<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_20_207200</id>
	<title>White House Panel Considers New Paths To Space</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245499380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Neil H. writes <i>"The White House's Human Space Flight Plans blue-ribbon panel (the 'Augustine panel') has posted the material from their <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/06\_17\_meeting.html">first public meeting</a> on the future of NASA's spaceflight program, which was held on Wednesday. NASA officials presented their Ares I rocket plans and their belief that they can work around its design flaws, with projected development costs ballooning to $35 billion. The panel also heard several <a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/17/1969240.aspx">alternative proposals,</a> such as adapting already-existing EELV and SpaceX rockets to carry crew to orbit; these proposals would have better safety margins than the Ares I, be ready sooner, and cost NASA less than $2 billion to complete, but are politically unattractive."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neil H. writes " The White House 's Human Space Flight Plans blue-ribbon panel ( the 'Augustine panel ' ) has posted the material from their first public meeting on the future of NASA 's spaceflight program , which was held on Wednesday .
NASA officials presented their Ares I rocket plans and their belief that they can work around its design flaws , with projected development costs ballooning to $ 35 billion .
The panel also heard several alternative proposals , such as adapting already-existing EELV and SpaceX rockets to carry crew to orbit ; these proposals would have better safety margins than the Ares I , be ready sooner , and cost NASA less than $ 2 billion to complete , but are politically unattractive .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neil H. writes "The White House's Human Space Flight Plans blue-ribbon panel (the 'Augustine panel') has posted the material from their first public meeting on the future of NASA's spaceflight program, which was held on Wednesday.
NASA officials presented their Ares I rocket plans and their belief that they can work around its design flaws, with projected development costs ballooning to $35 billion.
The panel also heard several alternative proposals, such as adapting already-existing EELV and SpaceX rockets to carry crew to orbit; these proposals would have better safety margins than the Ares I, be ready sooner, and cost NASA less than $2 billion to complete, but are politically unattractive.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412335</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>Cold hard reality</author>
	<datestamp>1245612240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We look at this, and we see that it is horribly expensive, dangerous, and with very little practical return.</p><p>And don't tell me that it's our only chance to survive if earth is destroyed.  First of all, it won't be us who survive, it would be \_them\_, and I care about my own skin first.  Second, a few months after earth is gone, so would be any moon colony.  You can't live off the land there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We look at this , and we see that it is horribly expensive , dangerous , and with very little practical return.And do n't tell me that it 's our only chance to survive if earth is destroyed .
First of all , it wo n't be us who survive , it would be \ _them \ _ , and I care about my own skin first .
Second , a few months after earth is gone , so would be any moon colony .
You ca n't live off the land there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We look at this, and we see that it is horribly expensive, dangerous, and with very little practical return.And don't tell me that it's our only chance to survive if earth is destroyed.
First of all, it won't be us who survive, it would be \_them\_, and I care about my own skin first.
Second, a few months after earth is gone, so would be any moon colony.
You can't live off the land there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410913</id>
	<title>Space-X safety?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245601080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The panel also heard several alternative proposals, such as adapting already-existing EELV and SpaceX rockets to carry crew to orbit; these proposals would have better safety margins than the Ares I, be ready sooner, and cost NASA less than $2 billion to complete, but are politically unattractive."</p></div><p>I love Space-X, I love their ambition and what they're trying to do, but it's just clueless to say that going with Space-X would result in "better safety margins".  Space-X is a start-up.  Their safety record is entirely hypothetical.  They just toss off their first three failures as "oh, well, we had a little problems starting up but we're better now," but in fact they are not yet out of the learning stage, and there's no real evidence yet how long it will take to get out of the learning stage.  Their reliability, to date, is one success in four tries.
</p><p>They are <i>cheap</i>, but they have not yet proven that they can be reliability while staying cheap, or that they can be cheap while staying reliable.
</p><p>It's not at all clear that their option would "cost NASA less than two billion to complete," either.  If everything works as planned the first time, well, sure, maybe.  But if things don't work first time?  What's their track record?
</p><p>For all their work, most of what Space-X is actually offering so far is pretty pictures and really enthusiastic exclamations of how great they are.  I <i>want</i> them to be great... but I am also a skeptic.  What have they <i>proven</i>?  And, frankly, "better safety margins" is not it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The panel also heard several alternative proposals , such as adapting already-existing EELV and SpaceX rockets to carry crew to orbit ; these proposals would have better safety margins than the Ares I , be ready sooner , and cost NASA less than $ 2 billion to complete , but are politically unattractive .
" I love Space-X , I love their ambition and what they 're trying to do , but it 's just clueless to say that going with Space-X would result in " better safety margins " .
Space-X is a start-up .
Their safety record is entirely hypothetical .
They just toss off their first three failures as " oh , well , we had a little problems starting up but we 're better now , " but in fact they are not yet out of the learning stage , and there 's no real evidence yet how long it will take to get out of the learning stage .
Their reliability , to date , is one success in four tries .
They are cheap , but they have not yet proven that they can be reliability while staying cheap , or that they can be cheap while staying reliable .
It 's not at all clear that their option would " cost NASA less than two billion to complete , " either .
If everything works as planned the first time , well , sure , maybe .
But if things do n't work first time ?
What 's their track record ?
For all their work , most of what Space-X is actually offering so far is pretty pictures and really enthusiastic exclamations of how great they are .
I want them to be great... but I am also a skeptic .
What have they proven ?
And , frankly , " better safety margins " is not it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The panel also heard several alternative proposals, such as adapting already-existing EELV and SpaceX rockets to carry crew to orbit; these proposals would have better safety margins than the Ares I, be ready sooner, and cost NASA less than $2 billion to complete, but are politically unattractive.
"I love Space-X, I love their ambition and what they're trying to do, but it's just clueless to say that going with Space-X would result in "better safety margins".
Space-X is a start-up.
Their safety record is entirely hypothetical.
They just toss off their first three failures as "oh, well, we had a little problems starting up but we're better now," but in fact they are not yet out of the learning stage, and there's no real evidence yet how long it will take to get out of the learning stage.
Their reliability, to date, is one success in four tries.
They are cheap, but they have not yet proven that they can be reliability while staying cheap, or that they can be cheap while staying reliable.
It's not at all clear that their option would "cost NASA less than two billion to complete," either.
If everything works as planned the first time, well, sure, maybe.
But if things don't work first time?
What's their track record?
For all their work, most of what Space-X is actually offering so far is pretty pictures and really enthusiastic exclamations of how great they are.
I want them to be great... but I am also a skeptic.
What have they proven?
And, frankly, "better safety margins" is not it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409997</id>
	<title>New paths to space?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245592620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like what... DOWN, this time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like what... DOWN , this time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like what... DOWN, this time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413829</id>
	<title>Re:Current NASA Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1245580920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago,</p></div><p>Actually, it's not just technology that NASA had forty years ago, but it's also technology that a number of commercial companies possess today. For some bizarre reason though NASA (or at least certain parts of NASA's management) has a not-invented-here syndrome when it comes to manned spaceflight, and feels the need to spend a few dozen billion dollars to try to duplicate and compete with what the commercial sector can already provide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago,Actually , it 's not just technology that NASA had forty years ago , but it 's also technology that a number of commercial companies possess today .
For some bizarre reason though NASA ( or at least certain parts of NASA 's management ) has a not-invented-here syndrome when it comes to manned spaceflight , and feels the need to spend a few dozen billion dollars to try to duplicate and compete with what the commercial sector can already provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago,Actually, it's not just technology that NASA had forty years ago, but it's also technology that a number of commercial companies possess today.
For some bizarre reason though NASA (or at least certain parts of NASA's management) has a not-invented-here syndrome when it comes to manned spaceflight, and feels the need to spend a few dozen billion dollars to try to duplicate and compete with what the commercial sector can already provide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412051</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245610380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we have to make a choice between health care and building a moon base, I say go with the less expensive lift vehicles and health care.</p><p>The moon base will just have to wait.</p></div><p>That is the same thing they told me when they canceled Apollo 18, 19, 20.<br>40 years and the social programs still just need a little more time.<br>We have tried it your way and I have waited long enough sir.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we have to make a choice between health care and building a moon base , I say go with the less expensive lift vehicles and health care.The moon base will just have to wait.That is the same thing they told me when they canceled Apollo 18 , 19 , 20.40 years and the social programs still just need a little more time.We have tried it your way and I have waited long enough sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we have to make a choice between health care and building a moon base, I say go with the less expensive lift vehicles and health care.The moon base will just have to wait.That is the same thing they told me when they canceled Apollo 18, 19, 20.40 years and the social programs still just need a little more time.We have tried it your way and I have waited long enough sir.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411693</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather use NASA money for interesting paylo</title>
	<author>Graymalkin</author>
	<datestamp>1245607740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA's highest budget years (in today's dollars) were 1963-69 and topped out at 5.5\% of the federal budget. In the 70s this dropped to below 2\% then below 1\% where it stayed until the late 80s early 90s where it went back to 1\%. It then went back down below 1\% and has stayed there since. The total cost of Apollo was somewhere around $145b in today's dollars. For comparison the ISS is at about $150b with about $100b of that being paid by the US. The Interstate highway system between 1956 and 1991 cost about $500b and World War II cost about $288b. The Big Dig doesn't even come remotely close to these so your sense of scale is a little distorted. I wonder though which megaprojects do you think we should have taken on after Apollo but neglected to because we all decided to be pussies? Apollo only had as much funding and Congressional interest as it took to beat the USSR to the Moon. Once we landed there everyone stopped giving a shit and cut NASA's funding in half. Don't kid yourself, Apollo was an awesome project that advanced many fields of science significantly but it was undertaken as a dig swinging contest with the USSR.</p><p>In terms of rockets, while the Titans were a relatively dependable family they were expensive and dangerous. The current batch of EELVs beats the biggest Titan IV in lifting capability and price. I can't find any specifics on the Titan V's proposed payloads or costs but if they're anything like the Titan 3L2 and 3L4 studies done in the 60s they would have been expensive but impressive LVs. As it stands though the existing Delta IV and Altas V heavy variants are cheaper and have good lifting capacity. With nominal upgrades both EELVs can be man-rated and easily capable of both ISS and Lunar Orion launches. It would also mean that NASA is opening up a market for man-rated HLVs. This fulfills your proposal for opening a factory and building rockets on a massive scale. You're not going to see SBS systems any time soon as they're impractical to build and launch from Earth but there's a lot of missions that will become tenable if the cost of HLVs comes down due to demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA 's highest budget years ( in today 's dollars ) were 1963-69 and topped out at 5.5 \ % of the federal budget .
In the 70s this dropped to below 2 \ % then below 1 \ % where it stayed until the late 80s early 90s where it went back to 1 \ % .
It then went back down below 1 \ % and has stayed there since .
The total cost of Apollo was somewhere around $ 145b in today 's dollars .
For comparison the ISS is at about $ 150b with about $ 100b of that being paid by the US .
The Interstate highway system between 1956 and 1991 cost about $ 500b and World War II cost about $ 288b .
The Big Dig does n't even come remotely close to these so your sense of scale is a little distorted .
I wonder though which megaprojects do you think we should have taken on after Apollo but neglected to because we all decided to be pussies ?
Apollo only had as much funding and Congressional interest as it took to beat the USSR to the Moon .
Once we landed there everyone stopped giving a shit and cut NASA 's funding in half .
Do n't kid yourself , Apollo was an awesome project that advanced many fields of science significantly but it was undertaken as a dig swinging contest with the USSR.In terms of rockets , while the Titans were a relatively dependable family they were expensive and dangerous .
The current batch of EELVs beats the biggest Titan IV in lifting capability and price .
I ca n't find any specifics on the Titan V 's proposed payloads or costs but if they 're anything like the Titan 3L2 and 3L4 studies done in the 60s they would have been expensive but impressive LVs .
As it stands though the existing Delta IV and Altas V heavy variants are cheaper and have good lifting capacity .
With nominal upgrades both EELVs can be man-rated and easily capable of both ISS and Lunar Orion launches .
It would also mean that NASA is opening up a market for man-rated HLVs .
This fulfills your proposal for opening a factory and building rockets on a massive scale .
You 're not going to see SBS systems any time soon as they 're impractical to build and launch from Earth but there 's a lot of missions that will become tenable if the cost of HLVs comes down due to demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA's highest budget years (in today's dollars) were 1963-69 and topped out at 5.5\% of the federal budget.
In the 70s this dropped to below 2\% then below 1\% where it stayed until the late 80s early 90s where it went back to 1\%.
It then went back down below 1\% and has stayed there since.
The total cost of Apollo was somewhere around $145b in today's dollars.
For comparison the ISS is at about $150b with about $100b of that being paid by the US.
The Interstate highway system between 1956 and 1991 cost about $500b and World War II cost about $288b.
The Big Dig doesn't even come remotely close to these so your sense of scale is a little distorted.
I wonder though which megaprojects do you think we should have taken on after Apollo but neglected to because we all decided to be pussies?
Apollo only had as much funding and Congressional interest as it took to beat the USSR to the Moon.
Once we landed there everyone stopped giving a shit and cut NASA's funding in half.
Don't kid yourself, Apollo was an awesome project that advanced many fields of science significantly but it was undertaken as a dig swinging contest with the USSR.In terms of rockets, while the Titans were a relatively dependable family they were expensive and dangerous.
The current batch of EELVs beats the biggest Titan IV in lifting capability and price.
I can't find any specifics on the Titan V's proposed payloads or costs but if they're anything like the Titan 3L2 and 3L4 studies done in the 60s they would have been expensive but impressive LVs.
As it stands though the existing Delta IV and Altas V heavy variants are cheaper and have good lifting capacity.
With nominal upgrades both EELVs can be man-rated and easily capable of both ISS and Lunar Orion launches.
It would also mean that NASA is opening up a market for man-rated HLVs.
This fulfills your proposal for opening a factory and building rockets on a massive scale.
You're not going to see SBS systems any time soon as they're impractical to build and launch from Earth but there's a lot of missions that will become tenable if the cost of HLVs comes down due to demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28428039</id>
	<title>NASA should GIVE UP ROCKETS in favor of MAGLEV</title>
	<author>America2Inc</author>
	<datestamp>1245662280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New Book shows how NASA could completely ABANDON DANGEROUS and ECOLOGICALLY UNFRIENDLY ROCKETS and shift manned space ships to MAGLEV.

By repelling off of and attracting to Magnetic Fields placed strategically around the planet, space ships of the future could life off silently and with no environmental damage to the home planet.

Read and sign on to complete explanation of tomorrow's space flight by Science Fiction Author Michael Mathiesen at www.michaelmathiesen.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Book shows how NASA could completely ABANDON DANGEROUS and ECOLOGICALLY UNFRIENDLY ROCKETS and shift manned space ships to MAGLEV .
By repelling off of and attracting to Magnetic Fields placed strategically around the planet , space ships of the future could life off silently and with no environmental damage to the home planet .
Read and sign on to complete explanation of tomorrow 's space flight by Science Fiction Author Michael Mathiesen at www.michaelmathiesen.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Book shows how NASA could completely ABANDON DANGEROUS and ECOLOGICALLY UNFRIENDLY ROCKETS and shift manned space ships to MAGLEV.
By repelling off of and attracting to Magnetic Fields placed strategically around the planet, space ships of the future could life off silently and with no environmental damage to the home planet.
Read and sign on to complete explanation of tomorrow's space flight by Science Fiction Author Michael Mathiesen at www.michaelmathiesen.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28417865</id>
	<title>Re:HL-42</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1245701520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google "Dream Chaser" and SpaceDev to see a mini-shuttle being slowly developed by the company that supplied the hybrid rocket engines for Rutan's and Branson's SpaceShipOne.  The US Airforce is going to launch the X-37B, a miniature unmanned shuttle, in early 2010, on top of an Atlas V rocket.  It might take a few years yet, but I think that there might be at least a few mini-shuttles in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " Dream Chaser " and SpaceDev to see a mini-shuttle being slowly developed by the company that supplied the hybrid rocket engines for Rutan 's and Branson 's SpaceShipOne .
The US Airforce is going to launch the X-37B , a miniature unmanned shuttle , in early 2010 , on top of an Atlas V rocket .
It might take a few years yet , but I think that there might be at least a few mini-shuttles in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "Dream Chaser" and SpaceDev to see a mini-shuttle being slowly developed by the company that supplied the hybrid rocket engines for Rutan's and Branson's SpaceShipOne.
The US Airforce is going to launch the X-37B, a miniature unmanned shuttle, in early 2010, on top of an Atlas V rocket.
It might take a few years yet, but I think that there might be at least a few mini-shuttles in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055</id>
	<title>Re:Current NASA Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>turgid</author>
	<datestamp>1245593460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not NASA's fault that they lost the technology used to put the first people on the Moon. It's the fault of the government of the USA. They are the ones who set NASA's goals. They killed manned space exploration with the Space Shuttle, which was a compromise designed by committee for the purposes of putting up and bringing down spy satellites and to "build the space station."
</p><p>After the Challenger disaster (a direct consequence of the Shuttle's poor design), the spy satellites went up on different vehicles.
</p><p>How long did it take them to design a space station? It must have been the better part of a decade that they spent arguing about it before any of it got built.
</p><p>As people keep saying, they could have build it with about 3 launches of a Saturn V.
</p><p>The space shuttle is an over-engineered, fragile, over-complicated, unreliable piece of design by politics. It's an exemplary lesson in how not to design things.
</p><p>Politicians, as usual, ruined manned space exploration.
</p><p>But why should it be up to the Americans on their own to put human beings in space? Yes, Russia and China have done it, but I'm very ashamed that ESA hasn't done it yet.
</p><p>If China were to announce plans for a semi-permanently staffed Moon base by 2022, say, things would become interesting again. Go China.
</p><p>Russia should not be overlooked too. They have huge gas reserves, and if they stop being aggressive towards their potential customers, they could make huge amounts of money out of it to fund their space programme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not NASA 's fault that they lost the technology used to put the first people on the Moon .
It 's the fault of the government of the USA .
They are the ones who set NASA 's goals .
They killed manned space exploration with the Space Shuttle , which was a compromise designed by committee for the purposes of putting up and bringing down spy satellites and to " build the space station .
" After the Challenger disaster ( a direct consequence of the Shuttle 's poor design ) , the spy satellites went up on different vehicles .
How long did it take them to design a space station ?
It must have been the better part of a decade that they spent arguing about it before any of it got built .
As people keep saying , they could have build it with about 3 launches of a Saturn V . The space shuttle is an over-engineered , fragile , over-complicated , unreliable piece of design by politics .
It 's an exemplary lesson in how not to design things .
Politicians , as usual , ruined manned space exploration .
But why should it be up to the Americans on their own to put human beings in space ?
Yes , Russia and China have done it , but I 'm very ashamed that ESA has n't done it yet .
If China were to announce plans for a semi-permanently staffed Moon base by 2022 , say , things would become interesting again .
Go China .
Russia should not be overlooked too .
They have huge gas reserves , and if they stop being aggressive towards their potential customers , they could make huge amounts of money out of it to fund their space programme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not NASA's fault that they lost the technology used to put the first people on the Moon.
It's the fault of the government of the USA.
They are the ones who set NASA's goals.
They killed manned space exploration with the Space Shuttle, which was a compromise designed by committee for the purposes of putting up and bringing down spy satellites and to "build the space station.
"
After the Challenger disaster (a direct consequence of the Shuttle's poor design), the spy satellites went up on different vehicles.
How long did it take them to design a space station?
It must have been the better part of a decade that they spent arguing about it before any of it got built.
As people keep saying, they could have build it with about 3 launches of a Saturn V.
The space shuttle is an over-engineered, fragile, over-complicated, unreliable piece of design by politics.
It's an exemplary lesson in how not to design things.
Politicians, as usual, ruined manned space exploration.
But why should it be up to the Americans on their own to put human beings in space?
Yes, Russia and China have done it, but I'm very ashamed that ESA hasn't done it yet.
If China were to announce plans for a semi-permanently staffed Moon base by 2022, say, things would become interesting again.
Go China.
Russia should not be overlooked too.
They have huge gas reserves, and if they stop being aggressive towards their potential customers, they could make huge amounts of money out of it to fund their space programme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28424769</id>
	<title>Ares = engineering snafu designed by lobbyists</title>
	<author>spikeham</author>
	<datestamp>1245694380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The elephant in the room (which doesn't get enough attention) is that the Ares rocket design is fundamentally flawed due to politics taking precedence over engineering. The Ares first stage will be a solid rocket booster which not only is inherently less controllable than a liquid fueled rocket (since it can't be throttled), but also makes the whole vehicle aerodynamically unstable (since it has a smaller diameter than the upper stage). The proposed reusable solid first stage has the same segmented design that caused the Challenger shuttle explosion when inter-segment seals burned through. It may have problems with severe in-flight vibration which cannot be dealt with by throttling engine power, leading to absurd hacks involving giant shock absorbers. Why is this poor up front design being officially pitched by NASA? Because of the high-powered, big money political lobbying of Morton Thiokol, the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster producer, which saw its meal ticket vanishing with the Shuttle retirement. Why has every other human-rated rocket (aside from the Shuttle) been liquid fueled with progressively smaller stages? Because the engineers went with the best design instead of having key pieces decided a priori by senators with law degrees and pockets full of contractor dollars. It will be truly pathetic if NASA winds up with another unreliable, problematic, unsafe vehicle due to back-room lobbying by government contractors. NASA engineers realize the truth which is why they are openly calling for a better design concept. Morton Thiokol should be forced to independently build its own solid-fuel rocket and participate in a fair competition with other rocket designs instead of using back-channel politics to sell its products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The elephant in the room ( which does n't get enough attention ) is that the Ares rocket design is fundamentally flawed due to politics taking precedence over engineering .
The Ares first stage will be a solid rocket booster which not only is inherently less controllable than a liquid fueled rocket ( since it ca n't be throttled ) , but also makes the whole vehicle aerodynamically unstable ( since it has a smaller diameter than the upper stage ) .
The proposed reusable solid first stage has the same segmented design that caused the Challenger shuttle explosion when inter-segment seals burned through .
It may have problems with severe in-flight vibration which can not be dealt with by throttling engine power , leading to absurd hacks involving giant shock absorbers .
Why is this poor up front design being officially pitched by NASA ?
Because of the high-powered , big money political lobbying of Morton Thiokol , the Shuttle 's Solid Rocket Booster producer , which saw its meal ticket vanishing with the Shuttle retirement .
Why has every other human-rated rocket ( aside from the Shuttle ) been liquid fueled with progressively smaller stages ?
Because the engineers went with the best design instead of having key pieces decided a priori by senators with law degrees and pockets full of contractor dollars .
It will be truly pathetic if NASA winds up with another unreliable , problematic , unsafe vehicle due to back-room lobbying by government contractors .
NASA engineers realize the truth which is why they are openly calling for a better design concept .
Morton Thiokol should be forced to independently build its own solid-fuel rocket and participate in a fair competition with other rocket designs instead of using back-channel politics to sell its products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The elephant in the room (which doesn't get enough attention) is that the Ares rocket design is fundamentally flawed due to politics taking precedence over engineering.
The Ares first stage will be a solid rocket booster which not only is inherently less controllable than a liquid fueled rocket (since it can't be throttled), but also makes the whole vehicle aerodynamically unstable (since it has a smaller diameter than the upper stage).
The proposed reusable solid first stage has the same segmented design that caused the Challenger shuttle explosion when inter-segment seals burned through.
It may have problems with severe in-flight vibration which cannot be dealt with by throttling engine power, leading to absurd hacks involving giant shock absorbers.
Why is this poor up front design being officially pitched by NASA?
Because of the high-powered, big money political lobbying of Morton Thiokol, the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster producer, which saw its meal ticket vanishing with the Shuttle retirement.
Why has every other human-rated rocket (aside from the Shuttle) been liquid fueled with progressively smaller stages?
Because the engineers went with the best design instead of having key pieces decided a priori by senators with law degrees and pockets full of contractor dollars.
It will be truly pathetic if NASA winds up with another unreliable, problematic, unsafe vehicle due to back-room lobbying by government contractors.
NASA engineers realize the truth which is why they are openly calling for a better design concept.
Morton Thiokol should be forced to independently build its own solid-fuel rocket and participate in a fair competition with other rocket designs instead of using back-channel politics to sell its products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28436973</id>
	<title>Sea Dragon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245759960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sea Dragon will solve all the problems. It's the brute force approach. It's huge. It can throw a shuttle and then some. It's made in a shipyard by submarine welders. It's brutally simple.</p><p>Why the hell haven't we built it yet? Because it isn't sexy, it isn't bleeding edge, it isn't high performance, and it isn't high tech, all of which are wrapped up in the high tech image of aerospace manufacturing. Look at the russians, building dirt simple equipment that works, for ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sea Dragon will solve all the problems .
It 's the brute force approach .
It 's huge .
It can throw a shuttle and then some .
It 's made in a shipyard by submarine welders .
It 's brutally simple.Why the hell have n't we built it yet ?
Because it is n't sexy , it is n't bleeding edge , it is n't high performance , and it is n't high tech , all of which are wrapped up in the high tech image of aerospace manufacturing .
Look at the russians , building dirt simple equipment that works , for ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sea Dragon will solve all the problems.
It's the brute force approach.
It's huge.
It can throw a shuttle and then some.
It's made in a shipyard by submarine welders.
It's brutally simple.Why the hell haven't we built it yet?
Because it isn't sexy, it isn't bleeding edge, it isn't high performance, and it isn't high tech, all of which are wrapped up in the high tech image of aerospace manufacturing.
Look at the russians, building dirt simple equipment that works, for ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28422547</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>Delphinus100</author>
	<datestamp>1245686820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel."

"Reusable capsule" is almost an oxymoron. And the cost of fuel (or oxidizer) is not what makes this expensive.

Some rocket designs burn essentially the same high-grade kerosene that jet engines do, but commercial airlines have vehicles that can be turned around to fly again within an hour (and a demand that requires it) and nowhere near the number of support personnel per aircraft that launchers do. Only the DC-X came close (and it was suborbital, but an orbital version might only have needed one or two more people for TPS inspection)

"Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible."

In spite of all that's gone before, between Shuttle and Orion, it will be impossible for the US to do so.

"Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible."

In spite of all that's gone before, it's impossible to do at this moment. Both of those facts are pretty sad, for the year 2009.

"It's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere."

Until we have the vehicles (and that means RLVs) and infrastructure get to LEO on a regular, economical, reliable basis (and preferably the same for the Moon), building 'habitats elsewhere' will be an unsustainable effort.

Otherwise, my fear is that, like Apollo, we may finally get to Mars and after a few successes, support will dry up again. Bringing operational costs down enough to stay below the government funding radar as much as possible (Does anyone even ask how much Antarctic research costs? Transport and operation there is done with well-matured, low cost [compared to current spaceflight] technologies.) and bring in private companies as much as possible.

If you don't leave a robust space transportation infrastructure behind as you expand outwards (and Mars won't be the end of the line, either), it'll be like a wine glass. You're putting a lot, on a fragile, narrow stem...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel .
" " Reusable capsule " is almost an oxymoron .
And the cost of fuel ( or oxidizer ) is not what makes this expensive .
Some rocket designs burn essentially the same high-grade kerosene that jet engines do , but commercial airlines have vehicles that can be turned around to fly again within an hour ( and a demand that requires it ) and nowhere near the number of support personnel per aircraft that launchers do .
Only the DC-X came close ( and it was suborbital , but an orbital version might only have needed one or two more people for TPS inspection ) " Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible .
" In spite of all that 's gone before , between Shuttle and Orion , it will be impossible for the US to do so .
" Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible .
" In spite of all that 's gone before , it 's impossible to do at this moment .
Both of those facts are pretty sad , for the year 2009 .
" It 's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere .
" Until we have the vehicles ( and that means RLVs ) and infrastructure get to LEO on a regular , economical , reliable basis ( and preferably the same for the Moon ) , building 'habitats elsewhere ' will be an unsustainable effort .
Otherwise , my fear is that , like Apollo , we may finally get to Mars and after a few successes , support will dry up again .
Bringing operational costs down enough to stay below the government funding radar as much as possible ( Does anyone even ask how much Antarctic research costs ?
Transport and operation there is done with well-matured , low cost [ compared to current spaceflight ] technologies .
) and bring in private companies as much as possible .
If you do n't leave a robust space transportation infrastructure behind as you expand outwards ( and Mars wo n't be the end of the line , either ) , it 'll be like a wine glass .
You 're putting a lot , on a fragile , narrow stem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel.
"

"Reusable capsule" is almost an oxymoron.
And the cost of fuel (or oxidizer) is not what makes this expensive.
Some rocket designs burn essentially the same high-grade kerosene that jet engines do, but commercial airlines have vehicles that can be turned around to fly again within an hour (and a demand that requires it) and nowhere near the number of support personnel per aircraft that launchers do.
Only the DC-X came close (and it was suborbital, but an orbital version might only have needed one or two more people for TPS inspection)

"Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible.
"

In spite of all that's gone before, between Shuttle and Orion, it will be impossible for the US to do so.
"Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible.
"

In spite of all that's gone before, it's impossible to do at this moment.
Both of those facts are pretty sad, for the year 2009.
"It's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere.
"

Until we have the vehicles (and that means RLVs) and infrastructure get to LEO on a regular, economical, reliable basis (and preferably the same for the Moon), building 'habitats elsewhere' will be an unsustainable effort.
Otherwise, my fear is that, like Apollo, we may finally get to Mars and after a few successes, support will dry up again.
Bringing operational costs down enough to stay below the government funding radar as much as possible (Does anyone even ask how much Antarctic research costs?
Transport and operation there is done with well-matured, low cost [compared to current spaceflight] technologies.
) and bring in private companies as much as possible.
If you don't leave a robust space transportation infrastructure behind as you expand outwards (and Mars won't be the end of the line, either), it'll be like a wine glass.
You're putting a lot, on a fragile, narrow stem...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410215</id>
	<title>Stephen Baxter predicted these times a decade ago.</title>
	<author>isolationism</author>
	<datestamp>1245595200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Manifold series predicted many of the problems we have here today; the aging Shuttle fleet, the private entrepreneurs trying to step up to the plate to supply heavy lifting capability, and all the political BS from "The Gun Club" (NASA) cock-blocking the private entrepreneurs.<br> <br>

There's also no small mention of how asteroids are flying goldmines. If we want to head off-planet, it would be wise to take advantage of resources that aren't already at the bottom of a gravity well that costs what, $30,000/lb. to LEO?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Manifold series predicted many of the problems we have here today ; the aging Shuttle fleet , the private entrepreneurs trying to step up to the plate to supply heavy lifting capability , and all the political BS from " The Gun Club " ( NASA ) cock-blocking the private entrepreneurs .
There 's also no small mention of how asteroids are flying goldmines .
If we want to head off-planet , it would be wise to take advantage of resources that are n't already at the bottom of a gravity well that costs what , $ 30,000/lb .
to LEO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Manifold series predicted many of the problems we have here today; the aging Shuttle fleet, the private entrepreneurs trying to step up to the plate to supply heavy lifting capability, and all the political BS from "The Gun Club" (NASA) cock-blocking the private entrepreneurs.
There's also no small mention of how asteroids are flying goldmines.
If we want to head off-planet, it would be wise to take advantage of resources that aren't already at the bottom of a gravity well that costs what, $30,000/lb.
to LEO?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28414731</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1245588780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meanwhile you sound like a 15th century mandarin writing home from one of China's treasure fleets. Sure abandoning space will cost humanity greatly, but an ineffective and costly exploration program is a prelude to such abandonment. Do you want us to get into space or do you want to whine for the rest of your life? I don't want to listen to the whining myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile you sound like a 15th century mandarin writing home from one of China 's treasure fleets .
Sure abandoning space will cost humanity greatly , but an ineffective and costly exploration program is a prelude to such abandonment .
Do you want us to get into space or do you want to whine for the rest of your life ?
I do n't want to listen to the whining myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile you sound like a 15th century mandarin writing home from one of China's treasure fleets.
Sure abandoning space will cost humanity greatly, but an ineffective and costly exploration program is a prelude to such abandonment.
Do you want us to get into space or do you want to whine for the rest of your life?
I don't want to listen to the whining myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410265</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather use NASA money for interesting paylo</title>
	<author>Celc</author>
	<datestamp>1245595860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's a grand project you want I suggest you go manhattan-project on fusion power, the costs would be enormous and the benefit likewise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's a grand project you want I suggest you go manhattan-project on fusion power , the costs would be enormous and the benefit likewise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's a grand project you want I suggest you go manhattan-project on fusion power, the costs would be enormous and the benefit likewise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410369</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1245596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the mess which is health care reimbursements is based on Medicare/Medicaid schedules -- what is allowed and what is not. And the regulations which in reality force my insurance to cover only what Medicare thinks is important. Excuse me, I am not an old person or a welfare recipient. My health care requirements are quite different.<br> <br>Health care problems don't require funding, they require the political courage to fix regulations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the mess which is health care reimbursements is based on Medicare/Medicaid schedules -- what is allowed and what is not .
And the regulations which in reality force my insurance to cover only what Medicare thinks is important .
Excuse me , I am not an old person or a welfare recipient .
My health care requirements are quite different .
Health care problems do n't require funding , they require the political courage to fix regulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the mess which is health care reimbursements is based on Medicare/Medicaid schedules -- what is allowed and what is not.
And the regulations which in reality force my insurance to cover only what Medicare thinks is important.
Excuse me, I am not an old person or a welfare recipient.
My health care requirements are quite different.
Health care problems don't require funding, they require the political courage to fix regulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410119</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather use NASA money for interesting paylo</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245594180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that would cost us nearly as much as one month of war. Sorry, can't do that. Have to murder people, and be called "a true hero" by everyone. Including the commentators on the Colbert Report full episode site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that would cost us nearly as much as one month of war .
Sorry , ca n't do that .
Have to murder people , and be called " a true hero " by everyone .
Including the commentators on the Colbert Report full episode site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that would cost us nearly as much as one month of war.
Sorry, can't do that.
Have to murder people, and be called "a true hero" by everyone.
Including the commentators on the Colbert Report full episode site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410679</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1245599280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm not entirely sure you are correct about the need to put a man on the Moon.   You see, it's not <em>us</em> with the t-shirt, it's us wearing our <em>parents'</em> t-shirt.  For a lot of us it's <em>grannie's</em> t-shirt.</p><p>When China puts a man on the Moon, they'll be making a statement: America doesn't do this sort of thing anymore.   They're coasting.   Look to <em>us</em> for leadership and vision.</p><p>True, doing something that had never been done before would be even better for that purpose, but still they'll be doing something we don't currently have the capability or will to do.  Unless we have something <em>different</em> to answer this with ("look at us, we just found a cure for influenza!"),  China's claim will be credible enough to be worth the effort of going there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm not entirely sure you are correct about the need to put a man on the Moon .
You see , it 's not us with the t-shirt , it 's us wearing our parents ' t-shirt .
For a lot of us it 's grannie 's t-shirt.When China puts a man on the Moon , they 'll be making a statement : America does n't do this sort of thing anymore .
They 're coasting .
Look to us for leadership and vision.True , doing something that had never been done before would be even better for that purpose , but still they 'll be doing something we do n't currently have the capability or will to do .
Unless we have something different to answer this with ( " look at us , we just found a cure for influenza !
" ) , China 's claim will be credible enough to be worth the effort of going there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm not entirely sure you are correct about the need to put a man on the Moon.
You see, it's not us with the t-shirt, it's us wearing our parents' t-shirt.
For a lot of us it's grannie's t-shirt.When China puts a man on the Moon, they'll be making a statement: America doesn't do this sort of thing anymore.
They're coasting.
Look to us for leadership and vision.True, doing something that had never been done before would be even better for that purpose, but still they'll be doing something we don't currently have the capability or will to do.
Unless we have something different to answer this with ("look at us, we just found a cure for influenza!
"),  China's claim will be credible enough to be worth the effort of going there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413207</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1245576060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that would be the BIGGEST mistake that we would ever make. Health care can be addressed WHEN WE CHOSE TO. Sadly, we have too many big business in this. The reason of pushing for the moon and beyond is because of LIMITED RESOURCES. Do not tell me that we do not have limited resources. We have lots of rare earth items that are found in various countries that are currently being grabbed by CHina. Down the road, the west will not have access to many elements that we will need. The simple fact is that it will lead to WAR if we stay here and do what you propose. INSTEAD, we should get on the moon and/or mars ASAP. In particular, if going for the moon, we should be building several mag-rail launchers on there. If designed right, These could LITERALLY THROW a sat into a fast path out into the outer solar system to explore a number of asteroids. Add vasmir on these, and we have the ability to send sats throughout our solar system to explore and look for potential resources. Once we find a number of promising asteroids loaded with minerals, then we put a vasmir on it, slow it down, and allow the sun to pull it towards earth. Once started, then vasmir can speed things up. By sending minerals our way, we could have cheap resources and avoid future wars.<br> <br>
Americans, even the west, USE to think long term. Since 1980, we have been HORRIBLY short-sighted. Time to change for the good of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that would be the BIGGEST mistake that we would ever make .
Health care can be addressed WHEN WE CHOSE TO .
Sadly , we have too many big business in this .
The reason of pushing for the moon and beyond is because of LIMITED RESOURCES .
Do not tell me that we do not have limited resources .
We have lots of rare earth items that are found in various countries that are currently being grabbed by CHina .
Down the road , the west will not have access to many elements that we will need .
The simple fact is that it will lead to WAR if we stay here and do what you propose .
INSTEAD , we should get on the moon and/or mars ASAP .
In particular , if going for the moon , we should be building several mag-rail launchers on there .
If designed right , These could LITERALLY THROW a sat into a fast path out into the outer solar system to explore a number of asteroids .
Add vasmir on these , and we have the ability to send sats throughout our solar system to explore and look for potential resources .
Once we find a number of promising asteroids loaded with minerals , then we put a vasmir on it , slow it down , and allow the sun to pull it towards earth .
Once started , then vasmir can speed things up .
By sending minerals our way , we could have cheap resources and avoid future wars .
Americans , even the west , USE to think long term .
Since 1980 , we have been HORRIBLY short-sighted .
Time to change for the good of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that would be the BIGGEST mistake that we would ever make.
Health care can be addressed WHEN WE CHOSE TO.
Sadly, we have too many big business in this.
The reason of pushing for the moon and beyond is because of LIMITED RESOURCES.
Do not tell me that we do not have limited resources.
We have lots of rare earth items that are found in various countries that are currently being grabbed by CHina.
Down the road, the west will not have access to many elements that we will need.
The simple fact is that it will lead to WAR if we stay here and do what you propose.
INSTEAD, we should get on the moon and/or mars ASAP.
In particular, if going for the moon, we should be building several mag-rail launchers on there.
If designed right, These could LITERALLY THROW a sat into a fast path out into the outer solar system to explore a number of asteroids.
Add vasmir on these, and we have the ability to send sats throughout our solar system to explore and look for potential resources.
Once we find a number of promising asteroids loaded with minerals, then we put a vasmir on it, slow it down, and allow the sun to pull it towards earth.
Once started, then vasmir can speed things up.
By sending minerals our way, we could have cheap resources and avoid future wars.
Americans, even the west, USE to think long term.
Since 1980, we have been HORRIBLY short-sighted.
Time to change for the good of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412361</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>blitziod</author>
	<datestamp>1245612300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>see but it is not...when is the last time anybody here in the US was denied health care? not in a long time.  Even if you are uninsured, you get treatment.  The real problem with the healthcare system is political.  We have less healthcare personal per 1000 people than we have in years.  This creates an artificial shortage of supply and keeps prices climbing.  If Obama wants to fix healthcare he will have to fix this flaw.  He is not even talking about it, so i doubt it will be done.  Instead he is using this problem to accomplish political goals that will not do much for healthcare.

Fix healthcare? How about we create MORE doctors.  I am not talking about clones here, but just by doubling the number of medical schools( or the capacity of ones we already have) in the next 10 years.  You want to talk about creating new jobs, ok well lets make new doctors not new burger flippers! Same thing with nurses and other medical jobs.

We need to fix malpractice insurance.  If you want to socialize a part of medicine i saw start here.  Currently most medical bills are paid by insurance companies.  All malpractice pemiums are paid to insurance companies.  And frankly as the AIG disaster has taught us, at the higher levels most insurance is owned by very few companies.  Malpractice insurance is a scam where insurance companies  PAY THEMSELVES for our healthcare thus driving the price up for anybody not in there system.  Malpractice insurance costs healthcare providers 30\% or more of there gross. Cut that in half and you reduce costs by 7\% and much more in some areas( obstitricians get fleeced).  Also  you remove a huge reason why many smart people do not want to practice medicine.

If healthcare is a national interest more than other industries, why not fund Dr education more? I mean if I can make more money with an MBA and it is easier to get into an MBA program and CHEAPER to pay my loans back if i get an MBA, why the fuck go to med school and work a lot harder for less cheese?  How about we say ok, you wanna be a doctor..the top 20\%( or 50\% or 10\% i am not sure what number to use here but we can come up with one based on need) of all premed students, provided they can make decent grades in the entry exams, get automatic  admission to a med school.  If the school is full we MAKE MORE CAPACITY.    Then we say "Ok new doctor we know you owe 250K in student loans and that there are many dr's out there starting practice so the job market aint what it was in the 90's BUT we are gonna help you out.  You agree to practice at this special fee structure for Y number of years and we will forgive those student loans.  Also after your loans are paid off if we still need you, cuz we don;t want the poor to have only new dr's you keep the fee structure and pay NO TAXES!!!You damn glad you didn't go to law school now !</htmltext>
<tokenext>see but it is not...when is the last time anybody here in the US was denied health care ?
not in a long time .
Even if you are uninsured , you get treatment .
The real problem with the healthcare system is political .
We have less healthcare personal per 1000 people than we have in years .
This creates an artificial shortage of supply and keeps prices climbing .
If Obama wants to fix healthcare he will have to fix this flaw .
He is not even talking about it , so i doubt it will be done .
Instead he is using this problem to accomplish political goals that will not do much for healthcare .
Fix healthcare ?
How about we create MORE doctors .
I am not talking about clones here , but just by doubling the number of medical schools ( or the capacity of ones we already have ) in the next 10 years .
You want to talk about creating new jobs , ok well lets make new doctors not new burger flippers !
Same thing with nurses and other medical jobs .
We need to fix malpractice insurance .
If you want to socialize a part of medicine i saw start here .
Currently most medical bills are paid by insurance companies .
All malpractice pemiums are paid to insurance companies .
And frankly as the AIG disaster has taught us , at the higher levels most insurance is owned by very few companies .
Malpractice insurance is a scam where insurance companies PAY THEMSELVES for our healthcare thus driving the price up for anybody not in there system .
Malpractice insurance costs healthcare providers 30 \ % or more of there gross .
Cut that in half and you reduce costs by 7 \ % and much more in some areas ( obstitricians get fleeced ) .
Also you remove a huge reason why many smart people do not want to practice medicine .
If healthcare is a national interest more than other industries , why not fund Dr education more ?
I mean if I can make more money with an MBA and it is easier to get into an MBA program and CHEAPER to pay my loans back if i get an MBA , why the fuck go to med school and work a lot harder for less cheese ?
How about we say ok , you wan na be a doctor..the top 20 \ % ( or 50 \ % or 10 \ % i am not sure what number to use here but we can come up with one based on need ) of all premed students , provided they can make decent grades in the entry exams , get automatic admission to a med school .
If the school is full we MAKE MORE CAPACITY .
Then we say " Ok new doctor we know you owe 250K in student loans and that there are many dr 's out there starting practice so the job market aint what it was in the 90 's BUT we are gon na help you out .
You agree to practice at this special fee structure for Y number of years and we will forgive those student loans .
Also after your loans are paid off if we still need you , cuz we don ; t want the poor to have only new dr 's you keep the fee structure and pay NO TAXES ! !
! You damn glad you did n't go to law school now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see but it is not...when is the last time anybody here in the US was denied health care?
not in a long time.
Even if you are uninsured, you get treatment.
The real problem with the healthcare system is political.
We have less healthcare personal per 1000 people than we have in years.
This creates an artificial shortage of supply and keeps prices climbing.
If Obama wants to fix healthcare he will have to fix this flaw.
He is not even talking about it, so i doubt it will be done.
Instead he is using this problem to accomplish political goals that will not do much for healthcare.
Fix healthcare?
How about we create MORE doctors.
I am not talking about clones here, but just by doubling the number of medical schools( or the capacity of ones we already have) in the next 10 years.
You want to talk about creating new jobs, ok well lets make new doctors not new burger flippers!
Same thing with nurses and other medical jobs.
We need to fix malpractice insurance.
If you want to socialize a part of medicine i saw start here.
Currently most medical bills are paid by insurance companies.
All malpractice pemiums are paid to insurance companies.
And frankly as the AIG disaster has taught us, at the higher levels most insurance is owned by very few companies.
Malpractice insurance is a scam where insurance companies  PAY THEMSELVES for our healthcare thus driving the price up for anybody not in there system.
Malpractice insurance costs healthcare providers 30\% or more of there gross.
Cut that in half and you reduce costs by 7\% and much more in some areas( obstitricians get fleeced).
Also  you remove a huge reason why many smart people do not want to practice medicine.
If healthcare is a national interest more than other industries, why not fund Dr education more?
I mean if I can make more money with an MBA and it is easier to get into an MBA program and CHEAPER to pay my loans back if i get an MBA, why the fuck go to med school and work a lot harder for less cheese?
How about we say ok, you wanna be a doctor..the top 20\%( or 50\% or 10\% i am not sure what number to use here but we can come up with one based on need) of all premed students, provided they can make decent grades in the entry exams, get automatic  admission to a med school.
If the school is full we MAKE MORE CAPACITY.
Then we say "Ok new doctor we know you owe 250K in student loans and that there are many dr's out there starting practice so the job market aint what it was in the 90's BUT we are gonna help you out.
You agree to practice at this special fee structure for Y number of years and we will forgive those student loans.
Also after your loans are paid off if we still need you, cuz we don;t want the poor to have only new dr's you keep the fee structure and pay NO TAXES!!
!You damn glad you didn't go to law school now !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28419593</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>FTWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1245673500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know fine well that columbus's motivations were inherently financial - he was seeking a new trade route to the far east.
<br> <br>
While I would love to see a greater human expansion beyond LEO, if its done wrong, without the proper infrastructure, <i>it will fail!</i> And I for one don't want to see that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know fine well that columbus 's motivations were inherently financial - he was seeking a new trade route to the far east .
While I would love to see a greater human expansion beyond LEO , if its done wrong , without the proper infrastructure , it will fail !
And I for one do n't want to see that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know fine well that columbus's motivations were inherently financial - he was seeking a new trade route to the far east.
While I would love to see a greater human expansion beyond LEO, if its done wrong, without the proper infrastructure, it will fail!
And I for one don't want to see that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28424163</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>AdamThor</author>
	<datestamp>1245692280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> My view is that the economics are the chief obstacle to space development and exploration.</i></p><p>ORBITAL SOLAR ENERGY.</p><p>Unless you know of a lower-barrier project that has direct financial output.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My view is that the economics are the chief obstacle to space development and exploration.ORBITAL SOLAR ENERGY.Unless you know of a lower-barrier project that has direct financial output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> My view is that the economics are the chief obstacle to space development and exploration.ORBITAL SOLAR ENERGY.Unless you know of a lower-barrier project that has direct financial output.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</id>
	<title>Men on the moon</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245589920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really ought to be way past the phase of getting wet in the crotch about putting a man on the moon. We've got the t-shirt already.</p><p>What we ought to be looking at is beginning construction of a moon base and the development of the infrastructure to perform longhaul transport back and forth from the Earth to the Moon. That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel.</p><p>If the original space race taught us anything, it's that there is a lot of prestige in doing the impossible. Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible. Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible. It's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really ought to be way past the phase of getting wet in the crotch about putting a man on the moon .
We 've got the t-shirt already.What we ought to be looking at is beginning construction of a moon base and the development of the infrastructure to perform longhaul transport back and forth from the Earth to the Moon .
That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel.If the original space race taught us anything , it 's that there is a lot of prestige in doing the impossible .
Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible .
Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible .
It 's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really ought to be way past the phase of getting wet in the crotch about putting a man on the moon.
We've got the t-shirt already.What we ought to be looking at is beginning construction of a moon base and the development of the infrastructure to perform longhaul transport back and forth from the Earth to the Moon.
That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel.If the original space race taught us anything, it's that there is a lot of prestige in doing the impossible.
Putting a man into orbit is now not impossible.
Putting a man on the moon is now not impossible.
It's time to look beyond that towards building habitats elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28414263</id>
	<title>NASA presentation ignored committee's objectives</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1245584580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those unfamiliar, the White House panel (the "Augustine Commission" on human spaceflight plans) was given the following objectives in their <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/about/charter.html" title="nasa.gov">charter</a> [nasa.gov]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight &#226;" one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable. The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle. The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives:</p><p>a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS);</p><p>b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO);</p><p>c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and</p><p>d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, as the "Restore the Vision" blog notes, while the presentations by SpaceX and ULA (maker of the EELVs) addressed these issues, NASA's Constellation presentation largely ignoring these objectives:</p><p><a href="http://restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/06/thoughts-on-june-17-human-space-flight.html" title="blogspot.com">http://restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/06/thoughts-on-june-17-human-space-flight.html</a> [blogspot.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>On "expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS)", the Constellation presentation was silent. It mentioned having ISS crew transport by 2015, the current goal, and how they'd made changes to improve confidence they'd meet that date (eg: reducing initial crew size to 4 on ISS missions). However, "expedite" doesn't mean "increase confidence you'll make the current late date". It means "accelerate the process or progress of : speed up". The presentation doesn't suggest any ways to have Ares/Orion ready for ISS transport by, say, 2013, nor does it suggest any ways to have any other U.S. system ready by that time.</p><p>Even former NASA Administrator Griffin always claimed that Ares/Orion was only meant as a backup for ISS support, and commercial transportation services were the intended route. Thus the natural inclination should be for NASA management to encourage commercial services to take on that role. The Constellation presentation could have suggested a COTS-D or similar competition for human transportation services, or some other means to get commercial vendors working on basic ISS transportation. Then Constellation could concentrate on the Moon and Beyond. Alternately, the presentation could have suggested ways to alter Ares/Orion to be ready by 2013. It did neither.</p><p><b>On "stimulating commercial space flight capability", again the Constellation presentation was silent.</b> It has a line about "promoting international and commercial participation in exploration", but no details on what that participation is. Where is this participation in the plan? <b>The original goal of the Vision for Space Exploration was for launch support to be done commercially, except perhaps for heavy lift, if needed. Where is that in the plan?</b> The presentation didn't suggest that any of the components of the Constellation architecture be implemented commercially. There's a picture on "Future Exploration Capabilities" with an Ares V linked to some "Commercial and Civil LEO" spacecraft, but what commercial activity is going to be launched by Ares V? There's a slide on "Economic Impact: Contractor" and others on billions of dollars of prime contract value (as if high cost is a virtue), but that's not commercial, it's government contracts. If a contractor is going to sell commercial services enabled by its government contracts, I'm willing to call that commercial, but how much of this Constellation contract work fits that description?</p><p>One gets the impression that commercial services are left for some distant future generation, after Constellation has become operational and the NASA base is constructed. Then, if the future NASA is so inclined, there might be some room for a little commercial supply to give NASA some room to work towards Mars.</p><p>Finally, on "fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities", the Constellation presentation is once again silent. There are notes about how "development and operations costs must be minimized", how life cycle costs are reduced, and so on, but the point isn't whether or not Constellation is straining really hard to reduce costs. The key question is: Does Constellation fit within the current budget profile? The budget profile is what it is. If, as former NASA Administrator Griffin has suggested, Constellation doesn't fit within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities, Constellation needs to change to fit, or be replaced. Either show that you fit the profile, or what changes will allow you to fit the profile. The Constellation presentation didn't do that.</p><p>Fitting the current budget profile is a key point. All sorts of trends suggest that the budget will continue to be difficult for NASA exploration in the years ahead, just as was often noted by many commentators starting in 2005. Note the wider political, budget, and demographic trends. Note the charter of the Human Spaceflight Review Committee, which opens up a real possibility of shifting exploration resources from Constellation proper to ISS support after 2016, expediting ISS support (shrinking the gap), and R&amp;D plus robotic exploration activities that complement astronaut exploration. <b>There's a lot of justification for these potential budget shifts, so it's important for the astronaut transport plan to fit within a budget that allows a sufficient amount of such actitivies.</b> Fitting the current budget profile is just a start in that direction.</p><p><b>In contrast to the Constellation presentation, the EELV presentation addresses the central HSR key objectives head on, showing how it can fit the budget, expedite ISS support, implement Moon missions, and work commercially. It would be interesting to see if the ULA is willing to put "skin in the game" and also to not get funding until milestones are reached, similar to the COTS A-C arrangement.</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those unfamiliar , the White House panel ( the " Augustine Commission " on human spaceflight plans ) was given the following objectives in their charter [ nasa.gov ] : The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs , as well as alternatives , to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight   " one that is safe , innovative , affordable , and sustainable .
The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle .
The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives : a ) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station ( ISS ) ; b ) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit ( LEO ) ; c ) stimulating commercial space flight capability ; andd ) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.Unfortunately , as the " Restore the Vision " blog notes , while the presentations by SpaceX and ULA ( maker of the EELVs ) addressed these issues , NASA 's Constellation presentation largely ignoring these objectives : http : //restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/06/thoughts-on-june-17-human-space-flight.html [ blogspot.com ] On " expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station ( ISS ) " , the Constellation presentation was silent .
It mentioned having ISS crew transport by 2015 , the current goal , and how they 'd made changes to improve confidence they 'd meet that date ( eg : reducing initial crew size to 4 on ISS missions ) .
However , " expedite " does n't mean " increase confidence you 'll make the current late date " .
It means " accelerate the process or progress of : speed up " .
The presentation does n't suggest any ways to have Ares/Orion ready for ISS transport by , say , 2013 , nor does it suggest any ways to have any other U.S. system ready by that time.Even former NASA Administrator Griffin always claimed that Ares/Orion was only meant as a backup for ISS support , and commercial transportation services were the intended route .
Thus the natural inclination should be for NASA management to encourage commercial services to take on that role .
The Constellation presentation could have suggested a COTS-D or similar competition for human transportation services , or some other means to get commercial vendors working on basic ISS transportation .
Then Constellation could concentrate on the Moon and Beyond .
Alternately , the presentation could have suggested ways to alter Ares/Orion to be ready by 2013 .
It did neither.On " stimulating commercial space flight capability " , again the Constellation presentation was silent .
It has a line about " promoting international and commercial participation in exploration " , but no details on what that participation is .
Where is this participation in the plan ?
The original goal of the Vision for Space Exploration was for launch support to be done commercially , except perhaps for heavy lift , if needed .
Where is that in the plan ?
The presentation did n't suggest that any of the components of the Constellation architecture be implemented commercially .
There 's a picture on " Future Exploration Capabilities " with an Ares V linked to some " Commercial and Civil LEO " spacecraft , but what commercial activity is going to be launched by Ares V ?
There 's a slide on " Economic Impact : Contractor " and others on billions of dollars of prime contract value ( as if high cost is a virtue ) , but that 's not commercial , it 's government contracts .
If a contractor is going to sell commercial services enabled by its government contracts , I 'm willing to call that commercial , but how much of this Constellation contract work fits that description ? One gets the impression that commercial services are left for some distant future generation , after Constellation has become operational and the NASA base is constructed .
Then , if the future NASA is so inclined , there might be some room for a little commercial supply to give NASA some room to work towards Mars.Finally , on " fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities " , the Constellation presentation is once again silent .
There are notes about how " development and operations costs must be minimized " , how life cycle costs are reduced , and so on , but the point is n't whether or not Constellation is straining really hard to reduce costs .
The key question is : Does Constellation fit within the current budget profile ?
The budget profile is what it is .
If , as former NASA Administrator Griffin has suggested , Constellation does n't fit within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities , Constellation needs to change to fit , or be replaced .
Either show that you fit the profile , or what changes will allow you to fit the profile .
The Constellation presentation did n't do that.Fitting the current budget profile is a key point .
All sorts of trends suggest that the budget will continue to be difficult for NASA exploration in the years ahead , just as was often noted by many commentators starting in 2005 .
Note the wider political , budget , and demographic trends .
Note the charter of the Human Spaceflight Review Committee , which opens up a real possibility of shifting exploration resources from Constellation proper to ISS support after 2016 , expediting ISS support ( shrinking the gap ) , and R&amp;D plus robotic exploration activities that complement astronaut exploration .
There 's a lot of justification for these potential budget shifts , so it 's important for the astronaut transport plan to fit within a budget that allows a sufficient amount of such actitivies .
Fitting the current budget profile is just a start in that direction.In contrast to the Constellation presentation , the EELV presentation addresses the central HSR key objectives head on , showing how it can fit the budget , expedite ISS support , implement Moon missions , and work commercially .
It would be interesting to see if the ULA is willing to put " skin in the game " and also to not get funding until milestones are reached , similar to the COTS A-C arrangement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those unfamiliar, the White House panel (the "Augustine Commission" on human spaceflight plans) was given the following objectives in their charter [nasa.gov]:The Committee shall conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight â" one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable.
The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle.
The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives:a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS);b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO);c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; andd) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.Unfortunately, as the "Restore the Vision" blog notes, while the presentations by SpaceX and ULA (maker of the EELVs) addressed these issues, NASA's Constellation presentation largely ignoring these objectives:http://restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/06/thoughts-on-june-17-human-space-flight.html [blogspot.com] On "expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS)", the Constellation presentation was silent.
It mentioned having ISS crew transport by 2015, the current goal, and how they'd made changes to improve confidence they'd meet that date (eg: reducing initial crew size to 4 on ISS missions).
However, "expedite" doesn't mean "increase confidence you'll make the current late date".
It means "accelerate the process or progress of : speed up".
The presentation doesn't suggest any ways to have Ares/Orion ready for ISS transport by, say, 2013, nor does it suggest any ways to have any other U.S. system ready by that time.Even former NASA Administrator Griffin always claimed that Ares/Orion was only meant as a backup for ISS support, and commercial transportation services were the intended route.
Thus the natural inclination should be for NASA management to encourage commercial services to take on that role.
The Constellation presentation could have suggested a COTS-D or similar competition for human transportation services, or some other means to get commercial vendors working on basic ISS transportation.
Then Constellation could concentrate on the Moon and Beyond.
Alternately, the presentation could have suggested ways to alter Ares/Orion to be ready by 2013.
It did neither.On "stimulating commercial space flight capability", again the Constellation presentation was silent.
It has a line about "promoting international and commercial participation in exploration", but no details on what that participation is.
Where is this participation in the plan?
The original goal of the Vision for Space Exploration was for launch support to be done commercially, except perhaps for heavy lift, if needed.
Where is that in the plan?
The presentation didn't suggest that any of the components of the Constellation architecture be implemented commercially.
There's a picture on "Future Exploration Capabilities" with an Ares V linked to some "Commercial and Civil LEO" spacecraft, but what commercial activity is going to be launched by Ares V?
There's a slide on "Economic Impact: Contractor" and others on billions of dollars of prime contract value (as if high cost is a virtue), but that's not commercial, it's government contracts.
If a contractor is going to sell commercial services enabled by its government contracts, I'm willing to call that commercial, but how much of this Constellation contract work fits that description?One gets the impression that commercial services are left for some distant future generation, after Constellation has become operational and the NASA base is constructed.
Then, if the future NASA is so inclined, there might be some room for a little commercial supply to give NASA some room to work towards Mars.Finally, on "fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities", the Constellation presentation is once again silent.
There are notes about how "development and operations costs must be minimized", how life cycle costs are reduced, and so on, but the point isn't whether or not Constellation is straining really hard to reduce costs.
The key question is: Does Constellation fit within the current budget profile?
The budget profile is what it is.
If, as former NASA Administrator Griffin has suggested, Constellation doesn't fit within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities, Constellation needs to change to fit, or be replaced.
Either show that you fit the profile, or what changes will allow you to fit the profile.
The Constellation presentation didn't do that.Fitting the current budget profile is a key point.
All sorts of trends suggest that the budget will continue to be difficult for NASA exploration in the years ahead, just as was often noted by many commentators starting in 2005.
Note the wider political, budget, and demographic trends.
Note the charter of the Human Spaceflight Review Committee, which opens up a real possibility of shifting exploration resources from Constellation proper to ISS support after 2016, expediting ISS support (shrinking the gap), and R&amp;D plus robotic exploration activities that complement astronaut exploration.
There's a lot of justification for these potential budget shifts, so it's important for the astronaut transport plan to fit within a budget that allows a sufficient amount of such actitivies.
Fitting the current budget profile is just a start in that direction.In contrast to the Constellation presentation, the EELV presentation addresses the central HSR key objectives head on, showing how it can fit the budget, expedite ISS support, implement Moon missions, and work commercially.
It would be interesting to see if the ULA is willing to put "skin in the game" and also to not get funding until milestones are reached, similar to the COTS A-C arrangement. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28434773</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing we don't have to choose.  The difference in cost is like one to two orders of magnitude.<br>Moon base ~60b<br>Health care ~1.2t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing we do n't have to choose .
The difference in cost is like one to two orders of magnitude.Moon base ~ 60bHealth care ~ 1.2t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing we don't have to choose.
The difference in cost is like one to two orders of magnitude.Moon base ~60bHealth care ~1.2t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28415267</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>Hubbell</author>
	<datestamp>1245594000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_Thermal\_Rocket" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Nuclear Rockets</a> [wikipedia.org] are the ideal choice, but just like reactors the public is insanely averse to anything with the word nuclear in it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear Rockets [ wikipedia.org ] are the ideal choice , but just like reactors the public is insanely averse to anything with the word nuclear in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear Rockets [wikipedia.org] are the ideal choice, but just like reactors the public is insanely averse to anything with the word nuclear in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410043</id>
	<title>"New Paths"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other than "up"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than " up " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than "up"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410611</id>
	<title>If only we had that choice.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1245598560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem with health care spending is rising faster than inflation.  In a country where over 15\% of the GDP is spent on health care, that ought to concern us.  It's projected to hit 17\% of GDP very soon.</p><p>A simple minded projection would have us spending 1/5 of every dollar created on health care within a decade; 1/3 in about 25 years;  1/2 some time in the 2050s.</p><p>Of course that won't happen.  The economy will collapse well before then, if it isn't doing so now.  There are basically two options: crash and burn, or engineering some kind of soft landing. The latter option gets more expensive the longer we wait.  If we'd done something the 1960s, when we spent 5\% of GDP on health care, it would have been an incredible bargain by today's standards. If we could roll back the avalanche of cost increases back to 1980 when we spent half of what we do now, it would be a no-brainer.  In today's terms, we're looking at a trillion dollars per decade, and in a few years that might well look at that figure as  a deal we were foolish to pass up.</p><p>We have come to this point: it's not health care or X, where "X" is space or military expenditures or infrastructure or whatever.  It's heath care or not-X.   You might not not get that Moon base after paying to fix health care, but you definitely won't get it if you let the crisis get even larger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem with health care spending is rising faster than inflation .
In a country where over 15 \ % of the GDP is spent on health care , that ought to concern us .
It 's projected to hit 17 \ % of GDP very soon.A simple minded projection would have us spending 1/5 of every dollar created on health care within a decade ; 1/3 in about 25 years ; 1/2 some time in the 2050s.Of course that wo n't happen .
The economy will collapse well before then , if it is n't doing so now .
There are basically two options : crash and burn , or engineering some kind of soft landing .
The latter option gets more expensive the longer we wait .
If we 'd done something the 1960s , when we spent 5 \ % of GDP on health care , it would have been an incredible bargain by today 's standards .
If we could roll back the avalanche of cost increases back to 1980 when we spent half of what we do now , it would be a no-brainer .
In today 's terms , we 're looking at a trillion dollars per decade , and in a few years that might well look at that figure as a deal we were foolish to pass up.We have come to this point : it 's not health care or X , where " X " is space or military expenditures or infrastructure or whatever .
It 's heath care or not-X .
You might not not get that Moon base after paying to fix health care , but you definitely wo n't get it if you let the crisis get even larger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem with health care spending is rising faster than inflation.
In a country where over 15\% of the GDP is spent on health care, that ought to concern us.
It's projected to hit 17\% of GDP very soon.A simple minded projection would have us spending 1/5 of every dollar created on health care within a decade; 1/3 in about 25 years;  1/2 some time in the 2050s.Of course that won't happen.
The economy will collapse well before then, if it isn't doing so now.
There are basically two options: crash and burn, or engineering some kind of soft landing.
The latter option gets more expensive the longer we wait.
If we'd done something the 1960s, when we spent 5\% of GDP on health care, it would have been an incredible bargain by today's standards.
If we could roll back the avalanche of cost increases back to 1980 when we spent half of what we do now, it would be a no-brainer.
In today's terms, we're looking at a trillion dollars per decade, and in a few years that might well look at that figure as  a deal we were foolish to pass up.We have come to this point: it's not health care or X, where "X" is space or military expenditures or infrastructure or whatever.
It's heath care or not-X.
You might not not get that Moon base after paying to fix health care, but you definitely won't get it if you let the crisis get even larger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409807</id>
	<title>Politicially unattractive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245589500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ObamaNazi is politically unattractive but we're stuck with him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ObamaNazi is politically unattractive but we 're stuck with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ObamaNazi is politically unattractive but we're stuck with him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410139</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1245594480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What near future goals are furthered by people living on the Moon? And is there a more effective way to achieve those goals than with a lunar outpost? I guess my chief problem with this sort of advocacy is that there is an obsession with far future needs (like human survival or the economic benefits of a human civilization predominately in space) with little attention paid to the gritty details of how to get from today to that wonderful tomorrow.<br> <br>

A lunar colony with little to no near future return on investment won't work in the long run. It's well above the disposable cash that the US (or collectively the world which has roughly 2 to 3 times the space budget of the US) spends on such things. My view is that the economics are the chief obstacle to space development and exploration. A big space project needs to make somewhere around 5-20\% of its overall cost in some sort of value every year. If your project can't do that, then the money is probably better spent on space projects that can do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What near future goals are furthered by people living on the Moon ?
And is there a more effective way to achieve those goals than with a lunar outpost ?
I guess my chief problem with this sort of advocacy is that there is an obsession with far future needs ( like human survival or the economic benefits of a human civilization predominately in space ) with little attention paid to the gritty details of how to get from today to that wonderful tomorrow .
A lunar colony with little to no near future return on investment wo n't work in the long run .
It 's well above the disposable cash that the US ( or collectively the world which has roughly 2 to 3 times the space budget of the US ) spends on such things .
My view is that the economics are the chief obstacle to space development and exploration .
A big space project needs to make somewhere around 5-20 \ % of its overall cost in some sort of value every year .
If your project ca n't do that , then the money is probably better spent on space projects that can do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What near future goals are furthered by people living on the Moon?
And is there a more effective way to achieve those goals than with a lunar outpost?
I guess my chief problem with this sort of advocacy is that there is an obsession with far future needs (like human survival or the economic benefits of a human civilization predominately in space) with little attention paid to the gritty details of how to get from today to that wonderful tomorrow.
A lunar colony with little to no near future return on investment won't work in the long run.
It's well above the disposable cash that the US (or collectively the world which has roughly 2 to 3 times the space budget of the US) spends on such things.
My view is that the economics are the chief obstacle to space development and exploration.
A big space project needs to make somewhere around 5-20\% of its overall cost in some sort of value every year.
If your project can't do that, then the money is probably better spent on space projects that can do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410101</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to <a href="http://www.projectcamelot.org/" title="projectcamelot.org" rel="nofollow">some</a> [projectcamelot.org], the moon base is already there, you're just not allowed to know about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to some [ projectcamelot.org ] , the moon base is already there , you 're just not allowed to know about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to some [projectcamelot.org], the moon base is already there, you're just not allowed to know about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410493</id>
	<title>Re:Current NASA Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1245597780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with NASA is that it has been hobbled by the past several administrations.  NASA simply does not have enough money to do what it is supposed to do.  This is particularly true with Bush's vision for space exploration.  He wanted NASA to develop a new launch architecture, build a Moon base, and send people to Mars, all with the current level of funding.  It is hardly surprising that things are not working.  As Scotty might say... Ye canna change the laws of economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with NASA is that it has been hobbled by the past several administrations .
NASA simply does not have enough money to do what it is supposed to do .
This is particularly true with Bush 's vision for space exploration .
He wanted NASA to develop a new launch architecture , build a Moon base , and send people to Mars , all with the current level of funding .
It is hardly surprising that things are not working .
As Scotty might say... Ye canna change the laws of economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with NASA is that it has been hobbled by the past several administrations.
NASA simply does not have enough money to do what it is supposed to do.
This is particularly true with Bush's vision for space exploration.
He wanted NASA to develop a new launch architecture, build a Moon base, and send people to Mars, all with the current level of funding.
It is hardly surprising that things are not working.
As Scotty might say... Ye canna change the laws of economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1245596100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel.</i> <br> <br>
Fuel costs are at the level of noise in the costs of running a rocket.  Liquid hydrogen costs $3-$4 per kilogram.  The shuttle goes through 10600 kg of liquid hydrogen, so thats only $40,000.  Liquid oxygen is about ten cents a kilogram, or $60,000 per launch.  It costs an average of $450,000,000 to launch a shuttle, so even if fuel prices quadrupled, they'd still be less than 1\% of the total cost of a launch.<br> <br>
The problem with the fuel is that it is in the wrong location.  We need fuel depots in strategic orbits: Low Earth Orbit, Lunar orbit, etc.  The bulk of the mass that you lift to do a space mission is fuel, and the more massive the payload, the bigger and more expensive the rocket you need.  You may be able to reduce the cost of a mission by launching several smaller rockets rather than a single large rocket.<br> <br>
I agree with the reusability aspect, although I'd rather see an <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm" title="astronautix.com">HL-42</a> [astronautix.com] style crew module rather than the Orion.  Ideally, that would only be to "shuttle" the crew from planetside to orbit and back.  Once in orbit, they'd go to the Moon or Mars in a much larger Trans-hab/Bigelow styled craft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel .
Fuel costs are at the level of noise in the costs of running a rocket .
Liquid hydrogen costs $ 3- $ 4 per kilogram .
The shuttle goes through 10600 kg of liquid hydrogen , so thats only $ 40,000 .
Liquid oxygen is about ten cents a kilogram , or $ 60,000 per launch .
It costs an average of $ 450,000,000 to launch a shuttle , so even if fuel prices quadrupled , they 'd still be less than 1 \ % of the total cost of a launch .
The problem with the fuel is that it is in the wrong location .
We need fuel depots in strategic orbits : Low Earth Orbit , Lunar orbit , etc .
The bulk of the mass that you lift to do a space mission is fuel , and the more massive the payload , the bigger and more expensive the rocket you need .
You may be able to reduce the cost of a mission by launching several smaller rockets rather than a single large rocket .
I agree with the reusability aspect , although I 'd rather see an HL-42 [ astronautix.com ] style crew module rather than the Orion .
Ideally , that would only be to " shuttle " the crew from planetside to orbit and back .
Once in orbit , they 'd go to the Moon or Mars in a much larger Trans-hab/Bigelow styled craft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That means both reusable capsule technology and low-cost fuel.
Fuel costs are at the level of noise in the costs of running a rocket.
Liquid hydrogen costs $3-$4 per kilogram.
The shuttle goes through 10600 kg of liquid hydrogen, so thats only $40,000.
Liquid oxygen is about ten cents a kilogram, or $60,000 per launch.
It costs an average of $450,000,000 to launch a shuttle, so even if fuel prices quadrupled, they'd still be less than 1\% of the total cost of a launch.
The problem with the fuel is that it is in the wrong location.
We need fuel depots in strategic orbits: Low Earth Orbit, Lunar orbit, etc.
The bulk of the mass that you lift to do a space mission is fuel, and the more massive the payload, the bigger and more expensive the rocket you need.
You may be able to reduce the cost of a mission by launching several smaller rockets rather than a single large rocket.
I agree with the reusability aspect, although I'd rather see an HL-42 [astronautix.com] style crew module rather than the Orion.
Ideally, that would only be to "shuttle" the crew from planetside to orbit and back.
Once in orbit, they'd go to the Moon or Mars in a much larger Trans-hab/Bigelow styled craft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28415639</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1245597660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About the fuel depots. Might not sound like much, if you say fuel depots. It's easy to miss the point.</p><p>You need to mention that these fuel depots are fillable by third parties.</p><p>Now, anyone paying attention will notice that two categories of capitalist have been created. The fuel depot owner, and the fuel supplier. Each buys and sells services and thereby commercializes another aspect of space.</p><p>And with more people able to do a conceptually simple delivery-man type job, the number of space companies increase, and the total number of launches will increase.</p><p>Fuel depots are very important. But you have to explain why, for the newbies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About the fuel depots .
Might not sound like much , if you say fuel depots .
It 's easy to miss the point.You need to mention that these fuel depots are fillable by third parties.Now , anyone paying attention will notice that two categories of capitalist have been created .
The fuel depot owner , and the fuel supplier .
Each buys and sells services and thereby commercializes another aspect of space.And with more people able to do a conceptually simple delivery-man type job , the number of space companies increase , and the total number of launches will increase.Fuel depots are very important .
But you have to explain why , for the newbies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the fuel depots.
Might not sound like much, if you say fuel depots.
It's easy to miss the point.You need to mention that these fuel depots are fillable by third parties.Now, anyone paying attention will notice that two categories of capitalist have been created.
The fuel depot owner, and the fuel supplier.
Each buys and sells services and thereby commercializes another aspect of space.And with more people able to do a conceptually simple delivery-man type job, the number of space companies increase, and the total number of launches will increase.Fuel depots are very important.
But you have to explain why, for the newbies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28493139</id>
	<title>Re:Current NASA Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246097880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About your ESA position: quite the contrary, I'm very proud of them. They seem to be the only space agency with a vision.</p><p>When they launched SMART 1 (which coincidentally spurred the current moon frenzy), they were only testing a new type of engine called ion thrusters. Half the instruments on board were actually there just to monitor it. NASA is too concerned with doing the "cool" things and their current vision (if there is any) would be more fitting for the 60's.</p><p>Meanwhile ESA is learning how to play with Lagrange points and better understand ITN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary\_Transport\_Network). A mission like GOCE, designed to map the gravity of Earth could have never even been dreamed up by NASA, but it actually makes perfect sense if you are really searching for better ways of reaching spots in our solar system cheaper (not very fast though). It all comes down between the choice of making "bold" missions or actually trying to advance space science to the point where bold missions are just routine and cheap enough to make sense.</p><p>So for now, although ESA seems like the dark horse, they are the agency I would bet on actually becoming the next leader in this domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About your ESA position : quite the contrary , I 'm very proud of them .
They seem to be the only space agency with a vision.When they launched SMART 1 ( which coincidentally spurred the current moon frenzy ) , they were only testing a new type of engine called ion thrusters .
Half the instruments on board were actually there just to monitor it .
NASA is too concerned with doing the " cool " things and their current vision ( if there is any ) would be more fitting for the 60 's.Meanwhile ESA is learning how to play with Lagrange points and better understand ITN ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary \ _Transport \ _Network ) .
A mission like GOCE , designed to map the gravity of Earth could have never even been dreamed up by NASA , but it actually makes perfect sense if you are really searching for better ways of reaching spots in our solar system cheaper ( not very fast though ) .
It all comes down between the choice of making " bold " missions or actually trying to advance space science to the point where bold missions are just routine and cheap enough to make sense.So for now , although ESA seems like the dark horse , they are the agency I would bet on actually becoming the next leader in this domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About your ESA position: quite the contrary, I'm very proud of them.
They seem to be the only space agency with a vision.When they launched SMART 1 (which coincidentally spurred the current moon frenzy), they were only testing a new type of engine called ion thrusters.
Half the instruments on board were actually there just to monitor it.
NASA is too concerned with doing the "cool" things and their current vision (if there is any) would be more fitting for the 60's.Meanwhile ESA is learning how to play with Lagrange points and better understand ITN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary\_Transport\_Network).
A mission like GOCE, designed to map the gravity of Earth could have never even been dreamed up by NASA, but it actually makes perfect sense if you are really searching for better ways of reaching spots in our solar system cheaper (not very fast though).
It all comes down between the choice of making "bold" missions or actually trying to advance space science to the point where bold missions are just routine and cheap enough to make sense.So for now, although ESA seems like the dark horse, they are the agency I would bet on actually becoming the next leader in this domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411467</id>
	<title>Like Lightcraft or Fusion rockets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stumbled across a study not so long ago that did just what the Augustine panel's attempting to do now.</p><p>http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA426465&amp;Location=U2&amp;doc=GetTRDoc.pdf</p><p>Perhaps a combined lightcraft / bussard fusion rocket could be the way to go?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stumbled across a study not so long ago that did just what the Augustine panel 's attempting to do now.http : //www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc ? AD = ADA426465&amp;Location = U2&amp;doc = GetTRDoc.pdfPerhaps a combined lightcraft / bussard fusion rocket could be the way to go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stumbled across a study not so long ago that did just what the Augustine panel's attempting to do now.http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA426465&amp;Location=U2&amp;doc=GetTRDoc.pdfPerhaps a combined lightcraft / bussard fusion rocket could be the way to go?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28414123</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather use NASA money for interesting paylo</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245583260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama's economists decided that they need to spend their way out of this recession, and even though Orion would not pass muster by my bang-for-buck standards, it's not the worst way to spend money if spending money is what you're trying to do.</p><p>Of course we could do better: We could dream big like JFK and (for the first time since the 60's) try something truly ambitious and expensive. As Americans, it's time we finally accomplish something! Ever since we lost the Vietnam war, we've been complete pussies about big projects. (It doesn't help that when we do try we fail miserably, like when we try to impose Western democracy to Iraq) As far as I can tell, the largest public project recently was the Big Dig in Boston. We can't even rebuild Ground Zero. We act like a country who lost faith in ourselves, in a time when it's very important that the rest of the world has faith in us (and our currency).</p> </div><p>I am with you, 100\%</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's economists decided that they need to spend their way out of this recession , and even though Orion would not pass muster by my bang-for-buck standards , it 's not the worst way to spend money if spending money is what you 're trying to do.Of course we could do better : We could dream big like JFK and ( for the first time since the 60 's ) try something truly ambitious and expensive .
As Americans , it 's time we finally accomplish something !
Ever since we lost the Vietnam war , we 've been complete pussies about big projects .
( It does n't help that when we do try we fail miserably , like when we try to impose Western democracy to Iraq ) As far as I can tell , the largest public project recently was the Big Dig in Boston .
We ca n't even rebuild Ground Zero .
We act like a country who lost faith in ourselves , in a time when it 's very important that the rest of the world has faith in us ( and our currency ) .
I am with you , 100 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's economists decided that they need to spend their way out of this recession, and even though Orion would not pass muster by my bang-for-buck standards, it's not the worst way to spend money if spending money is what you're trying to do.Of course we could do better: We could dream big like JFK and (for the first time since the 60's) try something truly ambitious and expensive.
As Americans, it's time we finally accomplish something!
Ever since we lost the Vietnam war, we've been complete pussies about big projects.
(It doesn't help that when we do try we fail miserably, like when we try to impose Western democracy to Iraq) As far as I can tell, the largest public project recently was the Big Dig in Boston.
We can't even rebuild Ground Zero.
We act like a country who lost faith in ourselves, in a time when it's very important that the rest of the world has faith in us (and our currency).
I am with you, 100\%
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410039</id>
	<title>For the uninformed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.disclosureproject.org/" title="disclosureproject.org" rel="nofollow">The Disclosure Project</a> [disclosureproject.org]...there is much more out there than the official story. Educate yourself and demand answers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Disclosure Project [ disclosureproject.org ] ...there is much more out there than the official story .
Educate yourself and demand answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Disclosure Project [disclosureproject.org]...there is much more out there than the official story.
Educate yourself and demand answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28424431</id>
	<title>Re:Mass driver</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1245693300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Earth has that pesky soup called an atmosphere which makes a mass driver impractical.  By the time you get something up to orbital speed, it is travelling so fast that it burns up.  It would be great to set one up on the Moon, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Earth has that pesky soup called an atmosphere which makes a mass driver impractical .
By the time you get something up to orbital speed , it is travelling so fast that it burns up .
It would be great to set one up on the Moon , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earth has that pesky soup called an atmosphere which makes a mass driver impractical.
By the time you get something up to orbital speed, it is travelling so fast that it burns up.
It would be great to set one up on the Moon, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413391</id>
	<title>Up</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245577560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about <a href="http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/up/" title="go.com">"Up"?</a> [go.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " Up " ?
[ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "Up"?
[go.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412363</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245612360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28416919</id>
	<title>I'd rather use manned mission money for fusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I grew up on Star Trek and Space:1999 and Blake's 7, I want to see us colonize space.  But one-shot super-expensive showcase missions to put a handful of people on nearby planets for a few days at a time isn't gonna get us there.  It isn't gonna get us \_anywhere\_.</p><p>You want a grand challenge non-pussy project that costs billions of dollars and changes the world, and makes the Star Trek future really happen?  Manhatten project II - build a real positive-output controlled fusion reactor.  Inertial, tokomak, longshot fusor/aneutronic - try them all.  Do it as if we had to stop the Nazis with it - in 5 years, not 50.  The goal should be electricity cheaper than coal.  Yes, the machines are complicated, but so is your car - mass production is magic.</p><p>Stop global warming cold and get a bonus: a fusion reactor is pretty much the only near-term technology (other than shooting atom bombs out the back of your ship) which can maybe give us real deep-space propulsion, so it doesn't have to take years of living weightless in a can, and a lot of stupid orbital mechanics tricks (okay, they're actually pretty clever, but still a bit desperate), to get people out into the solar system. Build the technology first, then worry about the manned missions, when we really have the tools to do it right.  Sending people to mars using chemical rockets is like someone in the 17th century building a wooden 747 powered by gunpowder rockets - sure, it might have flown but no way was it remotely practical as transportation, nor was that technological path \_ever\_ going to lead to anything useful, hence it would have been little more than a sideshow.</p><p>Of course, a fusion project would not be a massive makework jobs program, except for technical workers (ahem), but neither, really, would a manned mars mission.  You want jobs, build more highways, we sure need more of those<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up on Star Trek and Space : 1999 and Blake 's 7 , I want to see us colonize space .
But one-shot super-expensive showcase missions to put a handful of people on nearby planets for a few days at a time is n't gon na get us there .
It is n't gon na get us \ _anywhere \ _.You want a grand challenge non-pussy project that costs billions of dollars and changes the world , and makes the Star Trek future really happen ?
Manhatten project II - build a real positive-output controlled fusion reactor .
Inertial , tokomak , longshot fusor/aneutronic - try them all .
Do it as if we had to stop the Nazis with it - in 5 years , not 50 .
The goal should be electricity cheaper than coal .
Yes , the machines are complicated , but so is your car - mass production is magic.Stop global warming cold and get a bonus : a fusion reactor is pretty much the only near-term technology ( other than shooting atom bombs out the back of your ship ) which can maybe give us real deep-space propulsion , so it does n't have to take years of living weightless in a can , and a lot of stupid orbital mechanics tricks ( okay , they 're actually pretty clever , but still a bit desperate ) , to get people out into the solar system .
Build the technology first , then worry about the manned missions , when we really have the tools to do it right .
Sending people to mars using chemical rockets is like someone in the 17th century building a wooden 747 powered by gunpowder rockets - sure , it might have flown but no way was it remotely practical as transportation , nor was that technological path \ _ever \ _ going to lead to anything useful , hence it would have been little more than a sideshow.Of course , a fusion project would not be a massive makework jobs program , except for technical workers ( ahem ) , but neither , really , would a manned mars mission .
You want jobs , build more highways , we sure need more of those ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up on Star Trek and Space:1999 and Blake's 7, I want to see us colonize space.
But one-shot super-expensive showcase missions to put a handful of people on nearby planets for a few days at a time isn't gonna get us there.
It isn't gonna get us \_anywhere\_.You want a grand challenge non-pussy project that costs billions of dollars and changes the world, and makes the Star Trek future really happen?
Manhatten project II - build a real positive-output controlled fusion reactor.
Inertial, tokomak, longshot fusor/aneutronic - try them all.
Do it as if we had to stop the Nazis with it - in 5 years, not 50.
The goal should be electricity cheaper than coal.
Yes, the machines are complicated, but so is your car - mass production is magic.Stop global warming cold and get a bonus: a fusion reactor is pretty much the only near-term technology (other than shooting atom bombs out the back of your ship) which can maybe give us real deep-space propulsion, so it doesn't have to take years of living weightless in a can, and a lot of stupid orbital mechanics tricks (okay, they're actually pretty clever, but still a bit desperate), to get people out into the solar system.
Build the technology first, then worry about the manned missions, when we really have the tools to do it right.
Sending people to mars using chemical rockets is like someone in the 17th century building a wooden 747 powered by gunpowder rockets - sure, it might have flown but no way was it remotely practical as transportation, nor was that technological path \_ever\_ going to lead to anything useful, hence it would have been little more than a sideshow.Of course, a fusion project would not be a massive makework jobs program, except for technical workers (ahem), but neither, really, would a manned mars mission.
You want jobs, build more highways, we sure need more of those ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410259</id>
	<title>Manned space yield</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245595740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell me exactly what we have gotten from manned space flight -- besides velcro and tang!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me exactly what we have gotten from manned space flight -- besides velcro and tang !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me exactly what we have gotten from manned space flight -- besides velcro and tang!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411309</id>
	<title>Dig a hole through Earth.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245604680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dig hole through Earth, now you can literally go down to space.</p><p>Now if only we had an expert driller on hand... where is Bruce Willis when you need him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dig hole through Earth , now you can literally go down to space.Now if only we had an expert driller on hand... where is Bruce Willis when you need him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dig hole through Earth, now you can literally go down to space.Now if only we had an expert driller on hand... where is Bruce Willis when you need him?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</id>
	<title>I'd rather use NASA money for interesting payloads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245591720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama's economists decided that they need to spend their way out of this recession, and even though Orion would not pass muster by my bang-for-buck standards, it's not the worst way to spend money if spending money is what you're trying to do.</p><p>

Of course we could do better: We could dream big like JFK and (for the first time since the 60's) try something truly ambitious and expensive. As Americans, it's time we finally accomplish something! Ever since we lost the Vietnam war, we've been complete pussies about big projects. (It doesn't help that when we do try we fail miserably, like when we try to impose Western democracy to Iraq) As far as I can tell, the largest public project recently was the Big Dig in Boston. We can't even rebuild Ground Zero. We act like a country who lost faith in ourselves, in a time when it's very important that the rest of the world has faith in us (and our currency). We lucked into the internet - yes, that was cool, but it wasn't something we deliberately set out to do as a public communication tool.</p><p>

I think that Obama should just ask to dust off the Titan V blueprints and build factory to produce them on a massive scale. Then use those to lift into space something really cool, like a 100m mirror for a telescope, solar collectors that beam power back to Earth, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's economists decided that they need to spend their way out of this recession , and even though Orion would not pass muster by my bang-for-buck standards , it 's not the worst way to spend money if spending money is what you 're trying to do .
Of course we could do better : We could dream big like JFK and ( for the first time since the 60 's ) try something truly ambitious and expensive .
As Americans , it 's time we finally accomplish something !
Ever since we lost the Vietnam war , we 've been complete pussies about big projects .
( It does n't help that when we do try we fail miserably , like when we try to impose Western democracy to Iraq ) As far as I can tell , the largest public project recently was the Big Dig in Boston .
We ca n't even rebuild Ground Zero .
We act like a country who lost faith in ourselves , in a time when it 's very important that the rest of the world has faith in us ( and our currency ) .
We lucked into the internet - yes , that was cool , but it was n't something we deliberately set out to do as a public communication tool .
I think that Obama should just ask to dust off the Titan V blueprints and build factory to produce them on a massive scale .
Then use those to lift into space something really cool , like a 100m mirror for a telescope , solar collectors that beam power back to Earth , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's economists decided that they need to spend their way out of this recession, and even though Orion would not pass muster by my bang-for-buck standards, it's not the worst way to spend money if spending money is what you're trying to do.
Of course we could do better: We could dream big like JFK and (for the first time since the 60's) try something truly ambitious and expensive.
As Americans, it's time we finally accomplish something!
Ever since we lost the Vietnam war, we've been complete pussies about big projects.
(It doesn't help that when we do try we fail miserably, like when we try to impose Western democracy to Iraq) As far as I can tell, the largest public project recently was the Big Dig in Boston.
We can't even rebuild Ground Zero.
We act like a country who lost faith in ourselves, in a time when it's very important that the rest of the world has faith in us (and our currency).
We lucked into the internet - yes, that was cool, but it wasn't something we deliberately set out to do as a public communication tool.
I think that Obama should just ask to dust off the Titan V blueprints and build factory to produce them on a massive scale.
Then use those to lift into space something really cool, like a 100m mirror for a telescope, solar collectors that beam power back to Earth, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28416573</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1245604260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What we ought to be looking at is beginning construction of a moon base and the development of the infrastructure to perform longhaul transport back and forth from the Earth to the Moon."</p><p>NASA has had a problem since Apollo of plucking a goal out of the air to use as a justification to keep the manned space program alive, without actually setting a goal that really makes sense and is worth doing.  We need to figure out a reason or reasons to have a base on the moon, ideally some reasons with some benefits that will justify the massive expenditure of resources.  Without that it will end up exactly like Apollo and ISS.  We will spend huge amounts of money and when we finally get there everyone will be asking why did we spend all this money and what do we do now that we are here just like Apollo and ISS.  Luckily for Apollo there were a lot of technology spin offs but I wouldn't count on that being the case the second time around since. There is a lot more reusing existing technology while under Apollo there was a necessity for some huge breakthroughs or it wouldn't have been possible.</p><p>If you could mine helium-3 on the moon and solve our energy crisis that would be one such activity that would justify a lunar base but I don't think we have the way to use helium-3 to produced energy yet. If you could mine the moon for materials you need to do other things in space that might be interesting.  Astronomy on the moon would be cool, but I don't think its going to win broad acceptance as justifying the huge price tag with the general public.</p><p>Fact is the moon is pretty nasty place, severe temperatures, nasty dust that gets in to everything, hard vacuum, and I'm not sure its really that great place to put a base.  You have this kind of scary possibility a moon base would end up being a very expensive and kind of useless ISS Part two.</p><p>Most of the proposals for a moon base seem to be focused on it as just a place to practice that is close to Earth with the real the goal being a trip to Mars.  The moon being just for practice isn't an entirely compelling goal either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What we ought to be looking at is beginning construction of a moon base and the development of the infrastructure to perform longhaul transport back and forth from the Earth to the Moon .
" NASA has had a problem since Apollo of plucking a goal out of the air to use as a justification to keep the manned space program alive , without actually setting a goal that really makes sense and is worth doing .
We need to figure out a reason or reasons to have a base on the moon , ideally some reasons with some benefits that will justify the massive expenditure of resources .
Without that it will end up exactly like Apollo and ISS .
We will spend huge amounts of money and when we finally get there everyone will be asking why did we spend all this money and what do we do now that we are here just like Apollo and ISS .
Luckily for Apollo there were a lot of technology spin offs but I would n't count on that being the case the second time around since .
There is a lot more reusing existing technology while under Apollo there was a necessity for some huge breakthroughs or it would n't have been possible.If you could mine helium-3 on the moon and solve our energy crisis that would be one such activity that would justify a lunar base but I do n't think we have the way to use helium-3 to produced energy yet .
If you could mine the moon for materials you need to do other things in space that might be interesting .
Astronomy on the moon would be cool , but I do n't think its going to win broad acceptance as justifying the huge price tag with the general public.Fact is the moon is pretty nasty place , severe temperatures , nasty dust that gets in to everything , hard vacuum , and I 'm not sure its really that great place to put a base .
You have this kind of scary possibility a moon base would end up being a very expensive and kind of useless ISS Part two.Most of the proposals for a moon base seem to be focused on it as just a place to practice that is close to Earth with the real the goal being a trip to Mars .
The moon being just for practice is n't an entirely compelling goal either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What we ought to be looking at is beginning construction of a moon base and the development of the infrastructure to perform longhaul transport back and forth from the Earth to the Moon.
"NASA has had a problem since Apollo of plucking a goal out of the air to use as a justification to keep the manned space program alive, without actually setting a goal that really makes sense and is worth doing.
We need to figure out a reason or reasons to have a base on the moon, ideally some reasons with some benefits that will justify the massive expenditure of resources.
Without that it will end up exactly like Apollo and ISS.
We will spend huge amounts of money and when we finally get there everyone will be asking why did we spend all this money and what do we do now that we are here just like Apollo and ISS.
Luckily for Apollo there were a lot of technology spin offs but I wouldn't count on that being the case the second time around since.
There is a lot more reusing existing technology while under Apollo there was a necessity for some huge breakthroughs or it wouldn't have been possible.If you could mine helium-3 on the moon and solve our energy crisis that would be one such activity that would justify a lunar base but I don't think we have the way to use helium-3 to produced energy yet.
If you could mine the moon for materials you need to do other things in space that might be interesting.
Astronomy on the moon would be cool, but I don't think its going to win broad acceptance as justifying the huge price tag with the general public.Fact is the moon is pretty nasty place, severe temperatures, nasty dust that gets in to everything, hard vacuum, and I'm not sure its really that great place to put a base.
You have this kind of scary possibility a moon base would end up being a very expensive and kind of useless ISS Part two.Most of the proposals for a moon base seem to be focused on it as just a place to practice that is close to Earth with the real the goal being a trip to Mars.
The moon being just for practice isn't an entirely compelling goal either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409809</id>
	<title>twitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245589560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'I was otherwise engaged today, focusing on the "Twitter Revolution" in Iran'</p></div><p>Who'd have thought that Twitter would be "the worlds IT tool for encouraging revolutions"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... They should have called it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... uhm</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'I was otherwise engaged today , focusing on the " Twitter Revolution " in Iran'Who 'd have thought that Twitter would be " the worlds IT tool for encouraging revolutions " ... They should have called it ... uhm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'I was otherwise engaged today, focusing on the "Twitter Revolution" in Iran'Who'd have thought that Twitter would be "the worlds IT tool for encouraging revolutions" ... They should have called it ... uhm
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28420809</id>
	<title>Re:Stephen Baxter predicted these times a decade a</title>
	<author>oni</author>
	<datestamp>1245681000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's also no small mention of how asteroids are flying goldmines.</i></p><p>Quite true. One moderately sized asteroid contains more nickle and more iron that has ever been mined on Earth - ever, in the history of our planet. Most of the world's nickle comes from a site in Canada where an asteroid hit. Most of our iron comes from banded iron formations and to get at them, we dig giant open pits that we can never refill and that eventually become toxic to the environment.</p><p>Imagine a future where mining on Earth was illegal. Imagine a future where the Earth is like a nature preserve where people live or go on vacation, where all of our destructive and polluting industry, power generation, and resource collection happens in space. All of that is possible, but we wont do it because we'd rather spend money on short-term problems (like health care for example, but also wars).</p><p>Space is to our generation what Europe was to the first humans. They stood on the north coast of Africa and could just barely see that there was another world out there. But they had other problems. They were always hungry, they were being eaten by lions. I'm sure some people said, "whoa whoa whoa you want to try and swim over to Europe? No way! We have to solve ALL of our problems here in Africa first. We need to invest in domesticating zebras and concentrate on trying to grow crops here in the desert. Then, when we've got all that worked out, then you can go to Europe."  But see, that's just short-sighted. If you go to Europe all of those problems take care of themsevles eventually. You find better land for crops, a better environment, better animals for domestication.</p><p>If we really commit ourselves to space, we'll find that the benefits of doing that solve most of the problems that we use today as excuses to not go into space. The reason is simple: more resources, more riches, will benefit everyone - sometimes in ways that we can't even imagine. You're sitting, wherever you're sitting, in a nice air conditioned room. All of the technology and infrastructure that insulates you from the heat outside is made possible by the resource, "oil" that flows into your economy. The first person to discover coal or oil couldn't have imagined air conditioning or the internet or synthetic fertilizer, just like we can't imagine how the "gold mine" as you put it, in space, will change our future.</p><p>But alas, we wont do it because people are too shortsighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also no small mention of how asteroids are flying goldmines.Quite true .
One moderately sized asteroid contains more nickle and more iron that has ever been mined on Earth - ever , in the history of our planet .
Most of the world 's nickle comes from a site in Canada where an asteroid hit .
Most of our iron comes from banded iron formations and to get at them , we dig giant open pits that we can never refill and that eventually become toxic to the environment.Imagine a future where mining on Earth was illegal .
Imagine a future where the Earth is like a nature preserve where people live or go on vacation , where all of our destructive and polluting industry , power generation , and resource collection happens in space .
All of that is possible , but we wont do it because we 'd rather spend money on short-term problems ( like health care for example , but also wars ) .Space is to our generation what Europe was to the first humans .
They stood on the north coast of Africa and could just barely see that there was another world out there .
But they had other problems .
They were always hungry , they were being eaten by lions .
I 'm sure some people said , " whoa whoa whoa you want to try and swim over to Europe ?
No way !
We have to solve ALL of our problems here in Africa first .
We need to invest in domesticating zebras and concentrate on trying to grow crops here in the desert .
Then , when we 've got all that worked out , then you can go to Europe .
" But see , that 's just short-sighted .
If you go to Europe all of those problems take care of themsevles eventually .
You find better land for crops , a better environment , better animals for domestication.If we really commit ourselves to space , we 'll find that the benefits of doing that solve most of the problems that we use today as excuses to not go into space .
The reason is simple : more resources , more riches , will benefit everyone - sometimes in ways that we ca n't even imagine .
You 're sitting , wherever you 're sitting , in a nice air conditioned room .
All of the technology and infrastructure that insulates you from the heat outside is made possible by the resource , " oil " that flows into your economy .
The first person to discover coal or oil could n't have imagined air conditioning or the internet or synthetic fertilizer , just like we ca n't imagine how the " gold mine " as you put it , in space , will change our future.But alas , we wont do it because people are too shortsighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also no small mention of how asteroids are flying goldmines.Quite true.
One moderately sized asteroid contains more nickle and more iron that has ever been mined on Earth - ever, in the history of our planet.
Most of the world's nickle comes from a site in Canada where an asteroid hit.
Most of our iron comes from banded iron formations and to get at them, we dig giant open pits that we can never refill and that eventually become toxic to the environment.Imagine a future where mining on Earth was illegal.
Imagine a future where the Earth is like a nature preserve where people live or go on vacation, where all of our destructive and polluting industry, power generation, and resource collection happens in space.
All of that is possible, but we wont do it because we'd rather spend money on short-term problems (like health care for example, but also wars).Space is to our generation what Europe was to the first humans.
They stood on the north coast of Africa and could just barely see that there was another world out there.
But they had other problems.
They were always hungry, they were being eaten by lions.
I'm sure some people said, "whoa whoa whoa you want to try and swim over to Europe?
No way!
We have to solve ALL of our problems here in Africa first.
We need to invest in domesticating zebras and concentrate on trying to grow crops here in the desert.
Then, when we've got all that worked out, then you can go to Europe.
"  But see, that's just short-sighted.
If you go to Europe all of those problems take care of themsevles eventually.
You find better land for crops, a better environment, better animals for domestication.If we really commit ourselves to space, we'll find that the benefits of doing that solve most of the problems that we use today as excuses to not go into space.
The reason is simple: more resources, more riches, will benefit everyone - sometimes in ways that we can't even imagine.
You're sitting, wherever you're sitting, in a nice air conditioned room.
All of the technology and infrastructure that insulates you from the heat outside is made possible by the resource, "oil" that flows into your economy.
The first person to discover coal or oil couldn't have imagined air conditioning or the internet or synthetic fertilizer, just like we can't imagine how the "gold mine" as you put it, in space, will change our future.But alas, we wont do it because people are too shortsighted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412757</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1245615780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would help if someone actually had a reason for building habitats that made economic sense.
<p>
Examples would be "if we do this research on earth, it could blow up the planet". The LHC would have been great as a guise for getting to the moon - too bad the responsible scientists messed up that one. Ofcourse, it would have delayed it a bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
What about etremely risky genetic modification to humans? Would that be legal on the moon?
</p><p>
Gambling? Well we can do that at home.
</p><p>
Mining volatiles? Well as long as we think it's a smart idea, not much use in getting more of them. We'll have to wait until we're nearly out of them.
</p><p>
Helium-3 for spaceships? If say Jupiter had a gaslayer containing oxygen, hydrogen and helium-3 for our commercially viable fusion plants, well, maybe. Only when you have a warpdrive to go with it though.
</p><p>
I'm out of ideas, but I'm pretty sure other people have a few - lets hear them.
</p><p>
In the mean time: save the planet, it's all we have for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would help if someone actually had a reason for building habitats that made economic sense .
Examples would be " if we do this research on earth , it could blow up the planet " .
The LHC would have been great as a guise for getting to the moon - too bad the responsible scientists messed up that one .
Ofcourse , it would have delayed it a bit : ) What about etremely risky genetic modification to humans ?
Would that be legal on the moon ?
Gambling ? Well we can do that at home .
Mining volatiles ?
Well as long as we think it 's a smart idea , not much use in getting more of them .
We 'll have to wait until we 're nearly out of them .
Helium-3 for spaceships ?
If say Jupiter had a gaslayer containing oxygen , hydrogen and helium-3 for our commercially viable fusion plants , well , maybe .
Only when you have a warpdrive to go with it though .
I 'm out of ideas , but I 'm pretty sure other people have a few - lets hear them .
In the mean time : save the planet , it 's all we have for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would help if someone actually had a reason for building habitats that made economic sense.
Examples would be "if we do this research on earth, it could blow up the planet".
The LHC would have been great as a guise for getting to the moon - too bad the responsible scientists messed up that one.
Ofcourse, it would have delayed it a bit :)

What about etremely risky genetic modification to humans?
Would that be legal on the moon?
Gambling? Well we can do that at home.
Mining volatiles?
Well as long as we think it's a smart idea, not much use in getting more of them.
We'll have to wait until we're nearly out of them.
Helium-3 for spaceships?
If say Jupiter had a gaslayer containing oxygen, hydrogen and helium-3 for our commercially viable fusion plants, well, maybe.
Only when you have a warpdrive to go with it though.
I'm out of ideas, but I'm pretty sure other people have a few - lets hear them.
In the mean time: save the planet, it's all we have for now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411487</id>
	<title>Mass driver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we're going to be blowing away massive amounts of money how about a mass driver? At least it's reusable.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass\_driver</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're going to be blowing away massive amounts of money how about a mass driver ?
At least it 's reusable.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass \ _driver</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're going to be blowing away massive amounts of money how about a mass driver?
At least it's reusable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass\_driver</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410365</id>
	<title>Buzz Aldrin thinks the moon is a waste of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a NYT article in the Sunday Magazine, Buzz Aldin thinks the Russians have a better idea in going to Phobos as a stepping stone to Mars.  The moon..."is not promising for commercial activities."
<br> <br>


<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21fob-q4-t.html?ref=magazine" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21fob-q4-t.html?ref=magazine</a> [nytimes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a NYT article in the Sunday Magazine , Buzz Aldin thinks the Russians have a better idea in going to Phobos as a stepping stone to Mars .
The moon... " is not promising for commercial activities .
" http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21fob-q4-t.html ? ref = magazine [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a NYT article in the Sunday Magazine, Buzz Aldin thinks the Russians have a better idea in going to Phobos as a stepping stone to Mars.
The moon..."is not promising for commercial activities.
"
 


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21fob-q4-t.html?ref=magazine [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410219</id>
	<title>Re:Current NASA Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1245595260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"it makes more rational sense to have robotic probes"</p><p>No robotic probe can tell you how it "feels" to be there. A robotic probe is a machine. A manned spacecraft is a part of Humanity.</p><p>But, about pouring billions into NASA... Well... I seems like they lost their mojo. They need to reinvent themselves, be willing to take risks more smartly (it took over 100 flights, 7 deaths and a lost spacecraft for someone to even look at what kind of damage a shuttle takes on launch? Seriously?).</p><p>I guess NASA needs more test-pilots and engineers and less scientists. I suggest we sacrifice the science for now in order to build a more solid, cheaper and versatile space access infrastructure. The very moment we can launch stuff cheaply we will see an expansion of space science like we never saw before. You spend billions on a space probe because it will cost a couple hundred millions to launch it. It's easy to imagine hundreds of cheaper science projects piggybacking on cheaper space access.</p><p>Inexpensive space access is the key. That should be the \_only\_ focus for NASA for the foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" it makes more rational sense to have robotic probes " No robotic probe can tell you how it " feels " to be there .
A robotic probe is a machine .
A manned spacecraft is a part of Humanity.But , about pouring billions into NASA... Well... I seems like they lost their mojo .
They need to reinvent themselves , be willing to take risks more smartly ( it took over 100 flights , 7 deaths and a lost spacecraft for someone to even look at what kind of damage a shuttle takes on launch ?
Seriously ? ) .I guess NASA needs more test-pilots and engineers and less scientists .
I suggest we sacrifice the science for now in order to build a more solid , cheaper and versatile space access infrastructure .
The very moment we can launch stuff cheaply we will see an expansion of space science like we never saw before .
You spend billions on a space probe because it will cost a couple hundred millions to launch it .
It 's easy to imagine hundreds of cheaper science projects piggybacking on cheaper space access.Inexpensive space access is the key .
That should be the \ _only \ _ focus for NASA for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it makes more rational sense to have robotic probes"No robotic probe can tell you how it "feels" to be there.
A robotic probe is a machine.
A manned spacecraft is a part of Humanity.But, about pouring billions into NASA... Well... I seems like they lost their mojo.
They need to reinvent themselves, be willing to take risks more smartly (it took over 100 flights, 7 deaths and a lost spacecraft for someone to even look at what kind of damage a shuttle takes on launch?
Seriously?).I guess NASA needs more test-pilots and engineers and less scientists.
I suggest we sacrifice the science for now in order to build a more solid, cheaper and versatile space access infrastructure.
The very moment we can launch stuff cheaply we will see an expansion of space science like we never saw before.
You spend billions on a space probe because it will cost a couple hundred millions to launch it.
It's easy to imagine hundreds of cheaper science projects piggybacking on cheaper space access.Inexpensive space access is the key.
That should be the \_only\_ focus for NASA for the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410087</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather use NASA money for interesting paylo</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1245593820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>100m mirror for a telescope, solar collectors that beam power back to Earth, etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>You know, with a 100m magnifying glass in space, we could create a free chicken toasting area right here on earth, thereby reducing the vast global power consumption of McDonalds, KFC, Burger Kings, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>100m mirror for a telescope , solar collectors that beam power back to Earth , etc.You know , with a 100m magnifying glass in space , we could create a free chicken toasting area right here on earth , thereby reducing the vast global power consumption of McDonalds , KFC , Burger Kings , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100m mirror for a telescope, solar collectors that beam power back to Earth, etc.You know, with a 100m magnifying glass in space, we could create a free chicken toasting area right here on earth, thereby reducing the vast global power consumption of McDonalds, KFC, Burger Kings, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410409</id>
	<title>Re:Current NASA Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1245597060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not NASA's fault that they lost the technology used to put the first people on the Moon. It's the fault of the government of the USA. They are the ones who set NASA's goals. They killed manned space exploration with the Space Shuttle, which was a compromise designed by committee for the purposes of putting up and bringing down spy satellites and to "build the space station."</p> </div><p>Nonsense. NASA wasn't some powerless orphan pushed around by bigger forces. They were the only ones who really understood what they were doing. The Apollo program worked as advertised and possibly ended later than planned (after all, once someone walks on the Moon you've satisfied all the requirements laid out at the beginning by Kennedy!). Sure they didn't have the ability to retain their cushy Apollo era budget, but Congress didn't force them to design a vehicle that only made sense with an Apollo era budget. My view is that NASA, if it had come up with a competent vehicle, could have gotten the funding approved. The "spy satellite" capability only was needed when NASA's vehicle became so big that they couldn't fund it solely with NASA funds. A smaller vehicle (for example, get rid of 90\% of the payload capability of the Shuttle) wouldn't have needed military funding and hence would not have labored under military requirements. But NASA wanted the big, heavy lift vehicle. So in order to get enough funding for the Shuttle, they had to get some from the DoD.<br> <br>

The key to understanding the drama surrounding the Shuttle is to realize first, that the original design of the Shuttle was too ambitious. Virtually all of the problems and difficulties (eg, the Shuttle tiles, attempting to force all commercial satellites onto the Shuttle in the early 80s, making numerous space science projects and the ISS dependent on the Shuttle) since flow from that original bad design decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not NASA 's fault that they lost the technology used to put the first people on the Moon .
It 's the fault of the government of the USA .
They are the ones who set NASA 's goals .
They killed manned space exploration with the Space Shuttle , which was a compromise designed by committee for the purposes of putting up and bringing down spy satellites and to " build the space station .
" Nonsense .
NASA was n't some powerless orphan pushed around by bigger forces .
They were the only ones who really understood what they were doing .
The Apollo program worked as advertised and possibly ended later than planned ( after all , once someone walks on the Moon you 've satisfied all the requirements laid out at the beginning by Kennedy ! ) .
Sure they did n't have the ability to retain their cushy Apollo era budget , but Congress did n't force them to design a vehicle that only made sense with an Apollo era budget .
My view is that NASA , if it had come up with a competent vehicle , could have gotten the funding approved .
The " spy satellite " capability only was needed when NASA 's vehicle became so big that they could n't fund it solely with NASA funds .
A smaller vehicle ( for example , get rid of 90 \ % of the payload capability of the Shuttle ) would n't have needed military funding and hence would not have labored under military requirements .
But NASA wanted the big , heavy lift vehicle .
So in order to get enough funding for the Shuttle , they had to get some from the DoD .
The key to understanding the drama surrounding the Shuttle is to realize first , that the original design of the Shuttle was too ambitious .
Virtually all of the problems and difficulties ( eg , the Shuttle tiles , attempting to force all commercial satellites onto the Shuttle in the early 80s , making numerous space science projects and the ISS dependent on the Shuttle ) since flow from that original bad design decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not NASA's fault that they lost the technology used to put the first people on the Moon.
It's the fault of the government of the USA.
They are the ones who set NASA's goals.
They killed manned space exploration with the Space Shuttle, which was a compromise designed by committee for the purposes of putting up and bringing down spy satellites and to "build the space station.
" Nonsense.
NASA wasn't some powerless orphan pushed around by bigger forces.
They were the only ones who really understood what they were doing.
The Apollo program worked as advertised and possibly ended later than planned (after all, once someone walks on the Moon you've satisfied all the requirements laid out at the beginning by Kennedy!).
Sure they didn't have the ability to retain their cushy Apollo era budget, but Congress didn't force them to design a vehicle that only made sense with an Apollo era budget.
My view is that NASA, if it had come up with a competent vehicle, could have gotten the funding approved.
The "spy satellite" capability only was needed when NASA's vehicle became so big that they couldn't fund it solely with NASA funds.
A smaller vehicle (for example, get rid of 90\% of the payload capability of the Shuttle) wouldn't have needed military funding and hence would not have labored under military requirements.
But NASA wanted the big, heavy lift vehicle.
So in order to get enough funding for the Shuttle, they had to get some from the DoD.
The key to understanding the drama surrounding the Shuttle is to realize first, that the original design of the Shuttle was too ambitious.
Virtually all of the problems and difficulties (eg, the Shuttle tiles, attempting to force all commercial satellites onto the Shuttle in the early 80s, making numerous space science projects and the ISS dependent on the Shuttle) since flow from that original bad design decision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</id>
	<title>If we have to choose</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1245592080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we have to make a choice between health care and building a moon base, I say go with the less expensive lift vehicles and health care.

</p><p>The moon base will just have to wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we have to make a choice between health care and building a moon base , I say go with the less expensive lift vehicles and health care .
The moon base will just have to wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we have to make a choice between health care and building a moon base, I say go with the less expensive lift vehicles and health care.
The moon base will just have to wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28419125</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather use NASA money for interesting paylo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245669660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think DIRECT is better than Constellation.</p><p>http://www.directlauncher.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think DIRECT is better than Constellation.http : //www.directlauncher.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think DIRECT is better than Constellation.http://www.directlauncher.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410971</id>
	<title>Fix the invisible hand</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1245601560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050111091203/www.geocities.com/jim\_bowery/testimny.htm" title="archive.org">I already went through this with the government back in the early 90s</a> [archive.org].
<p>
What I learned is that Adam Smith's invisible hand is broken -- although technosocialism like the Shuttle program is even worse.
</p><p>
So fix the invisible hand by reforming government to attend to its real business:  Paying out citizens dividends under the social contract that brings us together to protect property rights that would not exist in the absence of that social contract.  As with any dividend stream, there is an optimum for the shareholders that does not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already went through this with the government back in the early 90s [ archive.org ] .
What I learned is that Adam Smith 's invisible hand is broken -- although technosocialism like the Shuttle program is even worse .
So fix the invisible hand by reforming government to attend to its real business : Paying out citizens dividends under the social contract that brings us together to protect property rights that would not exist in the absence of that social contract .
As with any dividend stream , there is an optimum for the shareholders that does not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already went through this with the government back in the early 90s [archive.org].
What I learned is that Adam Smith's invisible hand is broken -- although technosocialism like the Shuttle program is even worse.
So fix the invisible hand by reforming government to attend to its real business:  Paying out citizens dividends under the social contract that brings us together to protect property rights that would not exist in the absence of that social contract.
As with any dividend stream, there is an optimum for the shareholders that does not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939</id>
	<title>Current NASA  Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245591840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me crazy, but as far as I can tell, we're a month away from the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. The bulk of the current population of the earth was born into a world where man had walked on the moon.</p><p>And NASA is asking for (another) $35B and a couple years to develop a rocket that can launch humans into space, never mind to the moon? Seriously?</p><p>I'm all for space exploration (and exploitation), and I even partake in the probably misguided notion that there is real value in having humans go into space, even though for the most part, it makes more rational sense to have robotic probes go in our place.</p><p>But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago, and who keep losing people and equipment because they refuse to listen to their own engineers.</p><p>I grew up admiring NASA and the astronauts, and with a burning desire to be one myself, or at the very least work there, but today I wouldn't buy a used car from the current crop of hacks running the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me crazy , but as far as I can tell , we 're a month away from the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing .
The bulk of the current population of the earth was born into a world where man had walked on the moon.And NASA is asking for ( another ) $ 35B and a couple years to develop a rocket that can launch humans into space , never mind to the moon ?
Seriously ? I 'm all for space exploration ( and exploitation ) , and I even partake in the probably misguided notion that there is real value in having humans go into space , even though for the most part , it makes more rational sense to have robotic probes go in our place.But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago , and who keep losing people and equipment because they refuse to listen to their own engineers.I grew up admiring NASA and the astronauts , and with a burning desire to be one myself , or at the very least work there , but today I would n't buy a used car from the current crop of hacks running the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me crazy, but as far as I can tell, we're a month away from the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing.
The bulk of the current population of the earth was born into a world where man had walked on the moon.And NASA is asking for (another) $35B and a couple years to develop a rocket that can launch humans into space, never mind to the moon?
Seriously?I'm all for space exploration (and exploitation), and I even partake in the probably misguided notion that there is real value in having humans go into space, even though for the most part, it makes more rational sense to have robotic probes go in our place.But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago, and who keep losing people and equipment because they refuse to listen to their own engineers.I grew up admiring NASA and the astronauts, and with a burning desire to be one myself, or at the very least work there, but today I wouldn't buy a used car from the current crop of hacks running the place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409901</id>
	<title>Space Elevator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245591060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about they create a goddamn Space Elevator already!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about they create a goddamn Space Elevator already !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about they create a goddamn Space Elevator already!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411517</id>
	<title>Politically Unattractive?</title>
	<author>solios</author>
	<datestamp>1245606720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politically unattractive is the idea of depending on the Soyuz to get to the ISS while we continue to develop a new launch vehicle that by any reasonable metric should be done by now.</p><p>I'm a huge fan of the Russian space program, but I also feel that it's a matter of national pride to have our own crew launch vehicle(s).  If NASA is incapable and commercial interests can step up, then let's go with commercial interests - bidding out to American companies means it's still an American project; an American "win."</p><p>What's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle, or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch (at over $40 million a seat) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion <i>will</i> work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politically unattractive is the idea of depending on the Soyuz to get to the ISS while we continue to develop a new launch vehicle that by any reasonable metric should be done by now.I 'm a huge fan of the Russian space program , but I also feel that it 's a matter of national pride to have our own crew launch vehicle ( s ) .
If NASA is incapable and commercial interests can step up , then let 's go with commercial interests - bidding out to American companies means it 's still an American project ; an American " win .
" What 's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle , or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch ( at over $ 40 million a seat ) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion will work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politically unattractive is the idea of depending on the Soyuz to get to the ISS while we continue to develop a new launch vehicle that by any reasonable metric should be done by now.I'm a huge fan of the Russian space program, but I also feel that it's a matter of national pride to have our own crew launch vehicle(s).
If NASA is incapable and commercial interests can step up, then let's go with commercial interests - bidding out to American companies means it's still an American project; an American "win.
"What's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle, or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch (at over $40 million a seat) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion will work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410887</id>
	<title>White House Panel Considers New Paths To Space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245600960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409863</id>
	<title>Bad article and bad summary</title>
	<author>YA\_Python\_dev</author>
	<datestamp>1245590280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., but the article was written by someone who wasn't even able to spell correctly the names of the rockets, and the summary fails to mention the stronger alternative that doesn't requires big jobs losses within NASA in the next few years (DIRECT).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , this is /. , but the article was written by someone who was n't even able to spell correctly the names of the rockets , and the summary fails to mention the stronger alternative that does n't requires big jobs losses within NASA in the next few years ( DIRECT ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, this is /., but the article was written by someone who wasn't even able to spell correctly the names of the rockets, and the summary fails to mention the stronger alternative that doesn't requires big jobs losses within NASA in the next few years (DIRECT).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413727</id>
	<title>Re:Current NASA Used car salesmen</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245579960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But why should it be up to the Americans on their own to put human beings in space? Yes, Russia and China have done it, but I'm very ashamed that ESA hasn't done it yet.</i>

<p>ESA have kicked the idea around from time to time, most notably with the Hermes project of the 1980s to build a mini-shuttle to launch on an Ariane V, but politics got in the way. The Germans got quite irate about being asked to fund far more than their share, especially with the costs of reunification with the East. The British wouldn't pay anything at all towards any manned project. And since Russia was opening up, it made more sense just to pay for Soyuz flights as needed.

</p><p>There's probably a better chance now of a European manned launcher than at any time before. ESA have the ATV, a cargo carrier for supplying the ISS: this does not carry crews, but is man-rated and acts as extra inhabitable space while docked, and there's a possibility it might form the basis of a manned spacecraft, should it prove necessary in case of an extended American failure to replace the Shuttle. Sadly, it's not just a matter of adding an independent life-support system; the ATV is meant to burn up on re-entry and take all the accumulated rubbish and waste from ISS with it. Not a feature you really want in your crewed spacecraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But why should it be up to the Americans on their own to put human beings in space ?
Yes , Russia and China have done it , but I 'm very ashamed that ESA has n't done it yet .
ESA have kicked the idea around from time to time , most notably with the Hermes project of the 1980s to build a mini-shuttle to launch on an Ariane V , but politics got in the way .
The Germans got quite irate about being asked to fund far more than their share , especially with the costs of reunification with the East .
The British would n't pay anything at all towards any manned project .
And since Russia was opening up , it made more sense just to pay for Soyuz flights as needed .
There 's probably a better chance now of a European manned launcher than at any time before .
ESA have the ATV , a cargo carrier for supplying the ISS : this does not carry crews , but is man-rated and acts as extra inhabitable space while docked , and there 's a possibility it might form the basis of a manned spacecraft , should it prove necessary in case of an extended American failure to replace the Shuttle .
Sadly , it 's not just a matter of adding an independent life-support system ; the ATV is meant to burn up on re-entry and take all the accumulated rubbish and waste from ISS with it .
Not a feature you really want in your crewed spacecraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why should it be up to the Americans on their own to put human beings in space?
Yes, Russia and China have done it, but I'm very ashamed that ESA hasn't done it yet.
ESA have kicked the idea around from time to time, most notably with the Hermes project of the 1980s to build a mini-shuttle to launch on an Ariane V, but politics got in the way.
The Germans got quite irate about being asked to fund far more than their share, especially with the costs of reunification with the East.
The British wouldn't pay anything at all towards any manned project.
And since Russia was opening up, it made more sense just to pay for Soyuz flights as needed.
There's probably a better chance now of a European manned launcher than at any time before.
ESA have the ATV, a cargo carrier for supplying the ISS: this does not carry crews, but is man-rated and acts as extra inhabitable space while docked, and there's a possibility it might form the basis of a manned spacecraft, should it prove necessary in case of an extended American failure to replace the Shuttle.
Sadly, it's not just a matter of adding an independent life-support system; the ATV is meant to burn up on re-entry and take all the accumulated rubbish and waste from ISS with it.
Not a feature you really want in your crewed spacecraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410133</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science can make health care better. Health care can not make science better.</p><p>Also, with 6.7 billion people on earth, who cares if 10\% of them die? We reproduce quicker than anyone can kill us. Remember when we were at 6.0 billion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science can make health care better .
Health care can not make science better.Also , with 6.7 billion people on earth , who cares if 10 \ % of them die ?
We reproduce quicker than anyone can kill us .
Remember when we were at 6.0 billion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science can make health care better.
Health care can not make science better.Also, with 6.7 billion people on earth, who cares if 10\% of them die?
We reproduce quicker than anyone can kill us.
Remember when we were at 6.0 billion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410309</id>
	<title>Re:If we have to choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's why America is not the leader in innovation that it used to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's why America is not the leader in innovation that it used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's why America is not the leader in innovation that it used to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410823</id>
	<title>NASA is just not that expensive.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245600420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of people are down on the idea of sending people to the moon, or to mars, or to any other place outside of earth's gravity, for the sake of doing so. I think that is exactly why we should do something.  In the short term, there is no logical reason to put people in space.  But in the long run, we know that we must go there, and thus, we must make halting, childlike, inefficient steps to learn how to get there.</p><p>As a species, our first craft to traverse the waters with were not 70,000 ton container ships, 100,000 ton aircraft carriers, or 200,000 ton oil tankers.  Most likely it was a crude piece of wood that floated.  Later, we would learn to hollow things out, or put pieces of wood together.  It took us many years to get from those days to now.</p><p>There does not need to be a contest of manned exploration versus unmanned science. At most we are quibbling about an additional 5 to 10 billion dollars per year.  Out of a federal budget of several trillion dollars, this is chump change.  I would shocked to find that as we have achieved some sort of victory in Iraq, we cannot use some of the nearly 700 billion dollars a year in military spending for this purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of people are down on the idea of sending people to the moon , or to mars , or to any other place outside of earth 's gravity , for the sake of doing so .
I think that is exactly why we should do something .
In the short term , there is no logical reason to put people in space .
But in the long run , we know that we must go there , and thus , we must make halting , childlike , inefficient steps to learn how to get there.As a species , our first craft to traverse the waters with were not 70,000 ton container ships , 100,000 ton aircraft carriers , or 200,000 ton oil tankers .
Most likely it was a crude piece of wood that floated .
Later , we would learn to hollow things out , or put pieces of wood together .
It took us many years to get from those days to now.There does not need to be a contest of manned exploration versus unmanned science .
At most we are quibbling about an additional 5 to 10 billion dollars per year .
Out of a federal budget of several trillion dollars , this is chump change .
I would shocked to find that as we have achieved some sort of victory in Iraq , we can not use some of the nearly 700 billion dollars a year in military spending for this purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of people are down on the idea of sending people to the moon, or to mars, or to any other place outside of earth's gravity, for the sake of doing so.
I think that is exactly why we should do something.
In the short term, there is no logical reason to put people in space.
But in the long run, we know that we must go there, and thus, we must make halting, childlike, inefficient steps to learn how to get there.As a species, our first craft to traverse the waters with were not 70,000 ton container ships, 100,000 ton aircraft carriers, or 200,000 ton oil tankers.
Most likely it was a crude piece of wood that floated.
Later, we would learn to hollow things out, or put pieces of wood together.
It took us many years to get from those days to now.There does not need to be a contest of manned exploration versus unmanned science.
At most we are quibbling about an additional 5 to 10 billion dollars per year.
Out of a federal budget of several trillion dollars, this is chump change.
I would shocked to find that as we have achieved some sort of victory in Iraq, we cannot use some of the nearly 700 billion dollars a year in military spending for this purpose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410949</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245601380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What near future goals are furthered by people living on the Moon?</p></div><p>Um, lemme help you out there, bud:<br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>What near future goals are furthered by people living in north America?</p></div><p>I bet you sound like the stay-home whiners from way back when in Europe before ol' Columbus set sail.  "Such a waste of money!"  "Everyone <i>knows</i> y'all fall off the edge!  We should rather buy more sculptures of Jesus for our churches, an' more wood to burn those witches (after we rape there sorry asses, mind you), an' more high-tech implements to forcefully open bellies in our torture chambers (and woohoo, don'tcha just <i>love</i> the spurtage when they pull off an arm!), an' more gold for the queen of Spain, an' let's not forget that other bitch the QOE, an' more money to pay our armies with, an' more money for the !HOLY! church of Rome so they can convert or kill more of those Jews, an' more money for our black slaves (every <i>knows</i> you can't have enough of them!  Besides, one has to hang at least one a month to keep the vermin in line), an'  an'  an'  glory be to JEEEEE-SSSSSUSSS!"</p><p><div class="quote"></div><p>People like you hold back society, pal.  So, fuckoff and die, will you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What near future goals are furthered by people living on the Moon ? Um , lem me help you out there , bud :   What near future goals are furthered by people living in north America ? I bet you sound like the stay-home whiners from way back when in Europe before ol ' Columbus set sail .
" Such a waste of money !
" " Everyone knows y'all fall off the edge !
We should rather buy more sculptures of Jesus for our churches , an ' more wood to burn those witches ( after we rape there sorry asses , mind you ) , an ' more high-tech implements to forcefully open bellies in our torture chambers ( and woohoo , don'tcha just love the spurtage when they pull off an arm !
) , an ' more gold for the queen of Spain , an ' let 's not forget that other bitch the QOE , an ' more money to pay our armies with , an ' more money for the ! HOLY !
church of Rome so they can convert or kill more of those Jews , an ' more money for our black slaves ( every knows you ca n't have enough of them !
Besides , one has to hang at least one a month to keep the vermin in line ) , an ' an ' an ' glory be to JEEEEE-SSSSSUSSS !
" People like you hold back society , pal .
So , fuckoff and die , will you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What near future goals are furthered by people living on the Moon?Um, lemme help you out there, bud:
  What near future goals are furthered by people living in north America?I bet you sound like the stay-home whiners from way back when in Europe before ol' Columbus set sail.
"Such a waste of money!
"  "Everyone knows y'all fall off the edge!
We should rather buy more sculptures of Jesus for our churches, an' more wood to burn those witches (after we rape there sorry asses, mind you), an' more high-tech implements to forcefully open bellies in our torture chambers (and woohoo, don'tcha just love the spurtage when they pull off an arm!
), an' more gold for the queen of Spain, an' let's not forget that other bitch the QOE, an' more money to pay our armies with, an' more money for the !HOLY!
church of Rome so they can convert or kill more of those Jews, an' more money for our black slaves (every knows you can't have enough of them!
Besides, one has to hang at least one a month to keep the vermin in line), an'  an'  an'  glory be to JEEEEE-SSSSSUSSS!
"People like you hold back society, pal.
So, fuckoff and die, will you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413923</id>
	<title>Re:Politically Unattractive?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1245581700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle, or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch (at over $40 million a seat) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion will work?</i></p><p>Are you asking what's more attractive to and better for America in general, or what's more attractive to senators from congressional districts where the Ares/Orion will be built?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle , or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch ( at over $ 40 million a seat ) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion will work ? Are you asking what 's more attractive to and better for America in general , or what 's more attractive to senators from congressional districts where the Ares/Orion will be built ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's more attractive - sending US Astronauts into space on a SpaceX or Scaled Composites launch vehicle, or bidding for space on a Soyuz launch (at over $40 million a seat) while bureaucrats continue to insist Ares/Orion will work?Are you asking what's more attractive to and better for America in general, or what's more attractive to senators from congressional districts where the Ares/Orion will be built?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410033</id>
	<title>ownership</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without it, nobody is interested in space.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without it , nobody is interested in space .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without it, nobody is interested in space.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28420163</id>
	<title>Re:Manned space yield</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I hung around the same bars as the astronauts, drank the same drinks as they did, and told women I walked on the moon; I never got any 'tang.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I hung around the same bars as the astronauts , drank the same drinks as they did , and told women I walked on the moon ; I never got any 'tang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I hung around the same bars as the astronauts, drank the same drinks as they did, and told women I walked on the moon; I never got any 'tang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28418767</id>
	<title>Re:Men on the moon</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1245666660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>aye


(what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just aye)</htmltext>
<tokenext>aye ( what ... just aye )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aye


(what ... just aye)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410105</id>
	<title>Re:Space Elevator</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1245594120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as you invent the materials. Now, turn off your computer and get back to your lab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as you invent the materials .
Now , turn off your computer and get back to your lab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as you invent the materials.
Now, turn off your computer and get back to your lab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410141</id>
	<title>Ambitions have changed since 1969</title>
	<author>Attila the Bun</author>
	<datestamp>1245594480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago, and who keep losing people and equipment because they refuse to listen to their own engineers.</p></div><p>Standards have changed since 1969.  The Apollo programme was expensive and dangerous.  Building another Apollo mission today would still be expensive and dangerous, and worst of all it wouldn't meet modern ambitions.  NASA is looking at building an inhabited lunar outpost, visiting an asteroid, launching a large deep-space telescope, and a mission to Mars.  It might be a short hop from the Moon to Mars on a poster of the solar system; in real space it's a whole different prospect.  Doing new stuff requires new technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago , and who keep losing people and equipment because they refuse to listen to their own engineers.Standards have changed since 1969 .
The Apollo programme was expensive and dangerous .
Building another Apollo mission today would still be expensive and dangerous , and worst of all it would n't meet modern ambitions .
NASA is looking at building an inhabited lunar outpost , visiting an asteroid , launching a large deep-space telescope , and a mission to Mars .
It might be a short hop from the Moon to Mars on a poster of the solar system ; in real space it 's a whole different prospect .
Doing new stuff requires new technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even I have to question the sanity of pouring billions and billions of dollars into an organization so fscked up that they have to reinvent technology they provably had over forty years ago, and who keep losing people and equipment because they refuse to listen to their own engineers.Standards have changed since 1969.
The Apollo programme was expensive and dangerous.
Building another Apollo mission today would still be expensive and dangerous, and worst of all it wouldn't meet modern ambitions.
NASA is looking at building an inhabited lunar outpost, visiting an asteroid, launching a large deep-space telescope, and a mission to Mars.
It might be a short hop from the Moon to Mars on a poster of the solar system; in real space it's a whole different prospect.
Doing new stuff requires new technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28419267</id>
	<title>suggestions for the Human Space Flight Committee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245670800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>just posted my suggestion #3 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA: "throw away NOW in the garbage the 5 and 5.5 segments SRBs!" http://ow.ly/f3vQ<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....just posted my suggestion # 3 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA : " throw away NOW in the garbage the 5 and 5.5 segments SRBs !
" http : //ow.ly/f3vQ.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....just posted my suggestion #3 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA: "throw away NOW in the garbage the 5 and 5.5 segments SRBs!
" http://ow.ly/f3vQ.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28424431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28415639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28415267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28419593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28414731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28493139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28419125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28416573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28420809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28420163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28424163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28416919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28418767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28434773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28417865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28414123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_207200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28422547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28416919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28414123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28419125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28411487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28424431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28434773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28420809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28493139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28413829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28409831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28422547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28416573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28424163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410949
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28414731
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28419593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28418767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28415267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28417865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28415639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28412757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_207200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28410259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_207200.28420163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
