still be less than carrying up to 20 \ % ~ less rocket fuel for part of the trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So something I've been wondering for a while.
Why haven't space planes been developed?
Is it just lack of an engine?
  - Rotary = efficient at low altitudes
  - Jet = efficient at medium
  - ??
= high to orbital?Couldn't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way?
It would still get us up to 25\% of the way there and that is a large amount of rocket fuel (and cost) you've just saved.
It would have a weight associated with it but it might still be less than carrying up to 20\%~ less rocket fuel for part of the trip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395113</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1245403440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure someone else can explain this better than I, but I believe it has a great deal to do with the weight of redundancy. Every additional propulsion modality adds weight not just from the hardware itself but from the different fuels that each modality would require and, even if the fuel is the same, providing the differing fuel pressures required by the different modalities (jet engine vs liquid-fueled rocket motor). I imagine its still cheaper to use a propulsion method that is highly efficient across a limited range of altitudes because the weight savings make up for the extra fuel burnt at non-ideal altitudes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure someone else can explain this better than I , but I believe it has a great deal to do with the weight of redundancy .
Every additional propulsion modality adds weight not just from the hardware itself but from the different fuels that each modality would require and , even if the fuel is the same , providing the differing fuel pressures required by the different modalities ( jet engine vs liquid-fueled rocket motor ) .
I imagine its still cheaper to use a propulsion method that is highly efficient across a limited range of altitudes because the weight savings make up for the extra fuel burnt at non-ideal altitudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure someone else can explain this better than I, but I believe it has a great deal to do with the weight of redundancy.
Every additional propulsion modality adds weight not just from the hardware itself but from the different fuels that each modality would require and, even if the fuel is the same, providing the differing fuel pressures required by the different modalities (jet engine vs liquid-fueled rocket motor).
I imagine its still cheaper to use a propulsion method that is highly efficient across a limited range of altitudes because the weight savings make up for the extra fuel burnt at non-ideal altitudes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395027</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>chaim79</author>
	<datestamp>1245403140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what Virgin Galactic is doing with White Knight and Spaceship One. White Knight is jet propelled and carries Spaceship One to a high altitude, at that point Spaceship One drops, ignites it's rocket, and heads up to the stars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what Virgin Galactic is doing with White Knight and Spaceship One .
White Knight is jet propelled and carries Spaceship One to a high altitude , at that point Spaceship One drops , ignites it 's rocket , and heads up to the stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what Virgin Galactic is doing with White Knight and Spaceship One.
White Knight is jet propelled and carries Spaceship One to a high altitude, at that point Spaceship One drops, ignites it's rocket, and heads up to the stars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263</id>
	<title>Will it be open to the public?</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1245443820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I have only seen one satellite launch as a kid when visiting Florida and I wouldn't mind coming by to gawk at any launches they may have.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I have only seen one satellite launch as a kid when visiting Florida and I would n't mind coming by to gawk at any launches they may have .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I have only seen one satellite launch as a kid when visiting Florida and I wouldn't mind coming by to gawk at any launches they may have.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399295</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1245433620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It takes roughly an order of magnitude more delta-V to get to a stable orbit than to just "get into space" like SpaceShip1 did.</p></div><p>I ran the <a href="http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/07/missing\_the\_poi\_1.html#comment-118642" title="transterrestrial.com">calculation</a> [transterrestrial.com] some time ago. SpaceShipOne had roughly a quarter (for motor alone) to a third (for motor and launch from vehicle traveling almost at the speed of sound) of the necessary delta v. The final speed at the peak is only part of it. You also needed delta v to reach that height and some delta v was lost due to gravity losses.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That's why the idea of using a reusable vehicle (let alone a MAN RATED reusable vehicle) just to launch cargo is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle - IMHO NASA should have built 2 systems: a man-rated shuttle just for moving people and a disposable cargo vehicle that shared many of the components of the shuttle to move freight - yes, you might have been "throwing away" big chunks of your cargo vehicle every launch, but the cost (in terms of "weight-that-isn't-cargo" as well as in terms of money) of re-usability vs. the cost of throwing it away is such that throwing it away makes more sense. I don't try to "re-use" snot-filled facial tissues as it doesn't make fiscal sense - same thing for ships.</p></div><p>While this has a lot of appeal, it's worth remembering that a lot of payloads are higher value and more delicate than human passengers. What that means is that "man-rating" just isn't that important. A cargo vehicle which handles expensive payloads will have most man-rating requirements (at least the ones that make sense). Even the abort modes traditionally found with manned vehicles could be used to save a $5 billion satellite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes roughly an order of magnitude more delta-V to get to a stable orbit than to just " get into space " like SpaceShip1 did.I ran the calculation [ transterrestrial.com ] some time ago .
SpaceShipOne had roughly a quarter ( for motor alone ) to a third ( for motor and launch from vehicle traveling almost at the speed of sound ) of the necessary delta v. The final speed at the peak is only part of it .
You also needed delta v to reach that height and some delta v was lost due to gravity losses.That 's why the idea of using a reusable vehicle ( let alone a MAN RATED reusable vehicle ) just to launch cargo is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle - IMHO NASA should have built 2 systems : a man-rated shuttle just for moving people and a disposable cargo vehicle that shared many of the components of the shuttle to move freight - yes , you might have been " throwing away " big chunks of your cargo vehicle every launch , but the cost ( in terms of " weight-that-is n't-cargo " as well as in terms of money ) of re-usability vs. the cost of throwing it away is such that throwing it away makes more sense .
I do n't try to " re-use " snot-filled facial tissues as it does n't make fiscal sense - same thing for ships.While this has a lot of appeal , it 's worth remembering that a lot of payloads are higher value and more delicate than human passengers .
What that means is that " man-rating " just is n't that important .
A cargo vehicle which handles expensive payloads will have most man-rating requirements ( at least the ones that make sense ) .
Even the abort modes traditionally found with manned vehicles could be used to save a $ 5 billion satellite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes roughly an order of magnitude more delta-V to get to a stable orbit than to just "get into space" like SpaceShip1 did.I ran the calculation [transterrestrial.com] some time ago.
SpaceShipOne had roughly a quarter (for motor alone) to a third (for motor and launch from vehicle traveling almost at the speed of sound) of the necessary delta v. The final speed at the peak is only part of it.
You also needed delta v to reach that height and some delta v was lost due to gravity losses.That's why the idea of using a reusable vehicle (let alone a MAN RATED reusable vehicle) just to launch cargo is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle - IMHO NASA should have built 2 systems: a man-rated shuttle just for moving people and a disposable cargo vehicle that shared many of the components of the shuttle to move freight - yes, you might have been "throwing away" big chunks of your cargo vehicle every launch, but the cost (in terms of "weight-that-isn't-cargo" as well as in terms of money) of re-usability vs. the cost of throwing it away is such that throwing it away makes more sense.
I don't try to "re-use" snot-filled facial tissues as it doesn't make fiscal sense - same thing for ships.While this has a lot of appeal, it's worth remembering that a lot of payloads are higher value and more delicate than human passengers.
What that means is that "man-rating" just isn't that important.
A cargo vehicle which handles expensive payloads will have most man-rating requirements (at least the ones that make sense).
Even the abort modes traditionally found with manned vehicles could be used to save a $5 billion satellite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396805</id>
	<title>Re:Presumably difficult to defend a limit to acces</title>
	<author>need4mospd</author>
	<datestamp>1245410940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of those items are "necessary" for the country to function, with the exception of the convention center, though that is more accessible than the others. Most people don't expect to gain all access to a courthouse or federal building.<p>
A Spaceport is really pushing that line of "necessary" spending by the government, though I can see the argument for it. It's better to make something like that a little more accessible so the taxpayers don't whine as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of those items are " necessary " for the country to function , with the exception of the convention center , though that is more accessible than the others .
Most people do n't expect to gain all access to a courthouse or federal building .
A Spaceport is really pushing that line of " necessary " spending by the government , though I can see the argument for it .
It 's better to make something like that a little more accessible so the taxpayers do n't whine as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of those items are "necessary" for the country to function, with the exception of the convention center, though that is more accessible than the others.
Most people don't expect to gain all access to a courthouse or federal building.
A Spaceport is really pushing that line of "necessary" spending by the government, though I can see the argument for it.
It's better to make something like that a little more accessible so the taxpayers don't whine as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399485</id>
	<title>Re:The Artist Concept</title>
	<author>5of0</author>
	<datestamp>1245436440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that is stunning.  And it reminds me of Larry Niven's description of the Tanith spaceport from <i>Brenda</i>.  I was just reading N-Space the other day, and the picture reminded me of this passage:<blockquote><div><p>The wrecked ships that had haloed the planet after the Battle of Tanith were long gone.  Shuttle #1 descended through a sky that seemed curiously empty.
What had been the Tanith spaceport still glared like a polished steel dish.  Seen from low angle the crater became a glowing eye with a bright pupil.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
A new port had grown around the crater's eastern rim.  Terry and Charley, riding as passengers while Sharon flew, picked out a dozen big aircraft, then a horde of lighter craft.  The crater must make a convenient airfield.  The gleaming center was a small lake.  Have to avoid that.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Considering it was published in 1988, it beats Blizzard even existing by three years.  It's highly improbable, but it's fun to think that the artist was inspired by the story, anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that is stunning .
And it reminds me of Larry Niven 's description of the Tanith spaceport from Brenda .
I was just reading N-Space the other day , and the picture reminded me of this passage : The wrecked ships that had haloed the planet after the Battle of Tanith were long gone .
Shuttle # 1 descended through a sky that seemed curiously empty .
What had been the Tanith spaceport still glared like a polished steel dish .
Seen from low angle the crater became a glowing eye with a bright pupil .
.. . A new port had grown around the crater 's eastern rim .
Terry and Charley , riding as passengers while Sharon flew , picked out a dozen big aircraft , then a horde of lighter craft .
The crater must make a convenient airfield .
The gleaming center was a small lake .
Have to avoid that .
Considering it was published in 1988 , it beats Blizzard even existing by three years .
It 's highly improbable , but it 's fun to think that the artist was inspired by the story , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that is stunning.
And it reminds me of Larry Niven's description of the Tanith spaceport from Brenda.
I was just reading N-Space the other day, and the picture reminded me of this passage:The wrecked ships that had haloed the planet after the Battle of Tanith were long gone.
Shuttle #1 descended through a sky that seemed curiously empty.
What had been the Tanith spaceport still glared like a polished steel dish.
Seen from low angle the crater became a glowing eye with a bright pupil.
...
A new port had grown around the crater's eastern rim.
Terry and Charley, riding as passengers while Sharon flew, picked out a dozen big aircraft, then a horde of lighter craft.
The crater must make a convenient airfield.
The gleaming center was a small lake.
Have to avoid that.
Considering it was published in 1988, it beats Blizzard even existing by three years.
It's highly improbable, but it's fun to think that the artist was inspired by the story, anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394887</id>
	<title>Re:Will it be open to the public?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245402720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw every one of the shuttle launches until Challenger blew up. I'd moved back to Illinois by then.</p><p>I loved watching those things take off, especially if I could drive to the cape and see it close up. Man, but those things are LOUD. I thought I was going to miss one as I was visiting my mom in Tampa, but it was a night liftoff and it was still visible.</p><p>Seeing rocket launches is one of the things I miss about Florida. If anyone reading this gets a chance to see one, do so! Damned impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw every one of the shuttle launches until Challenger blew up .
I 'd moved back to Illinois by then.I loved watching those things take off , especially if I could drive to the cape and see it close up .
Man , but those things are LOUD .
I thought I was going to miss one as I was visiting my mom in Tampa , but it was a night liftoff and it was still visible.Seeing rocket launches is one of the things I miss about Florida .
If anyone reading this gets a chance to see one , do so !
Damned impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw every one of the shuttle launches until Challenger blew up.
I'd moved back to Illinois by then.I loved watching those things take off, especially if I could drive to the cape and see it close up.
Man, but those things are LOUD.
I thought I was going to miss one as I was visiting my mom in Tampa, but it was a night liftoff and it was still visible.Seeing rocket launches is one of the things I miss about Florida.
If anyone reading this gets a chance to see one, do so!
Damned impressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28398699</id>
	<title>Re:Mos Eisley?</title>
	<author>bitrex</author>
	<datestamp>1245426360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Name it "Verizon Spaceport We've Got A Goddamned Spaceport, Bitches, What've You Got Fuck Yeah Go America!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Name it " Verizon Spaceport We 've Got A Goddamned Spaceport , Bitches , What 've You Got Fuck Yeah Go America !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name it "Verizon Spaceport We've Got A Goddamned Spaceport, Bitches, What've You Got Fuck Yeah Go America!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395145</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1245403620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...Why haven't space planes been developed?...Couldn't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way?...."</p><p>First of all: we really don't have a production ready scramjet yet. There have been a few prototypes, but nothing that is ready to be built and bolted onto an aircraft carrying people. Making an engine that can "burn" fuel while that fuel-air mix is moving at speeds above the speed of sound relative to the engine, without blowing out, is not yet something we have mastered well enough to rely upon.</p><p>And that's the biggie right there: making a man-rated craft is HARD. You cannot tolerate any failures that can lead to loss of crew - look at how much crap NASA has taken (and justifiably so, to an extent) over the loss of 2 shuttles. You have to design EVERYTHING so that when it fails ("when", not "if") it fails in a way that allows the crew to make it home. Much of the design decisions on Orion vs. the Shuttle - the decisions that have many people crying "WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS! ORION IS TEH FAIL!" - are because the Shuttle way of doing things is a fail-unsafe and the Orion way is fail-safe.</p><p>Now, to address your question of "why not use jets, then scramjets, then rockets" - that is being discussed, but keep in mind that an engine you aren't using RIGHT NOW is just dead weight where cargo could be. There are good reasons to drop of the bits of the craft you aren't going to use anymore - hauling them the rest of the way up is just wasting fuel.</p><p>Then there is the problem that getting into "space" is only "hard", but getting into <i>orbit</i> is REALLY HARD. It takes roughly an order of magnitude more delta-V to get to a stable orbit than to just "get into space" like SpaceShip1 did.</p><p>That's why the idea of using a reusable vehicle (let alone a MAN RATED reusable vehicle) <i>just to launch cargo</i> is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle - IMHO NASA should have built 2 systems: a man-rated shuttle <b>just for moving people</b> and a disposable cargo vehicle that shared many of the components of the shuttle to move freight - yes, you might have been "throwing away" big chunks of your cargo vehicle every launch, but the cost (in terms of "weight-that-isn't-cargo" as well as in terms of money) of re-usability vs. the cost of throwing it away is such that throwing it away makes more sense. I don't try to "re-use" snot-filled facial tissues as it doesn't make fiscal sense - same thing for ships.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...Why have n't space planes been developed ? ...Could n't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way ? ... .
" First of all : we really do n't have a production ready scramjet yet .
There have been a few prototypes , but nothing that is ready to be built and bolted onto an aircraft carrying people .
Making an engine that can " burn " fuel while that fuel-air mix is moving at speeds above the speed of sound relative to the engine , without blowing out , is not yet something we have mastered well enough to rely upon.And that 's the biggie right there : making a man-rated craft is HARD .
You can not tolerate any failures that can lead to loss of crew - look at how much crap NASA has taken ( and justifiably so , to an extent ) over the loss of 2 shuttles .
You have to design EVERYTHING so that when it fails ( " when " , not " if " ) it fails in a way that allows the crew to make it home .
Much of the design decisions on Orion vs. the Shuttle - the decisions that have many people crying " WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS !
ORION IS TEH FAIL !
" - are because the Shuttle way of doing things is a fail-unsafe and the Orion way is fail-safe.Now , to address your question of " why not use jets , then scramjets , then rockets " - that is being discussed , but keep in mind that an engine you are n't using RIGHT NOW is just dead weight where cargo could be .
There are good reasons to drop of the bits of the craft you are n't going to use anymore - hauling them the rest of the way up is just wasting fuel.Then there is the problem that getting into " space " is only " hard " , but getting into orbit is REALLY HARD .
It takes roughly an order of magnitude more delta-V to get to a stable orbit than to just " get into space " like SpaceShip1 did.That 's why the idea of using a reusable vehicle ( let alone a MAN RATED reusable vehicle ) just to launch cargo is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle - IMHO NASA should have built 2 systems : a man-rated shuttle just for moving people and a disposable cargo vehicle that shared many of the components of the shuttle to move freight - yes , you might have been " throwing away " big chunks of your cargo vehicle every launch , but the cost ( in terms of " weight-that-is n't-cargo " as well as in terms of money ) of re-usability vs. the cost of throwing it away is such that throwing it away makes more sense .
I do n't try to " re-use " snot-filled facial tissues as it does n't make fiscal sense - same thing for ships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...Why haven't space planes been developed?...Couldn't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way?....
"First of all: we really don't have a production ready scramjet yet.
There have been a few prototypes, but nothing that is ready to be built and bolted onto an aircraft carrying people.
Making an engine that can "burn" fuel while that fuel-air mix is moving at speeds above the speed of sound relative to the engine, without blowing out, is not yet something we have mastered well enough to rely upon.And that's the biggie right there: making a man-rated craft is HARD.
You cannot tolerate any failures that can lead to loss of crew - look at how much crap NASA has taken (and justifiably so, to an extent) over the loss of 2 shuttles.
You have to design EVERYTHING so that when it fails ("when", not "if") it fails in a way that allows the crew to make it home.
Much of the design decisions on Orion vs. the Shuttle - the decisions that have many people crying "WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS!
ORION IS TEH FAIL!
" - are because the Shuttle way of doing things is a fail-unsafe and the Orion way is fail-safe.Now, to address your question of "why not use jets, then scramjets, then rockets" - that is being discussed, but keep in mind that an engine you aren't using RIGHT NOW is just dead weight where cargo could be.
There are good reasons to drop of the bits of the craft you aren't going to use anymore - hauling them the rest of the way up is just wasting fuel.Then there is the problem that getting into "space" is only "hard", but getting into orbit is REALLY HARD.
It takes roughly an order of magnitude more delta-V to get to a stable orbit than to just "get into space" like SpaceShip1 did.That's why the idea of using a reusable vehicle (let alone a MAN RATED reusable vehicle) just to launch cargo is about as stupid as using a Lamborghini to move cattle - IMHO NASA should have built 2 systems: a man-rated shuttle just for moving people and a disposable cargo vehicle that shared many of the components of the shuttle to move freight - yes, you might have been "throwing away" big chunks of your cargo vehicle every launch, but the cost (in terms of "weight-that-isn't-cargo" as well as in terms of money) of re-usability vs. the cost of throwing it away is such that throwing it away makes more sense.
I don't try to "re-use" snot-filled facial tissues as it doesn't make fiscal sense - same thing for ships.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395023</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>diskofish</author>
	<datestamp>1245403140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A space plane is basically what the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled\_Composites\_White\_Knight\_Two" title="wikipedia.org">White Knight </a> [wikipedia.org] is.
<br> <br>
My guess for the reason why they designed it this way is that combining everything into one package would increase the weight of the space vessel, so splitting it up into two separate "stages" if you will, makes good sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A space plane is basically what the White Knight [ wikipedia.org ] is .
My guess for the reason why they designed it this way is that combining everything into one package would increase the weight of the space vessel , so splitting it up into two separate " stages " if you will , makes good sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A space plane is basically what the White Knight  [wikipedia.org] is.
My guess for the reason why they designed it this way is that combining everything into one package would increase the weight of the space vessel, so splitting it up into two separate "stages" if you will, makes good sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395703</id>
	<title>X-15, X-20, X-24</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1245405660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please google Dyna-Soar.</p><p>We had space planes in the 60's, and we had space planes on the drawing boards that would have essentially been the forerunners of the Space Shuttle. But then the Russians launched Sputnik and the game changed on the Air Force. Suddenly the government wanted spam in a can, monkey in a missle. yadda yadda garbage.</p><p>See "The Right Stuff" If we had continued the X-plane research, we would have gotten to pure space planes alright. But the pentagon switched gears suddenly, and everything became about rockets. We spent a lot of time and money to play catch up with the Soviet Union, when we should have simply developed better planes.</p><p>The X-15 was already close enough that it needed control thrusters after reaching apogee, and the pilots were weightless. Many from the X-15 program were awarded astronaut wings (But Alan Shepard is considered the first American in space, and Yuri Gagarin the first man, although I believe the X-15 pilots beat them both to that record).</p><p>Admittedly, Gagarin orbited, while the X-15 pilots did not. Still, with a little more time and money, it probably could have been done. We would have needed a little more research into the ablative coating, and if the X-15 had had a titanium skin, it probably would have been very doable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please google Dyna-Soar.We had space planes in the 60 's , and we had space planes on the drawing boards that would have essentially been the forerunners of the Space Shuttle .
But then the Russians launched Sputnik and the game changed on the Air Force .
Suddenly the government wanted spam in a can , monkey in a missle .
yadda yadda garbage.See " The Right Stuff " If we had continued the X-plane research , we would have gotten to pure space planes alright .
But the pentagon switched gears suddenly , and everything became about rockets .
We spent a lot of time and money to play catch up with the Soviet Union , when we should have simply developed better planes.The X-15 was already close enough that it needed control thrusters after reaching apogee , and the pilots were weightless .
Many from the X-15 program were awarded astronaut wings ( But Alan Shepard is considered the first American in space , and Yuri Gagarin the first man , although I believe the X-15 pilots beat them both to that record ) .Admittedly , Gagarin orbited , while the X-15 pilots did not .
Still , with a little more time and money , it probably could have been done .
We would have needed a little more research into the ablative coating , and if the X-15 had had a titanium skin , it probably would have been very doable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please google Dyna-Soar.We had space planes in the 60's, and we had space planes on the drawing boards that would have essentially been the forerunners of the Space Shuttle.
But then the Russians launched Sputnik and the game changed on the Air Force.
Suddenly the government wanted spam in a can, monkey in a missle.
yadda yadda garbage.See "The Right Stuff" If we had continued the X-plane research, we would have gotten to pure space planes alright.
But the pentagon switched gears suddenly, and everything became about rockets.
We spent a lot of time and money to play catch up with the Soviet Union, when we should have simply developed better planes.The X-15 was already close enough that it needed control thrusters after reaching apogee, and the pilots were weightless.
Many from the X-15 program were awarded astronaut wings (But Alan Shepard is considered the first American in space, and Yuri Gagarin the first man, although I believe the X-15 pilots beat them both to that record).Admittedly, Gagarin orbited, while the X-15 pilots did not.
Still, with a little more time and money, it probably could have been done.
We would have needed a little more research into the ablative coating, and if the X-15 had had a titanium skin, it probably would have been very doable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28398819</id>
	<title>The market is very small.</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1245427920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The size of the market for commercial spaceflight is limited by the lack of destinations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The size of the market for commercial spaceflight is limited by the lack of destinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The size of the market for commercial spaceflight is limited by the lack of destinations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28400155</id>
	<title>Spaceport Prices ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245490560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you thought airport prices for a sandwich were outrageously stupid, the spaceports prices for the same sandwich is out of this world!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you thought airport prices for a sandwich were outrageously stupid , the spaceports prices for the same sandwich is out of this world ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you thought airport prices for a sandwich were outrageously stupid, the spaceports prices for the same sandwich is out of this world!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396131</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1245407580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Couldn't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way? It would still get us up to 25\% of the way there and that is a large amount of rocket fuel (and cost) you've just saved.</p></div><p>You'd save money on fuel, but contrary to popular belief, fuel (even though there's quite a bit of it) is just ~1\% of the total cost of flying a rocket. So you've basically ended up taking a chunk out of that tiny 1\%, while in turn significantly increasing engine and production costs, which are a far larger chunk of the total cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way ?
It would still get us up to 25 \ % of the way there and that is a large amount of rocket fuel ( and cost ) you 've just saved.You 'd save money on fuel , but contrary to popular belief , fuel ( even though there 's quite a bit of it ) is just ~ 1 \ % of the total cost of flying a rocket .
So you 've basically ended up taking a chunk out of that tiny 1 \ % , while in turn significantly increasing engine and production costs , which are a far larger chunk of the total cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't we just use a Scramjet until it becomes inefficient and then a rocket for the rest of the way?
It would still get us up to 25\% of the way there and that is a large amount of rocket fuel (and cost) you've just saved.You'd save money on fuel, but contrary to popular belief, fuel (even though there's quite a bit of it) is just ~1\% of the total cost of flying a rocket.
So you've basically ended up taking a chunk out of that tiny 1\%, while in turn significantly increasing engine and production costs, which are a far larger chunk of the total cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394535</id>
	<title>The obvious question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245444780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will Republic credits be accepted for passage aboard space vessels in such a deserted region as Mohave?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Republic credits be accepted for passage aboard space vessels in such a deserted region as Mohave ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Republic credits be accepted for passage aboard space vessels in such a deserted region as Mohave?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395043</id>
	<title>Sorry...</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1245403200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The spaceport has been replaced by a hyperspace bypass...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The spaceport has been replaced by a hyperspace bypass.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spaceport has been replaced by a hyperspace bypass...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395887</id>
	<title>spaceport mmmmmeh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm opening the first transdimensionalpanuniversalparallelworlds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... port.</p><p>Now you don't have to muck about with all the tedious travel preparations when visiting "New-Earth 4.59" - you can just sit back and let us do the hard work for you. BTW - can I petition the govt for some of that shovel-ready money for this project? I'm going to need to borrow California's National Ignition Facility too. And a roll of duct tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm opening the first transdimensionalpanuniversalparallelworlds ... port.Now you do n't have to muck about with all the tedious travel preparations when visiting " New-Earth 4.59 " - you can just sit back and let us do the hard work for you .
BTW - can I petition the govt for some of that shovel-ready money for this project ?
I 'm going to need to borrow California 's National Ignition Facility too .
And a roll of duct tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm opening the first transdimensionalpanuniversalparallelworlds ... port.Now you don't have to muck about with all the tedious travel preparations when visiting "New-Earth 4.59" - you can just sit back and let us do the hard work for you.
BTW - can I petition the govt for some of that shovel-ready money for this project?
I'm going to need to borrow California's National Ignition Facility too.
And a roll of duct tape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399055</id>
	<title>Re:X-15, X-20, X-24</title>
	<author>Bureaucromancer</author>
	<datestamp>1245430680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the X-15 did not beat Mercury to space.  For that matter, Mercury was in orbit monthes before the first X-15 flight to the US definition of space (50 miles vs the international 100 km).  In fact, the X-15 only had a grand totla of two flights beyond 100 km.  In any case, Alan Sheppard flew suborbitally in May '61 and John Glenn made three orbits in Feb '62, Robert White got an X-15 to ~60 miles in July '62, and Joe Walker exceeded 100km in July '63 while the Mercury program ended in May '63.  All in all Mercury wasn't so much a turning point as a sideshow to the spaceplance program untill the Moon program was launched, at which point capsules were the only realistic way to do anything in the timeline proposed.

As for an orbital X-15, the X-15B proposal was probably about as far as the airframe could have been pushed.  It would have gotten a single orbit out of an X-15 launched on a Navaho, and required the pilot to bail out over the Gulf of Mexico ala Vostok.  The X-20 itself was a great program IMO, but realistically we wouldn't have done nearly as much anywhere near as fast if we'd gone that route.  The vehicle was supposed to fly (suborbitally ) in 1966 and wouldn't have made a multi orbit flight untill the end of 1968.  Given the complexity and technology involved, plus the lack of experience, I seriously doubt it could possibly have stayed on schedule.  In the end we woud have gained, in the same timeline capsules went to the moon, a vehicle roughly comparable to Gemini in capability, considerably heavier and more complex with the only real difference being a runway landing.

It's hard to say what would have happened next, but I have my own suspicions things wouldn't have been terribly different; the results would have stayed classifiied so its not like some great private space industry would have emerged from Dyna-Soar.  There would probably have been something along the lines of Skylab (maybe more like a cross between MOL and Skylab, but nontheless), Nixon still would have cut the bone and the shuttle would still have been the cost saving measure.  There might have been a more realistic appraisal of the Shuttle's capabilities, and we might have gotten a marginally better vehicle, but honestly it would still have been an experimental and ill conceived all in one launch system.

To sum up, yes, there was a spaceplane program, but no, it's not really some great lost "other option" for the space program.  Capsules were ultimately the right way to get to the Moon in the 60s, and the Moon was probably the most productive thing we could have done with manned space at the time.  If the program had had a great deal more money it is interesting to think about what we might have gotten from Apollo PLUS Dyna-Soar, but really whats a more exciting alternative history?  Apollo extended into the 70s with a real exploration program plus Skylab like work, maybe reaching Mars in the late 80s early 90s or a space shuttle that flies a few years earlier and is maybe a slightly better system in a world where we never reached the moon (or more likely where we built a space station and the Russians landed on the moon instead of building Mir)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the X-15 did not beat Mercury to space .
For that matter , Mercury was in orbit monthes before the first X-15 flight to the US definition of space ( 50 miles vs the international 100 km ) .
In fact , the X-15 only had a grand totla of two flights beyond 100 km .
In any case , Alan Sheppard flew suborbitally in May '61 and John Glenn made three orbits in Feb '62 , Robert White got an X-15 to ~ 60 miles in July '62 , and Joe Walker exceeded 100km in July '63 while the Mercury program ended in May '63 .
All in all Mercury was n't so much a turning point as a sideshow to the spaceplance program untill the Moon program was launched , at which point capsules were the only realistic way to do anything in the timeline proposed .
As for an orbital X-15 , the X-15B proposal was probably about as far as the airframe could have been pushed .
It would have gotten a single orbit out of an X-15 launched on a Navaho , and required the pilot to bail out over the Gulf of Mexico ala Vostok .
The X-20 itself was a great program IMO , but realistically we would n't have done nearly as much anywhere near as fast if we 'd gone that route .
The vehicle was supposed to fly ( suborbitally ) in 1966 and would n't have made a multi orbit flight untill the end of 1968 .
Given the complexity and technology involved , plus the lack of experience , I seriously doubt it could possibly have stayed on schedule .
In the end we woud have gained , in the same timeline capsules went to the moon , a vehicle roughly comparable to Gemini in capability , considerably heavier and more complex with the only real difference being a runway landing .
It 's hard to say what would have happened next , but I have my own suspicions things would n't have been terribly different ; the results would have stayed classifiied so its not like some great private space industry would have emerged from Dyna-Soar .
There would probably have been something along the lines of Skylab ( maybe more like a cross between MOL and Skylab , but nontheless ) , Nixon still would have cut the bone and the shuttle would still have been the cost saving measure .
There might have been a more realistic appraisal of the Shuttle 's capabilities , and we might have gotten a marginally better vehicle , but honestly it would still have been an experimental and ill conceived all in one launch system .
To sum up , yes , there was a spaceplane program , but no , it 's not really some great lost " other option " for the space program .
Capsules were ultimately the right way to get to the Moon in the 60s , and the Moon was probably the most productive thing we could have done with manned space at the time .
If the program had had a great deal more money it is interesting to think about what we might have gotten from Apollo PLUS Dyna-Soar , but really whats a more exciting alternative history ?
Apollo extended into the 70s with a real exploration program plus Skylab like work , maybe reaching Mars in the late 80s early 90s or a space shuttle that flies a few years earlier and is maybe a slightly better system in a world where we never reached the moon ( or more likely where we built a space station and the Russians landed on the moon instead of building Mir ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the X-15 did not beat Mercury to space.
For that matter, Mercury was in orbit monthes before the first X-15 flight to the US definition of space (50 miles vs the international 100 km).
In fact, the X-15 only had a grand totla of two flights beyond 100 km.
In any case, Alan Sheppard flew suborbitally in May '61 and John Glenn made three orbits in Feb '62, Robert White got an X-15 to ~60 miles in July '62, and Joe Walker exceeded 100km in July '63 while the Mercury program ended in May '63.
All in all Mercury wasn't so much a turning point as a sideshow to the spaceplance program untill the Moon program was launched, at which point capsules were the only realistic way to do anything in the timeline proposed.
As for an orbital X-15, the X-15B proposal was probably about as far as the airframe could have been pushed.
It would have gotten a single orbit out of an X-15 launched on a Navaho, and required the pilot to bail out over the Gulf of Mexico ala Vostok.
The X-20 itself was a great program IMO, but realistically we wouldn't have done nearly as much anywhere near as fast if we'd gone that route.
The vehicle was supposed to fly (suborbitally ) in 1966 and wouldn't have made a multi orbit flight untill the end of 1968.
Given the complexity and technology involved, plus the lack of experience, I seriously doubt it could possibly have stayed on schedule.
In the end we woud have gained, in the same timeline capsules went to the moon, a vehicle roughly comparable to Gemini in capability, considerably heavier and more complex with the only real difference being a runway landing.
It's hard to say what would have happened next, but I have my own suspicions things wouldn't have been terribly different; the results would have stayed classifiied so its not like some great private space industry would have emerged from Dyna-Soar.
There would probably have been something along the lines of Skylab (maybe more like a cross between MOL and Skylab, but nontheless), Nixon still would have cut the bone and the shuttle would still have been the cost saving measure.
There might have been a more realistic appraisal of the Shuttle's capabilities, and we might have gotten a marginally better vehicle, but honestly it would still have been an experimental and ill conceived all in one launch system.
To sum up, yes, there was a spaceplane program, but no, it's not really some great lost "other option" for the space program.
Capsules were ultimately the right way to get to the Moon in the 60s, and the Moon was probably the most productive thing we could have done with manned space at the time.
If the program had had a great deal more money it is interesting to think about what we might have gotten from Apollo PLUS Dyna-Soar, but really whats a more exciting alternative history?
Apollo extended into the 70s with a real exploration program plus Skylab like work, maybe reaching Mars in the late 80s early 90s or a space shuttle that flies a few years earlier and is maybe a slightly better system in a world where we never reached the moon (or more likely where we built a space station and the Russians landed on the moon instead of building Mir)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395099</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245403380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because...why? Other than launching satellites and another thing for multi-millionaires to blow their money on, there seems to be little need for still-pretty-damn-expensive spaceflight.
<br> <br>
Also, 1) those wings are entirely useless or worse past a certain altitude. And 2) escape velocity is about mach 34. You're talking expending a lot of energy to reach a tiny fraction of that speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because...why ?
Other than launching satellites and another thing for multi-millionaires to blow their money on , there seems to be little need for still-pretty-damn-expensive spaceflight .
Also , 1 ) those wings are entirely useless or worse past a certain altitude .
And 2 ) escape velocity is about mach 34 .
You 're talking expending a lot of energy to reach a tiny fraction of that speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because...why?
Other than launching satellites and another thing for multi-millionaires to blow their money on, there seems to be little need for still-pretty-damn-expensive spaceflight.
Also, 1) those wings are entirely useless or worse past a certain altitude.
And 2) escape velocity is about mach 34.
You're talking expending a lot of energy to reach a tiny fraction of that speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395781</id>
	<title>I saw the location earlier this year in person.</title>
	<author>gblackwo</author>
	<datestamp>1245406020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw the location earlier this year (drove right by the exit), and while New Mexico is possibly my favorite state especially for it's scenery- I wasn't real impressed with the location. Maybe once they build the facilities, but I enjoyed the look of the spaceport in Iowa in the new startrek film much more (yes, i know is fictional).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw the location earlier this year ( drove right by the exit ) , and while New Mexico is possibly my favorite state especially for it 's scenery- I was n't real impressed with the location .
Maybe once they build the facilities , but I enjoyed the look of the spaceport in Iowa in the new startrek film much more ( yes , i know is fictional ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw the location earlier this year (drove right by the exit), and while New Mexico is possibly my favorite state especially for it's scenery- I wasn't real impressed with the location.
Maybe once they build the facilities, but I enjoyed the look of the spaceport in Iowa in the new startrek film much more (yes, i know is fictional).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395041</id>
	<title>Re:Why no space planes?</title>
	<author>Yetihehe</author>
	<datestamp>1245403200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe we could even make this part with low altitude engine separate just before launching main rocket? Something like SpaceKnightTwo...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we could even make this part with low altitude engine separate just before launching main rocket ?
Something like SpaceKnightTwo.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we could even make this part with low altitude engine separate just before launching main rocket?
Something like SpaceKnightTwo...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394425</id>
	<title>Presumably difficult to defend a limit to access</title>
	<author>rwade</author>
	<datestamp>1245444420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The State of New Mexico did provide public funding (not just financing, but funding) to the Spaceport, so I would presume that it would be a pretty big deal to wall it off. Then again, it is not unprecedented for projects to be funded with public funds with no or limited free or cheap access to the public:</p><p>-- convention centers<br>-- ports<br>-- federal buildings<br>-- city hall</p><p>I'm not saying it's wrong to not provide access, but such limitations may be difficult to defend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The State of New Mexico did provide public funding ( not just financing , but funding ) to the Spaceport , so I would presume that it would be a pretty big deal to wall it off .
Then again , it is not unprecedented for projects to be funded with public funds with no or limited free or cheap access to the public : -- convention centers-- ports-- federal buildings-- city hallI 'm not saying it 's wrong to not provide access , but such limitations may be difficult to defend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The State of New Mexico did provide public funding (not just financing, but funding) to the Spaceport, so I would presume that it would be a pretty big deal to wall it off.
Then again, it is not unprecedented for projects to be funded with public funds with no or limited free or cheap access to the public:-- convention centers-- ports-- federal buildings-- city hallI'm not saying it's wrong to not provide access, but such limitations may be difficult to defend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394575</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the situation is looking brighter</title>
	<author>qortra</author>
	<datestamp>1245444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.</p></div><p>That was probably an excellent prediction, and with a publication date of 1997, he didn't even access to the largest hassle precipitating event of all time - 9.11.  Think of all the hassle that you have to go through for sub-orbital vessels these days, and multiply that by 10.  I bet that spacecraft will be seen by many politicians as profoundly dangerous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.That was probably an excellent prediction , and with a publication date of 1997 , he did n't even access to the largest hassle precipitating event of all time - 9.11 .
Think of all the hassle that you have to go through for sub-orbital vessels these days , and multiply that by 10 .
I bet that spacecraft will be seen by many politicians as profoundly dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flynn made it seem as if the biggest obstacle towards getting into space was not gravity and fuel costs as much as government hassles.That was probably an excellent prediction, and with a publication date of 1997, he didn't even access to the largest hassle precipitating event of all time - 9.11.
Think of all the hassle that you have to go through for sub-orbital vessels these days, and multiply that by 10.
I bet that spacecraft will be seen by many politicians as profoundly dangerous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394439</id>
	<title>So much for catching it live...</title>
	<author>NevarMore</author>
	<datestamp>1245444480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posted: Friday June 19, @03:34PM (I'm in EDT)</p><p>Story was posted to the front page about an hour and a half AFTER the 11AM live broadcast. Whoops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posted : Friday June 19 , @ 03 : 34PM ( I 'm in EDT ) Story was posted to the front page about an hour and a half AFTER the 11AM live broadcast .
Whoops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posted: Friday June 19, @03:34PM (I'm in EDT)Story was posted to the front page about an hour and a half AFTER the 11AM live broadcast.
Whoops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395709</id>
	<title>Re:The Artist Concept</title>
	<author>boris111</author>
	<datestamp>1245405660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like they owe Blizzard some money.  Does this say Protoss to anyone?  Wonder where they'll get enough Vespene gas to build it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like they owe Blizzard some money .
Does this say Protoss to anyone ?
Wonder where they 'll get enough Vespene gas to build it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like they owe Blizzard some money.
Does this say Protoss to anyone?
Wonder where they'll get enough Vespene gas to build it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394519</id>
	<title>spaceport - mmmmmeh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245444720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm opening the first transdimensionalpanuniversalparallelworlds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... port.</p><p>Now you don't have to muck about with all that tedious travel preparations when visiting "New-Earth 4.59" - you can just sit back and let us do the hard work for you. BTW - can I petition the govt for some of that shovel-ready money for this project? I'm going to need to borrow California's National Ignition Facility too. And a roll of duct tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm opening the first transdimensionalpanuniversalparallelworlds ... port.Now you do n't have to muck about with all that tedious travel preparations when visiting " New-Earth 4.59 " - you can just sit back and let us do the hard work for you .
BTW - can I petition the govt for some of that shovel-ready money for this project ?
I 'm going to need to borrow California 's National Ignition Facility too .
And a roll of duct tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm opening the first transdimensionalpanuniversalparallelworlds ... port.Now you don't have to muck about with all that tedious travel preparations when visiting "New-Earth 4.59" - you can just sit back and let us do the hard work for you.
BTW - can I petition the govt for some of that shovel-ready money for this project?
I'm going to need to borrow California's National Ignition Facility too.
And a roll of duct tape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28398699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28403537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28398687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1611233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1611233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1611233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1611233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1611233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28398687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1611233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28398699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1611233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1611233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28394777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28403537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28396131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28399055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1611233.28395459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
