<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_0410259</id>
	<title>Buzz Aldrin's Radical Plan For NASA</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246040520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FleaPlus writes <i>"Apollo 11 astronaut (and MIT Astronautics Sc.D.) Buzz Aldrin suggests a <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air\_space/4322647.html?page=1">bolder plan for NASA</a> (while still remaining within its budget), which he will present to the White House's <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html">Augustine Commission</a>; he sees NASA heading down the wrong path with a 'rehash of what we did 40 years ago' which could derail future exploration and settlement. For the short-term, Aldrin suggests canceling NASA's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I, instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV, Atlas V, and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets. In the medium-term, NASA should return to the moon with an international consortium, with the ultimate goal of commercial lunar exploitation in mind. Aldrin's long term plan includes a 2018 comet flyby, a 2019 manned trip to a near-earth asteroid, a 2025 trip to the Martian moon Phobos, and one-way trips to colonize Mars."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FleaPlus writes " Apollo 11 astronaut ( and MIT Astronautics Sc.D .
) Buzz Aldrin suggests a bolder plan for NASA ( while still remaining within its budget ) , which he will present to the White House 's Augustine Commission ; he sees NASA heading down the wrong path with a 'rehash of what we did 40 years ago ' which could derail future exploration and settlement .
For the short-term , Aldrin suggests canceling NASA 's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I , instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV , Atlas V , and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets .
In the medium-term , NASA should return to the moon with an international consortium , with the ultimate goal of commercial lunar exploitation in mind .
Aldrin 's long term plan includes a 2018 comet flyby , a 2019 manned trip to a near-earth asteroid , a 2025 trip to the Martian moon Phobos , and one-way trips to colonize Mars .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FleaPlus writes "Apollo 11 astronaut (and MIT Astronautics Sc.D.
) Buzz Aldrin suggests a bolder plan for NASA (while still remaining within its budget), which he will present to the White House's Augustine Commission; he sees NASA heading down the wrong path with a 'rehash of what we did 40 years ago' which could derail future exploration and settlement.
For the short-term, Aldrin suggests canceling NASA's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I, instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV, Atlas V, and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.
In the medium-term, NASA should return to the moon with an international consortium, with the ultimate goal of commercial lunar exploitation in mind.
Aldrin's long term plan includes a 2018 comet flyby, a 2019 manned trip to a near-earth asteroid, a 2025 trip to the Martian moon Phobos, and one-way trips to colonize Mars.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478543</id>
	<title>Re:Safety?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> The safety of the Atlas V and Delta IV was estimated from the failure rates of all Delta II, Atlas Centaur, and Titan launches since 1992, although they are not similar designs. This meant, for example, that the relatively high failure rate of the Titan IV, which used strap-on solid rocket motors, did not count against the Ares, which has a main solid rocket motor, but counted against the Delta IV-H, which has only liquid propulsion. In May 2009 the previously-withheld appendices to the 2006 ESAS study were leaked, revealing a number of apparent flaws in the study, which gave safety exemptions to the selected Ares I design while using a faulty model which unfairly penalized the EELV-based designs. ~ Wikipedia</p></div></blockquote></div><p>They were defined unsafe by NASA because of politics, not facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The safety of the Atlas V and Delta IV was estimated from the failure rates of all Delta II , Atlas Centaur , and Titan launches since 1992 , although they are not similar designs .
This meant , for example , that the relatively high failure rate of the Titan IV , which used strap-on solid rocket motors , did not count against the Ares , which has a main solid rocket motor , but counted against the Delta IV-H , which has only liquid propulsion .
In May 2009 the previously-withheld appendices to the 2006 ESAS study were leaked , revealing a number of apparent flaws in the study , which gave safety exemptions to the selected Ares I design while using a faulty model which unfairly penalized the EELV-based designs .
~ WikipediaThey were defined unsafe by NASA because of politics , not facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The safety of the Atlas V and Delta IV was estimated from the failure rates of all Delta II, Atlas Centaur, and Titan launches since 1992, although they are not similar designs.
This meant, for example, that the relatively high failure rate of the Titan IV, which used strap-on solid rocket motors, did not count against the Ares, which has a main solid rocket motor, but counted against the Delta IV-H, which has only liquid propulsion.
In May 2009 the previously-withheld appendices to the 2006 ESAS study were leaked, revealing a number of apparent flaws in the study, which gave safety exemptions to the selected Ares I design while using a faulty model which unfairly penalized the EELV-based designs.
~ WikipediaThey were defined unsafe by NASA because of politics, not facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478711</id>
	<title>Re:Manned space flight is a fucking waste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246048800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Bolting a nut in 0g" doesn't much interest me either! But I'd be a lot more excited by humans setting foot on Mars and puttering about with a greenhouse, than I would with some little robots that spend months poking rocks. Which is the better headline: "Man Walks On Mars" or "NASA Engineers Try To Coax Robot To Pour Rock Dust Into Sample Chamber"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bolting a nut in 0g " does n't much interest me either !
But I 'd be a lot more excited by humans setting foot on Mars and puttering about with a greenhouse , than I would with some little robots that spend months poking rocks .
Which is the better headline : " Man Walks On Mars " or " NASA Engineers Try To Coax Robot To Pour Rock Dust Into Sample Chamber " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bolting a nut in 0g" doesn't much interest me either!
But I'd be a lot more excited by humans setting foot on Mars and puttering about with a greenhouse, than I would with some little robots that spend months poking rocks.
Which is the better headline: "Man Walks On Mars" or "NASA Engineers Try To Coax Robot To Pour Rock Dust Into Sample Chamber"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480073</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1246019940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, for one thing, a manned space program keeps some very intelligent scientists and engineers employed.  It also hopefully captures the imagination of the youth to provide us with another generation of scientists and engineers.<br>
<br>
We keep complaining that math and science education in this country keeps sliding.  Giving kids something tangible that says "math and science can be fun and exciting" is what we need.<br>
<br>
Plus it's not like 100 billion dollars gets strapped to a rocket and blasted into space.  Most of the money spent is put straight into the economy (through salaries).  The only actual "loss" is the cost of the raw material sent into space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for one thing , a manned space program keeps some very intelligent scientists and engineers employed .
It also hopefully captures the imagination of the youth to provide us with another generation of scientists and engineers .
We keep complaining that math and science education in this country keeps sliding .
Giving kids something tangible that says " math and science can be fun and exciting " is what we need .
Plus it 's not like 100 billion dollars gets strapped to a rocket and blasted into space .
Most of the money spent is put straight into the economy ( through salaries ) .
The only actual " loss " is the cost of the raw material sent into space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for one thing, a manned space program keeps some very intelligent scientists and engineers employed.
It also hopefully captures the imagination of the youth to provide us with another generation of scientists and engineers.
We keep complaining that math and science education in this country keeps sliding.
Giving kids something tangible that says "math and science can be fun and exciting" is what we need.
Plus it's not like 100 billion dollars gets strapped to a rocket and blasted into space.
Most of the money spent is put straight into the economy (through salaries).
The only actual "loss" is the cost of the raw material sent into space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28505561</id>
	<title>Space Elevators ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Space Elevator is AWFULLY hard to get working on Earth<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but its a piece of CAKE for the Moon and Mars !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Space Elevator is AWFULLY hard to get working on Earth ... ... but its a piece of CAKE for the Moon and Mars ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Space Elevator is AWFULLY hard to get working on Earth ... ... but its a piece of CAKE for the Moon and Mars !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478887</id>
	<title>What About The Rap?</title>
	<author>adavies42</author>
	<datestamp>1246007040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought Buzz Aldrin's plan involved <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0be5c681fc/buzz-aldrin-s-rocket-experience" title="funnyordie.com">rapping with Snoop Dog and Soulja Boy</a> [funnyordie.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Buzz Aldrin 's plan involved rapping with Snoop Dog and Soulja Boy [ funnyordie.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Buzz Aldrin's plan involved rapping with Snoop Dog and Soulja Boy [funnyordie.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480181</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246021380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but it is like buying a computer. Sometimes, the best thing to do is just to wait a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but it is like buying a computer .
Sometimes , the best thing to do is just to wait a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but it is like buying a computer.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is just to wait a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480993</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246026180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asteroid impact...<br>Comet impact....<br>Super Volcano explosion...<br>Super Flu...<br>Runaway Global Warming...<br>Runaway Global Cooling...<br>Planetary Mutual Assured Destruction...<br>Grey Goo...<br>Stranglets...<br>Mini Black Holes...<br>Raptor by the Flying Spaghetti Monster...<br>Etc...</p><p>Though these things may be very unlikely, the mere fact that that there are an enormous amount of ways that humans could be wiped out, or near wiped out, means that the chances are actually quite good that something will wipe us out before these million years of which you speak.</p><p>i.e. coincidences  - There are an infinite number of coincidences that can occur to you. We label them as such, because the probability that they will occur seems fantastic. But experiencing one, or more, of these infinite number of possibilities is not actually uncommon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asteroid impact...Comet impact....Super Volcano explosion...Super Flu...Runaway Global Warming...Runaway Global Cooling...Planetary Mutual Assured Destruction...Grey Goo...Stranglets...Mini Black Holes...Raptor by the Flying Spaghetti Monster...Etc...Though these things may be very unlikely , the mere fact that that there are an enormous amount of ways that humans could be wiped out , or near wiped out , means that the chances are actually quite good that something will wipe us out before these million years of which you speak.i.e .
coincidences - There are an infinite number of coincidences that can occur to you .
We label them as such , because the probability that they will occur seems fantastic .
But experiencing one , or more , of these infinite number of possibilities is not actually uncommon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asteroid impact...Comet impact....Super Volcano explosion...Super Flu...Runaway Global Warming...Runaway Global Cooling...Planetary Mutual Assured Destruction...Grey Goo...Stranglets...Mini Black Holes...Raptor by the Flying Spaghetti Monster...Etc...Though these things may be very unlikely, the mere fact that that there are an enormous amount of ways that humans could be wiped out, or near wiped out, means that the chances are actually quite good that something will wipe us out before these million years of which you speak.i.e.
coincidences  - There are an infinite number of coincidences that can occur to you.
We label them as such, because the probability that they will occur seems fantastic.
But experiencing one, or more, of these infinite number of possibilities is not actually uncommon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479021</id>
	<title>Endemol...</title>
	<author>Lcf34</author>
	<datestamp>1246008060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... will probably like &amp; make an offer for broadcasting the one-way trip to colonize Mars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... will probably like &amp; make an offer for broadcasting the one-way trip to colonize Mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... will probably like &amp; make an offer for broadcasting the one-way trip to colonize Mars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479675</id>
	<title>One way trips?</title>
	<author>garry\_g</author>
	<datestamp>1246015200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May we vote or nominate people to send on these one way trips? I believe there are quite a few people without whom Earth would be better off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May we vote or nominate people to send on these one way trips ?
I believe there are quite a few people without whom Earth would be better off ... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May we vote or nominate people to send on these one way trips?
I believe there are quite a few people without whom Earth would be better off ... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479949</id>
	<title>Re:Manned space flight is a fucking waste</title>
	<author>AtomicJake</author>
	<datestamp>1246018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.</p></div><p>Why would anyone care what is interesting or not? The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize (as in moving people out there) space. All we do we do for survival, and colonizing space is vital for survival. That is why we need manned space flight.</p></div><p>While I would agree that it's really cool and interesting to go 0g and to visit other planets, I simply do not buy the colonization-for-survival crap.  If we want to survive as a species we should rather start to change our lives to live sustainable (which would probably not include space travel and certainly not include commercial air flights).  Now, as a (now living) individual I give a shit about our the ability to survive of our species and say: "Yarr, le'ts go on the account.  Let's leave behind 'ose landlubbers!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri 's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.Why would anyone care what is interesting or not ?
The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize ( as in moving people out there ) space .
All we do we do for survival , and colonizing space is vital for survival .
That is why we need manned space flight.While I would agree that it 's really cool and interesting to go 0g and to visit other planets , I simply do not buy the colonization-for-survival crap .
If we want to survive as a species we should rather start to change our lives to live sustainable ( which would probably not include space travel and certainly not include commercial air flights ) .
Now , as a ( now living ) individual I give a shit about our the ability to survive of our species and say : " Yarr , le'ts go on the account .
Let 's leave behind 'ose landlubbers !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.Why would anyone care what is interesting or not?
The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize (as in moving people out there) space.
All we do we do for survival, and colonizing space is vital for survival.
That is why we need manned space flight.While I would agree that it's really cool and interesting to go 0g and to visit other planets, I simply do not buy the colonization-for-survival crap.
If we want to survive as a species we should rather start to change our lives to live sustainable (which would probably not include space travel and certainly not include commercial air flights).
Now, as a (now living) individual I give a shit about our the ability to survive of our species and say: "Yarr, le'ts go on the account.
Let's leave behind 'ose landlubbers!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479429</id>
	<title>Re:About time we had some public debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246012440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sending robots to other space objects (e.g. Mars) has some certain advantages though:<br> <br>

1) It's much easier, and the cost is lower. Therefore it's a good starting place - you must learn how to crawl before you learn how to walk, etc.<br> <br>

2) The risks are lower. If a probe crashes against the surface of Mars, that's a setback. If a manned expedition crashes in the same manner, that is several dead astronauts. A tragic accident in space would hardly be the PR stunt that these kinds of projects need.<br> <br>

It is therefore important to do stuff in the correct order. First we send space probes, then we send landers, then we send people (if it's even possible given the conditions of the planet). We have still not gained enough experience to launch a manned expedition - the demands on reliability for such a mission will be far higher than our current track record.<br> <br>

In short, I agree that manned space exploration is "the stuff that dreams are made of", but robotic space exploration is, for the moment, what reality is made of. Visions alone won't get us there, hard work and realistic plans will - and unmanned vehicles are an indispensible part of those plans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sending robots to other space objects ( e.g .
Mars ) has some certain advantages though : 1 ) It 's much easier , and the cost is lower .
Therefore it 's a good starting place - you must learn how to crawl before you learn how to walk , etc .
2 ) The risks are lower .
If a probe crashes against the surface of Mars , that 's a setback .
If a manned expedition crashes in the same manner , that is several dead astronauts .
A tragic accident in space would hardly be the PR stunt that these kinds of projects need .
It is therefore important to do stuff in the correct order .
First we send space probes , then we send landers , then we send people ( if it 's even possible given the conditions of the planet ) .
We have still not gained enough experience to launch a manned expedition - the demands on reliability for such a mission will be far higher than our current track record .
In short , I agree that manned space exploration is " the stuff that dreams are made of " , but robotic space exploration is , for the moment , what reality is made of .
Visions alone wo n't get us there , hard work and realistic plans will - and unmanned vehicles are an indispensible part of those plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sending robots to other space objects (e.g.
Mars) has some certain advantages though: 

1) It's much easier, and the cost is lower.
Therefore it's a good starting place - you must learn how to crawl before you learn how to walk, etc.
2) The risks are lower.
If a probe crashes against the surface of Mars, that's a setback.
If a manned expedition crashes in the same manner, that is several dead astronauts.
A tragic accident in space would hardly be the PR stunt that these kinds of projects need.
It is therefore important to do stuff in the correct order.
First we send space probes, then we send landers, then we send people (if it's even possible given the conditions of the planet).
We have still not gained enough experience to launch a manned expedition - the demands on reliability for such a mission will be far higher than our current track record.
In short, I agree that manned space exploration is "the stuff that dreams are made of", but robotic space exploration is, for the moment, what reality is made of.
Visions alone won't get us there, hard work and realistic plans will - and unmanned vehicles are an indispensible part of those plans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479825</id>
	<title>Rocket Experience</title>
	<author>seyyah</author>
	<datestamp>1246017120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buzz Aldrin's <em>Other</em> Radical Plan for NASA: <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0be5c681fc/buzz-aldrin-s-rocket-experience" title="funnyordie.com" rel="nofollow">All astronauts are to record rap songs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</a> [funnyordie.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz Aldrin 's Other Radical Plan for NASA : All astronauts are to record rap songs ... [ funnyordie.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz Aldrin's Other Radical Plan for NASA: All astronauts are to record rap songs ... [funnyordie.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480851</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>JerryP</author>
	<datestamp>1246025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.</p><p>Actually we don't. We have a limited window defined by the expendable resources (fossil and nuclear fuel, ores, etc.) on this planet. We can invest these resources to try to establish new sources off-world. Once the resources are used up, we're stuck on this planet for good.</p><p>Might be that we already crossed that point. Might be that it is not really feasible at all. But I believe we're approaching a point where this discussion becomes moot pretty soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Dude , unless some meteor comes along and kills us all , we still have * millions * of years to perfect space travel.Actually we do n't .
We have a limited window defined by the expendable resources ( fossil and nuclear fuel , ores , etc .
) on this planet .
We can invest these resources to try to establish new sources off-world .
Once the resources are used up , we 're stuck on this planet for good.Might be that we already crossed that point .
Might be that it is not really feasible at all .
But I believe we 're approaching a point where this discussion becomes moot pretty soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.Actually we don't.
We have a limited window defined by the expendable resources (fossil and nuclear fuel, ores, etc.
) on this planet.
We can invest these resources to try to establish new sources off-world.
Once the resources are used up, we're stuck on this planet for good.Might be that we already crossed that point.
Might be that it is not really feasible at all.
But I believe we're approaching a point where this discussion becomes moot pretty soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488751</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1246013100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How clever of you to subtly change the subject. The parent refers to <em>manned</em> space exploration, which is truly a waste of money and resources. <em>Space exploration</em> <em>per se</em> is certainly a technology driver. History has shown many many times that unmanned space exploration can do <em>everything</em> worth doing in space that manned exploration can do for far less money, in far less time, and on a vastly greater scale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How clever of you to subtly change the subject .
The parent refers to manned space exploration , which is truly a waste of money and resources .
Space exploration per se is certainly a technology driver .
History has shown many many times that unmanned space exploration can do everything worth doing in space that manned exploration can do for far less money , in far less time , and on a vastly greater scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How clever of you to subtly change the subject.
The parent refers to manned space exploration, which is truly a waste of money and resources.
Space exploration per se is certainly a technology driver.
History has shown many many times that unmanned space exploration can do everything worth doing in space that manned exploration can do for far less money, in far less time, and on a vastly greater scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</id>
	<title>Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>interactive\_civilian</author>
	<datestamp>1246010880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you want to live on titan?</p></div><p>Yes. Yes I would. Absolutely, without a doubt. Where do I sign up?</p><p>Spending all the money fixing this world does nothing to get all of our eggs out of the basket, and if anything harms that basket, then we are screwed. To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction. You may not care about the long term survival of the human species (or any other species), but some of us do, and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out. We aren't going to do that by spending all of our money and resources here. We aren't even going to do that by pussy-footing around sending only robotic explorers to other places (as much as admire these feats of engineering and the data they bring back). We are only going to do that by getting out there and doing it ourselves. And it will only become cheaper, easier, and safer as we do it more and more and more.</p><p>So, one way ticket to Mars? Titan? Points outward? HELL YES. I wouldn't hesitate to accept such an opportunity, and I doubt I'm alone in this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you want to live on titan ? Yes .
Yes I would .
Absolutely , without a doubt .
Where do I sign up ? Spending all the money fixing this world does nothing to get all of our eggs out of the basket , and if anything harms that basket , then we are screwed .
To paraphrase Carl Sagan in " Pale Blue Dot " , any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction .
You may not care about the long term survival of the human species ( or any other species ) , but some of us do , and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out .
We are n't going to do that by spending all of our money and resources here .
We are n't even going to do that by pussy-footing around sending only robotic explorers to other places ( as much as admire these feats of engineering and the data they bring back ) .
We are only going to do that by getting out there and doing it ourselves .
And it will only become cheaper , easier , and safer as we do it more and more and more.So , one way ticket to Mars ?
Titan ? Points outward ?
HELL YES .
I would n't hesitate to accept such an opportunity , and I doubt I 'm alone in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you want to live on titan?Yes.
Yes I would.
Absolutely, without a doubt.
Where do I sign up?Spending all the money fixing this world does nothing to get all of our eggs out of the basket, and if anything harms that basket, then we are screwed.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction.
You may not care about the long term survival of the human species (or any other species), but some of us do, and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out.
We aren't going to do that by spending all of our money and resources here.
We aren't even going to do that by pussy-footing around sending only robotic explorers to other places (as much as admire these feats of engineering and the data they bring back).
We are only going to do that by getting out there and doing it ourselves.
And it will only become cheaper, easier, and safer as we do it more and more and more.So, one way ticket to Mars?
Titan? Points outward?
HELL YES.
I wouldn't hesitate to accept such an opportunity, and I doubt I'm alone in this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481831</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>quote&gt;Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel. If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter. If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.endquote</p><p>Really?  What do you think will happen to us in say 200 yrs when there is no more fuel?  What's gonna happen when polar bears are at your front door due to global warming.  Where will you get your water when all the chemicals and trash we dump everywhere contaiminates everthing.  I don't think you put any thought whatsoever into your reply.  Meteors are the last thing we need to worry about.  Seriously man you need to do some research and learn what your talking about.</p><p>There is no way in hell that our race has millions of years left to it, not with all the stupid shit we do.  as it is we have 6 BILLION + people on this planet, How many more do you think can fit here?  And should we wait untill earth has no chance before we worry about leaving this dirtball?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>quote &gt; Dude , unless some meteor comes along and kills us all , we still have * millions * of years to perfect space travel .
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century , it wo n't matter .
If you really care so much about the survival of the species , you 'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours , rather than trying to get a colony on titan.endquoteReally ?
What do you think will happen to us in say 200 yrs when there is no more fuel ?
What 's gon na happen when polar bears are at your front door due to global warming .
Where will you get your water when all the chemicals and trash we dump everywhere contaiminates everthing .
I do n't think you put any thought whatsoever into your reply .
Meteors are the last thing we need to worry about .
Seriously man you need to do some research and learn what your talking about.There is no way in hell that our race has millions of years left to it , not with all the stupid shit we do .
as it is we have 6 BILLION + people on this planet , How many more do you think can fit here ?
And should we wait untill earth has no chance before we worry about leaving this dirtball ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quote&gt;Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.
If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.endquoteReally?
What do you think will happen to us in say 200 yrs when there is no more fuel?
What's gonna happen when polar bears are at your front door due to global warming.
Where will you get your water when all the chemicals and trash we dump everywhere contaiminates everthing.
I don't think you put any thought whatsoever into your reply.
Meteors are the last thing we need to worry about.
Seriously man you need to do some research and learn what your talking about.There is no way in hell that our race has millions of years left to it, not with all the stupid shit we do.
as it is we have 6 BILLION + people on this planet, How many more do you think can fit here?
And should we wait untill earth has no chance before we worry about leaving this dirtball?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1246049580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. Self sustaining colonies should be practiced in orbit around the Earth.<br><br>The moon is an X day trip, whereas the time to orbit is much shorter. It's easier to help them if things go wrong.<br><br>Once you have self sustaining colonies in space, it doesn't matter so much how long it takes to get to Mars.<br><br>But people might then think, hey why bother landing humans on Mars, we'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars, while we mine the asteroids (and build more probes if necessary).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Self sustaining colonies should be practiced in orbit around the Earth.The moon is an X day trip , whereas the time to orbit is much shorter .
It 's easier to help them if things go wrong.Once you have self sustaining colonies in space , it does n't matter so much how long it takes to get to Mars.But people might then think , hey why bother landing humans on Mars , we 'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars , while we mine the asteroids ( and build more probes if necessary ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Self sustaining colonies should be practiced in orbit around the Earth.The moon is an X day trip, whereas the time to orbit is much shorter.
It's easier to help them if things go wrong.Once you have self sustaining colonies in space, it doesn't matter so much how long it takes to get to Mars.But people might then think, hey why bother landing humans on Mars, we'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars, while we mine the asteroids (and build more probes if necessary).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479787</id>
	<title>Gotta love</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246016580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geeks talking space exploration. The main drive ofcause being that we HAVE to leave earth, because it looks so cool in all those scifi-series.<br>In reallity there is no need to leave earth, it's all fine for us. Sure that's not thinking "long term", but if we start planing for when the suns going to explode now, we may aswell start forming contingency plans for when the universe implodes. By the time any of those things happen, the human race will nolonger even be a faint memory in what we will have naturally evolved into.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geeks talking space exploration .
The main drive ofcause being that we HAVE to leave earth , because it looks so cool in all those scifi-series.In reallity there is no need to leave earth , it 's all fine for us .
Sure that 's not thinking " long term " , but if we start planing for when the suns going to explode now , we may aswell start forming contingency plans for when the universe implodes .
By the time any of those things happen , the human race will nolonger even be a faint memory in what we will have naturally evolved into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geeks talking space exploration.
The main drive ofcause being that we HAVE to leave earth, because it looks so cool in all those scifi-series.In reallity there is no need to leave earth, it's all fine for us.
Sure that's not thinking "long term", but if we start planing for when the suns going to explode now, we may aswell start forming contingency plans for when the universe implodes.
By the time any of those things happen, the human race will nolonger even be a faint memory in what we will have naturally evolved into.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28489555</id>
	<title>Stepping Stones and Sense</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1246018020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same people who, working with von Braun, gave us some fundamental and essential inventions, such as cryogenically (regenerative) cooled motor nozzles, when necessary resorted to outright hacks to get the job done. For instance the Saturn 1B was a collection of 8 Redstone missile tanks and motors clustered around a Titan tank. They went for whatever was the best combination of fastest, cheapest and most powerful. More important, they went for what made the best sense.  Their focus was on getting the job done. In fact they solved more problems and developed more programs than were ever put into space. For instance, had the namesake of my UID been followed, Neil Armstrong would have been the first real space pilot, riding a winged craft into space then flying it to landing, 5 years before his Apollo flight and decades before the shuttle made this mission profile a reality.</p><p>One of the von Braun groups visions was to make the road to space a series of reusable and adaptable stepping stones rather than a series of one-shot spectaculars. Central to this philosophy was the development of orbital construction, refueling, scientific, telecommunications, command and control, permanently inhabited (through crew rotation) space stations. Their ideas, and similar ones from others, evolved over the years through a sort of intellectual genetic algorithm to give us the present ISS, a working model but as is unsuitable for the purposes they had in mind. They wanted, after all, to make it possible for us to get started on making it possible to do more and more things. As such their designs were far more generic and capable of adaptability. A collection of designs through the years can be seen at:<br> <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/eurtions.htm" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/eurtions.htm</a> [astronautix.com] <br> <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/usstions.htm" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/usstions.htm</a> [astronautix.com] <br> <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/sovtions.htm" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/sovtions.htm</a> [astronautix.com] </p><p>Their plans were to get there for good, by means that made the most sense. Only when given the option of working only on fastest did they turn to building vehicles from existing hardware to carry out one-shot missions. They had no intention of doing anything by such-and-such a time, as that limited their options. They wanted a permanent presence that never had to back step and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/or reinvent.</p><p>A program that was actually meant to get us there and keep us there would follow their design philosophy and quite likely end up with many of the same steps. Permanent orbital construction and outfitting stations would make the most long term sense. Expensive to build and taking a long time, they'd at first seem to stifle those with the urge to GO. But the expense, spread over the great number of missions they'd make possible, create and support, would be far less than faster alternatives. Similarly, once these are mature, many more varied missions could be sent more often, eventually allowing the number of missions to surpass what would otherwise have been possible in the same time frame.</p><p>Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon allowed us to show ourselves what we could do, a valuable lesson, but not the basis for a future. von Braun's vision was more aligned with what were could become. Sadly, even Aldrin's vision falls short in most respects. However, in calling for an international consortium (rather than half partnered, half competing teams) he may be pointing to the sort of organization that might be able to carry out such a program.</p><p>Eventually even O'Neil type habitats could be built providing the same services as these earlier stepping stone stations, fulfilling yet another dream but in a rational manner. They'd be built only after learning how through building their predecessors. Similarly, from these stations permanent settlements could be sent out, but their permanence would quite likely be made possible through the creation of permanent infrastructure on tho</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same people who , working with von Braun , gave us some fundamental and essential inventions , such as cryogenically ( regenerative ) cooled motor nozzles , when necessary resorted to outright hacks to get the job done .
For instance the Saturn 1B was a collection of 8 Redstone missile tanks and motors clustered around a Titan tank .
They went for whatever was the best combination of fastest , cheapest and most powerful .
More important , they went for what made the best sense .
Their focus was on getting the job done .
In fact they solved more problems and developed more programs than were ever put into space .
For instance , had the namesake of my UID been followed , Neil Armstrong would have been the first real space pilot , riding a winged craft into space then flying it to landing , 5 years before his Apollo flight and decades before the shuttle made this mission profile a reality.One of the von Braun groups visions was to make the road to space a series of reusable and adaptable stepping stones rather than a series of one-shot spectaculars .
Central to this philosophy was the development of orbital construction , refueling , scientific , telecommunications , command and control , permanently inhabited ( through crew rotation ) space stations .
Their ideas , and similar ones from others , evolved over the years through a sort of intellectual genetic algorithm to give us the present ISS , a working model but as is unsuitable for the purposes they had in mind .
They wanted , after all , to make it possible for us to get started on making it possible to do more and more things .
As such their designs were far more generic and capable of adaptability .
A collection of designs through the years can be seen at : http : //www.astronautix.com/craftfam/eurtions.htm [ astronautix.com ] http : //www.astronautix.com/craftfam/usstions.htm [ astronautix.com ] http : //www.astronautix.com/craftfam/sovtions.htm [ astronautix.com ] Their plans were to get there for good , by means that made the most sense .
Only when given the option of working only on fastest did they turn to building vehicles from existing hardware to carry out one-shot missions .
They had no intention of doing anything by such-and-such a time , as that limited their options .
They wanted a permanent presence that never had to back step and /or reinvent.A program that was actually meant to get us there and keep us there would follow their design philosophy and quite likely end up with many of the same steps .
Permanent orbital construction and outfitting stations would make the most long term sense .
Expensive to build and taking a long time , they 'd at first seem to stifle those with the urge to GO .
But the expense , spread over the great number of missions they 'd make possible , create and support , would be far less than faster alternatives .
Similarly , once these are mature , many more varied missions could be sent more often , eventually allowing the number of missions to surpass what would otherwise have been possible in the same time frame.Kennedy 's challenge to get to the moon allowed us to show ourselves what we could do , a valuable lesson , but not the basis for a future .
von Braun 's vision was more aligned with what were could become .
Sadly , even Aldrin 's vision falls short in most respects .
However , in calling for an international consortium ( rather than half partnered , half competing teams ) he may be pointing to the sort of organization that might be able to carry out such a program.Eventually even O'Neil type habitats could be built providing the same services as these earlier stepping stone stations , fulfilling yet another dream but in a rational manner .
They 'd be built only after learning how through building their predecessors .
Similarly , from these stations permanent settlements could be sent out , but their permanence would quite likely be made possible through the creation of permanent infrastructure on tho</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same people who, working with von Braun, gave us some fundamental and essential inventions, such as cryogenically (regenerative) cooled motor nozzles, when necessary resorted to outright hacks to get the job done.
For instance the Saturn 1B was a collection of 8 Redstone missile tanks and motors clustered around a Titan tank.
They went for whatever was the best combination of fastest, cheapest and most powerful.
More important, they went for what made the best sense.
Their focus was on getting the job done.
In fact they solved more problems and developed more programs than were ever put into space.
For instance, had the namesake of my UID been followed, Neil Armstrong would have been the first real space pilot, riding a winged craft into space then flying it to landing, 5 years before his Apollo flight and decades before the shuttle made this mission profile a reality.One of the von Braun groups visions was to make the road to space a series of reusable and adaptable stepping stones rather than a series of one-shot spectaculars.
Central to this philosophy was the development of orbital construction, refueling, scientific, telecommunications, command and control, permanently inhabited (through crew rotation) space stations.
Their ideas, and similar ones from others, evolved over the years through a sort of intellectual genetic algorithm to give us the present ISS, a working model but as is unsuitable for the purposes they had in mind.
They wanted, after all, to make it possible for us to get started on making it possible to do more and more things.
As such their designs were far more generic and capable of adaptability.
A collection of designs through the years can be seen at: http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/eurtions.htm [astronautix.com]  http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/usstions.htm [astronautix.com]  http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/sovtions.htm [astronautix.com] Their plans were to get there for good, by means that made the most sense.
Only when given the option of working only on fastest did they turn to building vehicles from existing hardware to carry out one-shot missions.
They had no intention of doing anything by such-and-such a time, as that limited their options.
They wanted a permanent presence that never had to back step and /or reinvent.A program that was actually meant to get us there and keep us there would follow their design philosophy and quite likely end up with many of the same steps.
Permanent orbital construction and outfitting stations would make the most long term sense.
Expensive to build and taking a long time, they'd at first seem to stifle those with the urge to GO.
But the expense, spread over the great number of missions they'd make possible, create and support, would be far less than faster alternatives.
Similarly, once these are mature, many more varied missions could be sent more often, eventually allowing the number of missions to surpass what would otherwise have been possible in the same time frame.Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon allowed us to show ourselves what we could do, a valuable lesson, but not the basis for a future.
von Braun's vision was more aligned with what were could become.
Sadly, even Aldrin's vision falls short in most respects.
However, in calling for an international consortium (rather than half partnered, half competing teams) he may be pointing to the sort of organization that might be able to carry out such a program.Eventually even O'Neil type habitats could be built providing the same services as these earlier stepping stone stations, fulfilling yet another dream but in a rational manner.
They'd be built only after learning how through building their predecessors.
Similarly, from these stations permanent settlements could be sent out, but their permanence would quite likely be made possible through the creation of permanent infrastructure on tho</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481361</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>Sausage Nibblets</author>
	<datestamp>1246027560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But people might then think, hey why bother landing humans on Mars, we'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars, while we mine the asteroids (and build more probes if necessary).</p></div><p>I disagree. There will always be explorers and adventurers in the human race. The people that sailed West to get to the Orient, the people who wanted to be the first to break the sound barrier, the first men on the moon. There will always be humans who want to leave their comfy homes and explore new places.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But people might then think , hey why bother landing humans on Mars , we 'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars , while we mine the asteroids ( and build more probes if necessary ) .I disagree .
There will always be explorers and adventurers in the human race .
The people that sailed West to get to the Orient , the people who wanted to be the first to break the sound barrier , the first men on the moon .
There will always be humans who want to leave their comfy homes and explore new places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But people might then think, hey why bother landing humans on Mars, we'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars, while we mine the asteroids (and build more probes if necessary).I disagree.
There will always be explorers and adventurers in the human race.
The people that sailed West to get to the Orient, the people who wanted to be the first to break the sound barrier, the first men on the moon.
There will always be humans who want to leave their comfy homes and explore new places.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195</id>
	<title>Good ideas.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245958020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, NASA (and most space programs in general) should have one crucial long term goal:  Getting us off this ball of rock and inhabiting other ones.  I think that Aldrin's plans make more progress towards this than most of what has been going on for pretty much my entire lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , NASA ( and most space programs in general ) should have one crucial long term goal : Getting us off this ball of rock and inhabiting other ones .
I think that Aldrin 's plans make more progress towards this than most of what has been going on for pretty much my entire lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, NASA (and most space programs in general) should have one crucial long term goal:  Getting us off this ball of rock and inhabiting other ones.
I think that Aldrin's plans make more progress towards this than most of what has been going on for pretty much my entire lifetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481943</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel. If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter. If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.</p><p>It's funny how you're using "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.</p></div><p>A giant meteor isn't the only thing we have to worry about. There's mega tsunami's, melting polar ice caps that could cause massive flooding, volcanic eruptions of epic proportions, global toxicity, global warming, nuclear war...</p><p>If we are lucky we go out instantly in a massive meteor impact. All the other scenarios would take a long, slow, painful time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , unless some meteor comes along and kills us all , we still have * millions * of years to perfect space travel .
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century , it wo n't matter .
If you really care so much about the survival of the species , you 'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours , rather than trying to get a colony on titan.It 's funny how you 're using " Wo n't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
" like politicians would use " Wo n't somebody think of the children ? ! ? ! ? !
" , using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.A giant meteor is n't the only thing we have to worry about .
There 's mega tsunami 's , melting polar ice caps that could cause massive flooding , volcanic eruptions of epic proportions , global toxicity , global warming , nuclear war...If we are lucky we go out instantly in a massive meteor impact .
All the other scenarios would take a long , slow , painful time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.
If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.It's funny how you're using "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!
" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!
", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.A giant meteor isn't the only thing we have to worry about.
There's mega tsunami's, melting polar ice caps that could cause massive flooding, volcanic eruptions of epic proportions, global toxicity, global warming, nuclear war...If we are lucky we go out instantly in a massive meteor impact.
All the other scenarios would take a long, slow, painful time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478521</id>
	<title>Re:Safety?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246047060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>his proposal includes modifying them to make them safe for human flight.  it shouldn't take too much.  hell, nasa's early rockets were basically just small airtight capsules on modified ICBMs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>his proposal includes modifying them to make them safe for human flight .
it should n't take too much .
hell , nasa 's early rockets were basically just small airtight capsules on modified ICBMs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>his proposal includes modifying them to make them safe for human flight.
it shouldn't take too much.
hell, nasa's early rockets were basically just small airtight capsules on modified ICBMs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28490725</id>
	<title>Re:About time we had some public debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best plan I've read so far about colonization was one where we send robots along with...many many samples of sperm and eggs. Once they get to their location, the robots begin the process of converting the planet and then perform in vitro fertilization on all the eggs combined with artificial wombs in order to grow their new human overlords.</p><p>The children spend their childhood learning the skills needed for terraforming and adapting the world to their specific needs under the guidance of the robots and, once they become adults, take over the robot's jobs.</p><p>Now, there's a ton of problems we have to cover before all of this is possible.</p><p>1: Robots advanced enough and sturdy enough to last for the...hundreds? of years through space and still be able to perform the actions of terraforming, education, and whatnot.</p><p>2: Artificial Wombs. Hell of a problem right there.</p><p>3: Terraforming. Obviously we'd pick "Earthlike" planets, assuming we can find a good amount, but we'd still have to adapt it to our standards. Combine it with the fact that there might be indigenous life there and there's a ton of problems to think about.</p><p>4: Communication. This...isn't precisely necessary but we on Earth would probably enjoy it and it would make things easier on the space kids. FTL communication is still out of our reach at this moment.</p><p>5: Size. The colony ship would have to be fairly massive to hold all the tools needed for terraforming, propulsion, etc. We'd save some space by having no actual crew, but still...</p><p>6: Navigation. MISSING IS BAD.</p><p>The benefit of a plan like this is that we won't need FTL Ships. Even a respectable fraction of sublight speed would work out fine because the genetic material would last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best plan I 've read so far about colonization was one where we send robots along with...many many samples of sperm and eggs .
Once they get to their location , the robots begin the process of converting the planet and then perform in vitro fertilization on all the eggs combined with artificial wombs in order to grow their new human overlords.The children spend their childhood learning the skills needed for terraforming and adapting the world to their specific needs under the guidance of the robots and , once they become adults , take over the robot 's jobs.Now , there 's a ton of problems we have to cover before all of this is possible.1 : Robots advanced enough and sturdy enough to last for the...hundreds ?
of years through space and still be able to perform the actions of terraforming , education , and whatnot.2 : Artificial Wombs .
Hell of a problem right there.3 : Terraforming .
Obviously we 'd pick " Earthlike " planets , assuming we can find a good amount , but we 'd still have to adapt it to our standards .
Combine it with the fact that there might be indigenous life there and there 's a ton of problems to think about.4 : Communication .
This...is n't precisely necessary but we on Earth would probably enjoy it and it would make things easier on the space kids .
FTL communication is still out of our reach at this moment.5 : Size .
The colony ship would have to be fairly massive to hold all the tools needed for terraforming , propulsion , etc .
We 'd save some space by having no actual crew , but still...6 : Navigation .
MISSING IS BAD.The benefit of a plan like this is that we wo n't need FTL Ships .
Even a respectable fraction of sublight speed would work out fine because the genetic material would last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best plan I've read so far about colonization was one where we send robots along with...many many samples of sperm and eggs.
Once they get to their location, the robots begin the process of converting the planet and then perform in vitro fertilization on all the eggs combined with artificial wombs in order to grow their new human overlords.The children spend their childhood learning the skills needed for terraforming and adapting the world to their specific needs under the guidance of the robots and, once they become adults, take over the robot's jobs.Now, there's a ton of problems we have to cover before all of this is possible.1: Robots advanced enough and sturdy enough to last for the...hundreds?
of years through space and still be able to perform the actions of terraforming, education, and whatnot.2: Artificial Wombs.
Hell of a problem right there.3: Terraforming.
Obviously we'd pick "Earthlike" planets, assuming we can find a good amount, but we'd still have to adapt it to our standards.
Combine it with the fact that there might be indigenous life there and there's a ton of problems to think about.4: Communication.
This...isn't precisely necessary but we on Earth would probably enjoy it and it would make things easier on the space kids.
FTL communication is still out of our reach at this moment.5: Size.
The colony ship would have to be fairly massive to hold all the tools needed for terraforming, propulsion, etc.
We'd save some space by having no actual crew, but still...6: Navigation.
MISSING IS BAD.The benefit of a plan like this is that we won't need FTL Ships.
Even a respectable fraction of sublight speed would work out fine because the genetic material would last.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481647</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246028580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really not true that we have millions of years.  In fact, we have no idea how long we have.  Yes, it could be millions of years, but also a meteor could, you know, "come along and kill us all"!  That could happen tomorrow.  Hopefully it won't, but each of the tomorrows that we are lucky enough to have should be spent, in part, on spreading ourselves out so that we can't all be killed at once.</p><p>At least not so easily.  If we get off planet, then we next have to worry about gamma bursts killing us all.  But that's a good bit rarer than getting smacked with a rock.</p><p>Sure, we should also research defense from big space rocks, because no one wants to just leave Earth and its inhabitants to fend for themselves, but *after* we have populations elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really not true that we have millions of years .
In fact , we have no idea how long we have .
Yes , it could be millions of years , but also a meteor could , you know , " come along and kill us all " !
That could happen tomorrow .
Hopefully it wo n't , but each of the tomorrows that we are lucky enough to have should be spent , in part , on spreading ourselves out so that we ca n't all be killed at once.At least not so easily .
If we get off planet , then we next have to worry about gamma bursts killing us all .
But that 's a good bit rarer than getting smacked with a rock.Sure , we should also research defense from big space rocks , because no one wants to just leave Earth and its inhabitants to fend for themselves , but * after * we have populations elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really not true that we have millions of years.
In fact, we have no idea how long we have.
Yes, it could be millions of years, but also a meteor could, you know, "come along and kill us all"!
That could happen tomorrow.
Hopefully it won't, but each of the tomorrows that we are lucky enough to have should be spent, in part, on spreading ourselves out so that we can't all be killed at once.At least not so easily.
If we get off planet, then we next have to worry about gamma bursts killing us all.
But that's a good bit rarer than getting smacked with a rock.Sure, we should also research defense from big space rocks, because no one wants to just leave Earth and its inhabitants to fend for themselves, but *after* we have populations elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478829</id>
	<title>Re:Manned space flight is a fucking waste</title>
	<author>Jartan</author>
	<datestamp>1246049700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For every useless wanker up there, just to make sure he has a reasonable chance to come back in one piece, and to provide him with a place to shit, sleep and eat, you've spent the equivalent of a hundred Mars rovers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Rovers don't really get us anything we want though. I'm aware the "Space is for Science" crowd thinks that's all we need.   The reality is though that NASA needs to be about exploring exploitation of space for financial profit.  If we follow that path then we'll be sure to get far more science per buck in the long run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For every useless wanker up there , just to make sure he has a reasonable chance to come back in one piece , and to provide him with a place to shit , sleep and eat , you 've spent the equivalent of a hundred Mars rovers.Rovers do n't really get us anything we want though .
I 'm aware the " Space is for Science " crowd thinks that 's all we need .
The reality is though that NASA needs to be about exploring exploitation of space for financial profit .
If we follow that path then we 'll be sure to get far more science per buck in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every useless wanker up there, just to make sure he has a reasonable chance to come back in one piece, and to provide him with a place to shit, sleep and eat, you've spent the equivalent of a hundred Mars rovers.Rovers don't really get us anything we want though.
I'm aware the "Space is for Science" crowd thinks that's all we need.
The reality is though that NASA needs to be about exploring exploitation of space for financial profit.
If we follow that path then we'll be sure to get far more science per buck in the long run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481623</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>kubla2000</author>
	<datestamp>1246028460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we still need to think of the children now that Whacko Jacko is dead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we still need to think of the children now that Whacko Jacko is dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we still need to think of the children now that Whacko Jacko is dead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439</id>
	<title>Manned space flight is a fucking waste</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1246046520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every useless wanker up there, just to make sure he has a reasonable chance to come back in one piece, and to provide him with a place to shit, sleep and eat, you've spent the equivalent of a hundred Mars rovers.<br>For the price of the Uselessational Space Station, we could have built an interferometric telescope with which we could have looked at neighbouring solar systems' planets, and figure if they had life.<br>Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every useless wanker up there , just to make sure he has a reasonable chance to come back in one piece , and to provide him with a place to shit , sleep and eat , you 've spent the equivalent of a hundred Mars rovers.For the price of the Uselessational Space Station , we could have built an interferometric telescope with which we could have looked at neighbouring solar systems ' planets , and figure if they had life.Go ahead , tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri 's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every useless wanker up there, just to make sure he has a reasonable chance to come back in one piece, and to provide him with a place to shit, sleep and eat, you've spent the equivalent of a hundred Mars rovers.For the price of the Uselessational Space Station, we could have built an interferometric telescope with which we could have looked at neighbouring solar systems' planets, and figure if they had life.Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480379</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246023000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Millions of years? IBTD<br>advanced technology like space travel requires a certain amount of stability (political, social, economical). Check the likelihood of such a stable phase throughout the history of mankind. we do not have this much time. We've been close to extinction (or at least major drawbacks) during the cold war and no one knows what will happen after peak oil, climate change etc.pp.</p><p>i see it more of a very narrow (on the timeline of human race) window of opportunity. either we make it or we are trapped on this rock and face oblivion in the long term.</p><p>but this must not concenr individuals here and now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Millions of years ?
IBTDadvanced technology like space travel requires a certain amount of stability ( political , social , economical ) .
Check the likelihood of such a stable phase throughout the history of mankind .
we do not have this much time .
We 've been close to extinction ( or at least major drawbacks ) during the cold war and no one knows what will happen after peak oil , climate change etc.pp.i see it more of a very narrow ( on the timeline of human race ) window of opportunity .
either we make it or we are trapped on this rock and face oblivion in the long term.but this must not concenr individuals here and now : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Millions of years?
IBTDadvanced technology like space travel requires a certain amount of stability (political, social, economical).
Check the likelihood of such a stable phase throughout the history of mankind.
we do not have this much time.
We've been close to extinction (or at least major drawbacks) during the cold war and no one knows what will happen after peak oil, climate change etc.pp.i see it more of a very narrow (on the timeline of human race) window of opportunity.
either we make it or we are trapped on this rock and face oblivion in the long term.but this must not concenr individuals here and now :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480291</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1246022520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is far less energy in 1 ton of lunar soil that 1 ton of coal.(about 5x less). That does not even include the energy required to extract the 0.01ppm of He3 which will be very substantial and its still, well on the moon. Never mind the fact that fusion with DT is still not working and is several 100x easier to do that He3 fusion. <br> <br>
He3 is a terrible reason to go to the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is far less energy in 1 ton of lunar soil that 1 ton of coal .
( about 5x less ) .
That does not even include the energy required to extract the 0.01ppm of He3 which will be very substantial and its still , well on the moon .
Never mind the fact that fusion with DT is still not working and is several 100x easier to do that He3 fusion .
He3 is a terrible reason to go to the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is far less energy in 1 ton of lunar soil that 1 ton of coal.
(about 5x less).
That does not even include the energy required to extract the 0.01ppm of He3 which will be very substantial and its still, well on the moon.
Never mind the fact that fusion with DT is still not working and is several 100x easier to do that He3 fusion.
He3 is a terrible reason to go to the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478805</id>
	<title>Was doing well till...</title>
	<author>squoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1246049580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He started to talk about one way trips to Mars. That last statement just made him sound like a crack pot loony. Even if we could find a few people willing to (say they will) live on Mars for their days, in conditions that would make your average prison look spacious and well lit, I don't think the general public would accept it. Most people would think we were sending nutjobs into space and a fair portion would demand that we have some way to bring them back.</p><p>As for the other stuff, sounds good. Ares I is shaping up to just a be rehash of what we already have. While it's certainly very expensive to build a new man-rated rocket are we really saying that it's so expensive it's not worth capitalizing on the advances of the last 40 years and sticking with the original craft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He started to talk about one way trips to Mars .
That last statement just made him sound like a crack pot loony .
Even if we could find a few people willing to ( say they will ) live on Mars for their days , in conditions that would make your average prison look spacious and well lit , I do n't think the general public would accept it .
Most people would think we were sending nutjobs into space and a fair portion would demand that we have some way to bring them back.As for the other stuff , sounds good .
Ares I is shaping up to just a be rehash of what we already have .
While it 's certainly very expensive to build a new man-rated rocket are we really saying that it 's so expensive it 's not worth capitalizing on the advances of the last 40 years and sticking with the original craft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He started to talk about one way trips to Mars.
That last statement just made him sound like a crack pot loony.
Even if we could find a few people willing to (say they will) live on Mars for their days, in conditions that would make your average prison look spacious and well lit, I don't think the general public would accept it.
Most people would think we were sending nutjobs into space and a fair portion would demand that we have some way to bring them back.As for the other stuff, sounds good.
Ares I is shaping up to just a be rehash of what we already have.
While it's certainly very expensive to build a new man-rated rocket are we really saying that it's so expensive it's not worth capitalizing on the advances of the last 40 years and sticking with the original craft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478969</id>
	<title>Re:Safety?</title>
	<author>Devilhog</author>
	<datestamp>1246007640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> Aldrin suggests canceling NASA's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I, instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV, Atlas V, and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.</p></div></blockquote><p>Weren't those considered unsafe for manned flight?

  </p></div><p>All this talk about safety now a days.  Safety has been so overblown!  Is everyone so afraid of lawsuits these days that absolutely no one will take any sort of risk?  I can't go outside once without being reminded how over cautious our world has become.</p><p>

In my opinion all this pu**y footing around has slowed the human race's ability for advancement.  Ya of course we can double the speed of our computers in no time but are we really seeing anything new and amazing?  We are growing a generation of kids that see all this regulation and say, Hey I can't get into trouble if I sit on my couch and watch TV all day.</p><p>

I am still mad about them banning wood burning kits, lawn darts and chemistry kits.   How is Darwin supposed to do his job now eh?</p><p>

Sorry rant off lol.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aldrin suggests canceling NASA 's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I , instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV , Atlas V , and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.Were n't those considered unsafe for manned flight ?
All this talk about safety now a days .
Safety has been so overblown !
Is everyone so afraid of lawsuits these days that absolutely no one will take any sort of risk ?
I ca n't go outside once without being reminded how over cautious our world has become .
In my opinion all this pu * * y footing around has slowed the human race 's ability for advancement .
Ya of course we can double the speed of our computers in no time but are we really seeing anything new and amazing ?
We are growing a generation of kids that see all this regulation and say , Hey I ca n't get into trouble if I sit on my couch and watch TV all day .
I am still mad about them banning wood burning kits , lawn darts and chemistry kits .
How is Darwin supposed to do his job now eh ?
Sorry rant off lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Aldrin suggests canceling NASA's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I, instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV, Atlas V, and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.Weren't those considered unsafe for manned flight?
All this talk about safety now a days.
Safety has been so overblown!
Is everyone so afraid of lawsuits these days that absolutely no one will take any sort of risk?
I can't go outside once without being reminded how over cautious our world has become.
In my opinion all this pu**y footing around has slowed the human race's ability for advancement.
Ya of course we can double the speed of our computers in no time but are we really seeing anything new and amazing?
We are growing a generation of kids that see all this regulation and say, Hey I can't get into trouble if I sit on my couch and watch TV all day.
I am still mad about them banning wood burning kits, lawn darts and chemistry kits.
How is Darwin supposed to do his job now eh?
Sorry rant off lol.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563</id>
	<title>About time we had some public debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246047480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my lifetime three things have driven technology's march:</p><p>* Space exploration.<br>* People wanting to kill each other more efficiently.<br>* Making a quick buck.</p><p>Of these, only space exploration is an example of Man aspiring to greatness.  It's about time we shifted our space program out of neutral and brought back the creativity and blue sky thinking that went on in the 1950s and 1960s.  What NASA has been doing the past 10 years or so has been minor league and simply lacking ambition.  Setting big goals and developing the ideas and technology to reach those goals is what our people are investing in.</p><p>To the robot mafia: YOU DON'T GET IT.  Space exploration is not just about getting data.  Sure, collecting data is important. But so is forcing man to grow and adapt to new challenges.  The scientific advancements driven by the space program in the past are in large part due to making it possible for a person to travel and explore a hostile environment over impossible differences. Sending humans is expensive, complex and risky, but is rewarding thousandfold beyond it's cost.  Exploring space with robots is easy and cheap but does not drive the kind of thinking that changes the world as the space programs of the 50s, 60s and 70s did.</p><p>Another note to the robot mafia: Robots killing people is a bad idea.  Actually, so is people killing people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my lifetime three things have driven technology 's march : * Space exploration .
* People wanting to kill each other more efficiently .
* Making a quick buck.Of these , only space exploration is an example of Man aspiring to greatness .
It 's about time we shifted our space program out of neutral and brought back the creativity and blue sky thinking that went on in the 1950s and 1960s .
What NASA has been doing the past 10 years or so has been minor league and simply lacking ambition .
Setting big goals and developing the ideas and technology to reach those goals is what our people are investing in.To the robot mafia : YOU DO N'T GET IT .
Space exploration is not just about getting data .
Sure , collecting data is important .
But so is forcing man to grow and adapt to new challenges .
The scientific advancements driven by the space program in the past are in large part due to making it possible for a person to travel and explore a hostile environment over impossible differences .
Sending humans is expensive , complex and risky , but is rewarding thousandfold beyond it 's cost .
Exploring space with robots is easy and cheap but does not drive the kind of thinking that changes the world as the space programs of the 50s , 60s and 70s did.Another note to the robot mafia : Robots killing people is a bad idea .
Actually , so is people killing people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my lifetime three things have driven technology's march:* Space exploration.
* People wanting to kill each other more efficiently.
* Making a quick buck.Of these, only space exploration is an example of Man aspiring to greatness.
It's about time we shifted our space program out of neutral and brought back the creativity and blue sky thinking that went on in the 1950s and 1960s.
What NASA has been doing the past 10 years or so has been minor league and simply lacking ambition.
Setting big goals and developing the ideas and technology to reach those goals is what our people are investing in.To the robot mafia: YOU DON'T GET IT.
Space exploration is not just about getting data.
Sure, collecting data is important.
But so is forcing man to grow and adapt to new challenges.
The scientific advancements driven by the space program in the past are in large part due to making it possible for a person to travel and explore a hostile environment over impossible differences.
Sending humans is expensive, complex and risky, but is rewarding thousandfold beyond it's cost.
Exploring space with robots is easy and cheap but does not drive the kind of thinking that changes the world as the space programs of the 50s, 60s and 70s did.Another note to the robot mafia: Robots killing people is a bad idea.
Actually, so is people killing people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479439</id>
	<title>No good being realistic on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1246012560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with everything you say, but the younger generation doesn't want to hear it. It's like the "get off the Earth" nutjobs, who think that because the Earth might have its population wiped out, it's worth spending a large proportion of our GDP to send people to inhospitable planets where the colonies are many times more likely to be wiped out. To them I say, read the early history of the colonisation of the US and Australia, and then think about repeating that, going somewhere with NO human-usable natural resources and no prospect of early resupply if something goes wrong. I bet Australopithecus didn't think "We'd better get out of Africa before we're hit by a comet, otherwise Homo Sapiens Sapiens might go extinct". In 20 years time, when hopefully some of these people have actually been involved in some fair size projects, they may start to get a clue.<p>As for Jane Q. Public, Aldrin may have a doctorate in orbital mechanics. The only person with an equivalent qualification I know (sometime expert on Lagrange points, has worked for NASA) remarked to me not long ago that, going through his old papers, he found his thesis and couldn't understand it. And he's much younger than Aldrin. You cannot use someone's qualifications as a guide to current expertise once they haven't actually been working in the field even for 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with everything you say , but the younger generation does n't want to hear it .
It 's like the " get off the Earth " nutjobs , who think that because the Earth might have its population wiped out , it 's worth spending a large proportion of our GDP to send people to inhospitable planets where the colonies are many times more likely to be wiped out .
To them I say , read the early history of the colonisation of the US and Australia , and then think about repeating that , going somewhere with NO human-usable natural resources and no prospect of early resupply if something goes wrong .
I bet Australopithecus did n't think " We 'd better get out of Africa before we 're hit by a comet , otherwise Homo Sapiens Sapiens might go extinct " .
In 20 years time , when hopefully some of these people have actually been involved in some fair size projects , they may start to get a clue.As for Jane Q. Public , Aldrin may have a doctorate in orbital mechanics .
The only person with an equivalent qualification I know ( sometime expert on Lagrange points , has worked for NASA ) remarked to me not long ago that , going through his old papers , he found his thesis and could n't understand it .
And he 's much younger than Aldrin .
You can not use someone 's qualifications as a guide to current expertise once they have n't actually been working in the field even for 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with everything you say, but the younger generation doesn't want to hear it.
It's like the "get off the Earth" nutjobs, who think that because the Earth might have its population wiped out, it's worth spending a large proportion of our GDP to send people to inhospitable planets where the colonies are many times more likely to be wiped out.
To them I say, read the early history of the colonisation of the US and Australia, and then think about repeating that, going somewhere with NO human-usable natural resources and no prospect of early resupply if something goes wrong.
I bet Australopithecus didn't think "We'd better get out of Africa before we're hit by a comet, otherwise Homo Sapiens Sapiens might go extinct".
In 20 years time, when hopefully some of these people have actually been involved in some fair size projects, they may start to get a clue.As for Jane Q. Public, Aldrin may have a doctorate in orbital mechanics.
The only person with an equivalent qualification I know (sometime expert on Lagrange points, has worked for NASA) remarked to me not long ago that, going through his old papers, he found his thesis and couldn't understand it.
And he's much younger than Aldrin.
You cannot use someone's qualifications as a guide to current expertise once they haven't actually been working in the field even for 10 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28487693</id>
	<title>Re:Safety?</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1246008000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They banned wood burning kits?  WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They banned wood burning kits ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They banned wood burning kits?
WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479785</id>
	<title>Is a big spaceship viable for a trillion dollars?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246016460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is a big spaceship assembled on orbit, with artificial gravity from huge rotating sections, nuclear propulsion and landing craft viable within a trillion dollars budget?</p><p>That's what NASA should be planning for. Such a beast would make the trip Mars - Earth a commodity, opening up space for good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a big spaceship assembled on orbit , with artificial gravity from huge rotating sections , nuclear propulsion and landing craft viable within a trillion dollars budget ? That 's what NASA should be planning for .
Such a beast would make the trip Mars - Earth a commodity , opening up space for good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a big spaceship assembled on orbit, with artificial gravity from huge rotating sections, nuclear propulsion and landing craft viable within a trillion dollars budget?That's what NASA should be planning for.
Such a beast would make the trip Mars - Earth a commodity, opening up space for good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484259</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246037100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm, a lot of people don't care what happens to anyone after they are dead.  So yeah, a lot of people don't care about the survival of the species.  And the "think of the children" crowd make up a bunch of crap that doesn't really think of the children.  Getting off of Earth and spreading out is probably a good idea...even though we may have a lot of time to do that still.  And who is to say we can't both try to colonize other planets and try to develop ways to protect earth from meteors?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , a lot of people do n't care what happens to anyone after they are dead .
So yeah , a lot of people do n't care about the survival of the species .
And the " think of the children " crowd make up a bunch of crap that does n't really think of the children .
Getting off of Earth and spreading out is probably a good idea...even though we may have a lot of time to do that still .
And who is to say we ca n't both try to colonize other planets and try to develop ways to protect earth from meteors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, a lot of people don't care what happens to anyone after they are dead.
So yeah, a lot of people don't care about the survival of the species.
And the "think of the children" crowd make up a bunch of crap that doesn't really think of the children.
Getting off of Earth and spreading out is probably a good idea...even though we may have a lot of time to do that still.
And who is to say we can't both try to colonize other planets and try to develop ways to protect earth from meteors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482327</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meteors aren't the only (or most likely) threat to mankind's survival on Earth.  How about nuclear and biological warfare or a killer disease developing?  Both of these are way more likely than a meteor and are possible right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meteors are n't the only ( or most likely ) threat to mankind 's survival on Earth .
How about nuclear and biological warfare or a killer disease developing ?
Both of these are way more likely than a meteor and are possible right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meteors aren't the only (or most likely) threat to mankind's survival on Earth.
How about nuclear and biological warfare or a killer disease developing?
Both of these are way more likely than a meteor and are possible right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478379</id>
	<title>I trust the man</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1245959640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>he's been to mach 32.</htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's been to mach 32 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's been to mach 32.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480437</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1246023480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.</p></div><p>Lets see...spend peanuts on the space program or
</p><p>1) spend billions on clean up of a world where we have to rely on the other guy to keep his country clean.
</p><p>2) spend billions on clean up of a world only to have some other cataclysm happen:
</p><p>                  a) asteroid
</p><p>                  b) plague
</p><p>                  c) world war
</p><p>I'd rather spend the money on the space program.  Not only is it cheaper, but it also fits in with our own nature.  Since we evolved, humans have not had to clean up after themselves;  however, since the beginning humans have been explorers.  </p><p>I'd rather play to mankind's strengths and continue exploring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.Lets see...spend peanuts on the space program or 1 ) spend billions on clean up of a world where we have to rely on the other guy to keep his country clean .
2 ) spend billions on clean up of a world only to have some other cataclysm happen : a ) asteroid b ) plague c ) world war I 'd rather spend the money on the space program .
Not only is it cheaper , but it also fits in with our own nature .
Since we evolved , humans have not had to clean up after themselves ; however , since the beginning humans have been explorers .
I 'd rather play to mankind 's strengths and continue exploring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.Lets see...spend peanuts on the space program or
1) spend billions on clean up of a world where we have to rely on the other guy to keep his country clean.
2) spend billions on clean up of a world only to have some other cataclysm happen:
                  a) asteroid
                  b) plague
                  c) world war
I'd rather spend the money on the space program.
Not only is it cheaper, but it also fits in with our own nature.
Since we evolved, humans have not had to clean up after themselves;  however, since the beginning humans have been explorers.
I'd rather play to mankind's strengths and continue exploring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481767</id>
	<title>Re:Old coot</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246029000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ares-I has only one job, deliver the Orion capsule to LEO, and by some accounts it will have trouble even doing that.  Until its big brother V gets built (if it ever does) all Ares-I can do is deliver people to the ISS.  No Moon stuff.  No Hubble resupply stuff.  No ISS resupply stuff.  Ares-I is a one trick pony, a trick that can be done by a Delta, Soyuz, and shortly by SpaceX.<br> <br>
NASA needs to switch to DIRECT.  The sooner, the better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ares-I has only one job , deliver the Orion capsule to LEO , and by some accounts it will have trouble even doing that .
Until its big brother V gets built ( if it ever does ) all Ares-I can do is deliver people to the ISS .
No Moon stuff .
No Hubble resupply stuff .
No ISS resupply stuff .
Ares-I is a one trick pony , a trick that can be done by a Delta , Soyuz , and shortly by SpaceX .
NASA needs to switch to DIRECT .
The sooner , the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ares-I has only one job, deliver the Orion capsule to LEO, and by some accounts it will have trouble even doing that.
Until its big brother V gets built (if it ever does) all Ares-I can do is deliver people to the ISS.
No Moon stuff.
No Hubble resupply stuff.
No ISS resupply stuff.
Ares-I is a one trick pony, a trick that can be done by a Delta, Soyuz, and shortly by SpaceX.
NASA needs to switch to DIRECT.
The sooner, the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482737</id>
	<title>Re:Safety?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246031880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my opinion all this pu**y footing around has slowed the human race's ability for advancement.  Ya of course we can double the speed of our computers in no time but are we really seeing anything new and amazing?  We are growing a generation of kids that see all this regulation and say, Hey I can't get into trouble if I sit on my couch and watch TV all day.</p></div><p>I can't decide if I should ridicule you for being too afraid to type "pussy" in a rant about people being too afraid, or if I should congratulate you for slipping an example so creatively inside the rant. Even though this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., I'll switch things up and go with the later. Bravo!!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion all this pu * * y footing around has slowed the human race 's ability for advancement .
Ya of course we can double the speed of our computers in no time but are we really seeing anything new and amazing ?
We are growing a generation of kids that see all this regulation and say , Hey I ca n't get into trouble if I sit on my couch and watch TV all day.I ca n't decide if I should ridicule you for being too afraid to type " pussy " in a rant about people being too afraid , or if I should congratulate you for slipping an example so creatively inside the rant .
Even though this is /. , I 'll switch things up and go with the later .
Bravo ! ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion all this pu**y footing around has slowed the human race's ability for advancement.
Ya of course we can double the speed of our computers in no time but are we really seeing anything new and amazing?
We are growing a generation of kids that see all this regulation and say, Hey I can't get into trouble if I sit on my couch and watch TV all day.I can't decide if I should ridicule you for being too afraid to type "pussy" in a rant about people being too afraid, or if I should congratulate you for slipping an example so creatively inside the rant.
Even though this is /., I'll switch things up and go with the later.
Bravo!!!!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478703</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1246048740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a couple of articles that I might suggest you read:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/08/06/neil-tyson-on-exploring-space/" title="discovermagazine.com">Neil Tyson on exploring space</a> [discovermagazine.com]
<br> <br>
<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5245587/10-everyday-gadgets-with-ties-to-the-space-program" title="gizmodo.com">10 Everyday Gadgets With Ties To The Space Program</a> [gizmodo.com]
<br> <br>
And actually, I could continue copying links for a long time. This is just barely scraping the surface. The space program has paid for itself many times over (one conservative estimate is 3 times) with advances to technology and industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a couple of articles that I might suggest you read : Neil Tyson on exploring space [ discovermagazine.com ] 10 Everyday Gadgets With Ties To The Space Program [ gizmodo.com ] And actually , I could continue copying links for a long time .
This is just barely scraping the surface .
The space program has paid for itself many times over ( one conservative estimate is 3 times ) with advances to technology and industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a couple of articles that I might suggest you read:
 
Neil Tyson on exploring space [discovermagazine.com]
 
10 Everyday Gadgets With Ties To The Space Program [gizmodo.com]
 
And actually, I could continue copying links for a long time.
This is just barely scraping the surface.
The space program has paid for itself many times over (one conservative estimate is 3 times) with advances to technology and industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479859</id>
	<title>6 months to Mars</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1246017420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you time it right.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Direct" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Direct</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Check out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Direct" title="wikipedia.org">Mars Underground</a> [wikipedia.org] for details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you time it right.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars \ _Direct [ wikipedia.org ] Check out Mars Underground [ wikipedia.org ] for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you time it right.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Direct [wikipedia.org]Check out Mars Underground [wikipedia.org] for details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478487</id>
	<title>A space base on Phobos?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246046820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just go there and, like, build it on top of the anomaly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just go there and , like , build it on top of the anomaly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just go there and, like, build it on top of the anomaly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481425</id>
	<title>The Earth is a DEATH TRAP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok folks, this planet, the Earth, is a death trap for all life on it. At some point in the future, everything on this planet will be killed off. That is a fact, not some depressing vision, but FACT.</p><p>An asteroid hit is the least of our problems. Don't get me wrong, we need to watch for them and have long term plans of action to shift the inbound rock enough that it doesn't hit us. We'll need a backup plan should that shift effort not work well enough.  We also need to search for asteroids in the "hard to find" regions of our sky to prevent another 20 day notice asteroid event like last year. That isn't quick enough to address.</p><p>We have to get off this rock if we, as a species, want to survive.  The further away from   here, the better.  Sadly, many of the things that will kill the Earth will also kill Mars and most of the solar system.</p><p>There is already a star pointed at us that **will** send high energy gamma rays AND **will** destroy all life here when it goes supernova <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1878" title="cosmosmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1878</a> [cosmosmagazine.com].  It is a matter of time and will probably happen before the Sun becomes a red giant and boils away all water on Earth, before expanding beyond Earth's current orbit.</p><p>We need to take the first steps to get off this rock and find alternative travel methods beyond normal propulsion (throwing stuff out the back to move forward) to get to other star systems. There is no viable method of propulsion to get us or anything to another star system currently. Ion, solar wind, etc are pure fantasy and CANNOT GET ANYTHING TO ANOTHER STAR SYSTEM in 1,000 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok folks , this planet , the Earth , is a death trap for all life on it .
At some point in the future , everything on this planet will be killed off .
That is a fact , not some depressing vision , but FACT.An asteroid hit is the least of our problems .
Do n't get me wrong , we need to watch for them and have long term plans of action to shift the inbound rock enough that it does n't hit us .
We 'll need a backup plan should that shift effort not work well enough .
We also need to search for asteroids in the " hard to find " regions of our sky to prevent another 20 day notice asteroid event like last year .
That is n't quick enough to address.We have to get off this rock if we , as a species , want to survive .
The further away from here , the better .
Sadly , many of the things that will kill the Earth will also kill Mars and most of the solar system.There is already a star pointed at us that * * will * * send high energy gamma rays AND * * will * * destroy all life here when it goes supernova http : //www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1878 [ cosmosmagazine.com ] .
It is a matter of time and will probably happen before the Sun becomes a red giant and boils away all water on Earth , before expanding beyond Earth 's current orbit.We need to take the first steps to get off this rock and find alternative travel methods beyond normal propulsion ( throwing stuff out the back to move forward ) to get to other star systems .
There is no viable method of propulsion to get us or anything to another star system currently .
Ion , solar wind , etc are pure fantasy and CAN NOT GET ANYTHING TO ANOTHER STAR SYSTEM in 1,000 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok folks, this planet, the Earth, is a death trap for all life on it.
At some point in the future, everything on this planet will be killed off.
That is a fact, not some depressing vision, but FACT.An asteroid hit is the least of our problems.
Don't get me wrong, we need to watch for them and have long term plans of action to shift the inbound rock enough that it doesn't hit us.
We'll need a backup plan should that shift effort not work well enough.
We also need to search for asteroids in the "hard to find" regions of our sky to prevent another 20 day notice asteroid event like last year.
That isn't quick enough to address.We have to get off this rock if we, as a species, want to survive.
The further away from   here, the better.
Sadly, many of the things that will kill the Earth will also kill Mars and most of the solar system.There is already a star pointed at us that **will** send high energy gamma rays AND **will** destroy all life here when it goes supernova http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1878 [cosmosmagazine.com].
It is a matter of time and will probably happen before the Sun becomes a red giant and boils away all water on Earth, before expanding beyond Earth's current orbit.We need to take the first steps to get off this rock and find alternative travel methods beyond normal propulsion (throwing stuff out the back to move forward) to get to other star systems.
There is no viable method of propulsion to get us or anything to another star system currently.
Ion, solar wind, etc are pure fantasy and CANNOT GET ANYTHING TO ANOTHER STAR SYSTEM in 1,000 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479821</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246017060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We *should* be going to the moon - for Helium3.</p></div><p>Helium 3 has a lot of hype; it's largely supply driven by people looking for an excuse to go to the moon. We need to face the fact that there isn't going to be a quick fix answer to the engineering problems around fusion power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We * should * be going to the moon - for Helium3.Helium 3 has a lot of hype ; it 's largely supply driven by people looking for an excuse to go to the moon .
We need to face the fact that there is n't going to be a quick fix answer to the engineering problems around fusion power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We *should* be going to the moon - for Helium3.Helium 3 has a lot of hype; it's largely supply driven by people looking for an excuse to go to the moon.
We need to face the fact that there isn't going to be a quick fix answer to the engineering problems around fusion power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478549</id>
	<title>Re:Manned space flight is a fucking waste</title>
	<author>terjeber</author>
	<datestamp>1246047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.</p></div><p>Why would anyone care what is interesting or not? The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize (as in moving people out there) space. All we do we do for survival, and colonizing space is vital for survival. That is why we need manned space flight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri 's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.Why would anyone care what is interesting or not ?
The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize ( as in moving people out there ) space .
All we do we do for survival , and colonizing space is vital for survival .
That is why we need manned space flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, tell me how sending dozens of rovers exploring the whole solar system and/or having a look at Proxima Centauri's planets is any less interesting for the general public than watching a bunch of bozos awkwardly trying to bolt a nut in 0g.Why would anyone care what is interesting or not?
The purpose of space flight is gain the ability to colonize (as in moving people out there) space.
All we do we do for survival, and colonizing space is vital for survival.
That is why we need manned space flight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28508837</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1246200360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At the moment, finding the few billions it might take to get us off-world just seems expensive, but at some point finding those billions may actually require taking the decision to stop feeding some people and that will be a tough decision for anyone to make! "</p><p>And how exactly is getting a few dozen people into space going to help feed anything?</p><p>Plants don't grow on vacuum alone. Here on Earth we have a whole biosphere for free. If we can't preserve that, we sure won't be able to grow a whole new one from scratch.</p><p>Conversely, if we have the technology to grow new biospheres from scratch, we can do it on Earth much more cheaply than doing it in space.</p><p>You seem to be under the impression that 'trillions of cubic kilometers of vacuum' is a resource, a 'new frontier' like America was in the 1500s. But in reality space seems more like a hole full of nothing. There's no tobacco, no tomatoes, no corn, no coffee, no beavers, no buffalo out there. Nothing to bring back in the whole solar system except dry dust, rock and sunlight, and we already have those. And it's thousands of years to the next star at plausible acceleration rates unless you can beat Einstein.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At the moment , finding the few billions it might take to get us off-world just seems expensive , but at some point finding those billions may actually require taking the decision to stop feeding some people and that will be a tough decision for anyone to make !
" And how exactly is getting a few dozen people into space going to help feed anything ? Plants do n't grow on vacuum alone .
Here on Earth we have a whole biosphere for free .
If we ca n't preserve that , we sure wo n't be able to grow a whole new one from scratch.Conversely , if we have the technology to grow new biospheres from scratch , we can do it on Earth much more cheaply than doing it in space.You seem to be under the impression that 'trillions of cubic kilometers of vacuum ' is a resource , a 'new frontier ' like America was in the 1500s .
But in reality space seems more like a hole full of nothing .
There 's no tobacco , no tomatoes , no corn , no coffee , no beavers , no buffalo out there .
Nothing to bring back in the whole solar system except dry dust , rock and sunlight , and we already have those .
And it 's thousands of years to the next star at plausible acceleration rates unless you can beat Einstein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At the moment, finding the few billions it might take to get us off-world just seems expensive, but at some point finding those billions may actually require taking the decision to stop feeding some people and that will be a tough decision for anyone to make!
"And how exactly is getting a few dozen people into space going to help feed anything?Plants don't grow on vacuum alone.
Here on Earth we have a whole biosphere for free.
If we can't preserve that, we sure won't be able to grow a whole new one from scratch.Conversely, if we have the technology to grow new biospheres from scratch, we can do it on Earth much more cheaply than doing it in space.You seem to be under the impression that 'trillions of cubic kilometers of vacuum' is a resource, a 'new frontier' like America was in the 1500s.
But in reality space seems more like a hole full of nothing.
There's no tobacco, no tomatoes, no corn, no coffee, no beavers, no buffalo out there.
Nothing to bring back in the whole solar system except dry dust, rock and sunlight, and we already have those.
And it's thousands of years to the next star at plausible acceleration rates unless you can beat Einstein.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478891</id>
	<title>Just another sign of America failing.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246007040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its sad but this turkey is done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its sad but this turkey is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its sad but this turkey is done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1246013820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction. You may not care about the long term survival of the human species (or any other species), but some of us do, and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out.</p><p>Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel. If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter. If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.</p><p>It's funny how you're using "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; To paraphrase Carl Sagan in " Pale Blue Dot " , any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction .
You may not care about the long term survival of the human species ( or any other species ) , but some of us do , and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out.Dude , unless some meteor comes along and kills us all , we still have * millions * of years to perfect space travel .
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century , it wo n't matter .
If you really care so much about the survival of the species , you 'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours , rather than trying to get a colony on titan.It 's funny how you 're using " Wo n't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
" like politicians would use " Wo n't somebody think of the children ? ! ? ! ? !
" , using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction.
You may not care about the long term survival of the human species (or any other species), but some of us do, and the best way to increase our chances of survival is to spread out.Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.
If you really care so much about the survival of the species, you'd be encouraging research that can protect us from really big rocks on a collision course with ours, rather than trying to get a colony on titan.It's funny how you're using "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!
" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!
", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397</id>
	<title>Colony practice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245959820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't self-sustaining colonies be practiced on the moon first, before Mars? The moon is a two-day trip while Mars is roughly an 18-month one. It's easier help them if things go wrong during the learning curve. Moon colonies is what the current plan calls for.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't self-sustaining colonies be practiced on the moon first , before Mars ?
The moon is a two-day trip while Mars is roughly an 18-month one .
It 's easier help them if things go wrong during the learning curve .
Moon colonies is what the current plan calls for .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't self-sustaining colonies be practiced on the moon first, before Mars?
The moon is a two-day trip while Mars is roughly an 18-month one.
It's easier help them if things go wrong during the learning curve.
Moon colonies is what the current plan calls for.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28508795</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1246200000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Spending all the money fixing this world does nothing to get all of our eggs out of the basket, and if anything harms that basket, then we are screwed."</p><p>But if, for example, a virus wipes out the Earth... if you've got a space infrastructure, how is that virus not going to spread through your network of ships and stations as well?</p><p>And what tiny percentage of the human population is ever going to be able to inhabit space stations? Currently we're doing, what, three to eight people at once? How many could we boost that up to given that in space, water and oxygen are rare, and we don't even know if edible plantsf really can grow in lunar soil, let alone places further out like Mars. Then there's radiation, genetic fragility...</p><p>It seems to me that unless we discover warp drive (so we can get Earthlike planets for free), 'expanding into space' will be slow, inherently self-limiting, and only ever available to a tiny scientific/industrial elite who are supported by a huge Earth-based resource pyramid.</p><p>At best we might learn how to maintain self-supporting ecologies, which isn't nothing, but it's not like space is a 'solution' for anything; when it comes down to it, there just aren't any useful resources out there except rock. So barring a major overthrow of what scientific data we've collected so far, it seems like just a very expensive and ultimately pointless hobby for the ultra-rich or ultra-lucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Spending all the money fixing this world does nothing to get all of our eggs out of the basket , and if anything harms that basket , then we are screwed .
" But if , for example , a virus wipes out the Earth... if you 've got a space infrastructure , how is that virus not going to spread through your network of ships and stations as well ? And what tiny percentage of the human population is ever going to be able to inhabit space stations ?
Currently we 're doing , what , three to eight people at once ?
How many could we boost that up to given that in space , water and oxygen are rare , and we do n't even know if edible plantsf really can grow in lunar soil , let alone places further out like Mars .
Then there 's radiation , genetic fragility...It seems to me that unless we discover warp drive ( so we can get Earthlike planets for free ) , 'expanding into space ' will be slow , inherently self-limiting , and only ever available to a tiny scientific/industrial elite who are supported by a huge Earth-based resource pyramid.At best we might learn how to maintain self-supporting ecologies , which is n't nothing , but it 's not like space is a 'solution ' for anything ; when it comes down to it , there just are n't any useful resources out there except rock .
So barring a major overthrow of what scientific data we 've collected so far , it seems like just a very expensive and ultimately pointless hobby for the ultra-rich or ultra-lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Spending all the money fixing this world does nothing to get all of our eggs out of the basket, and if anything harms that basket, then we are screwed.
"But if, for example, a virus wipes out the Earth... if you've got a space infrastructure, how is that virus not going to spread through your network of ships and stations as well?And what tiny percentage of the human population is ever going to be able to inhabit space stations?
Currently we're doing, what, three to eight people at once?
How many could we boost that up to given that in space, water and oxygen are rare, and we don't even know if edible plantsf really can grow in lunar soil, let alone places further out like Mars.
Then there's radiation, genetic fragility...It seems to me that unless we discover warp drive (so we can get Earthlike planets for free), 'expanding into space' will be slow, inherently self-limiting, and only ever available to a tiny scientific/industrial elite who are supported by a huge Earth-based resource pyramid.At best we might learn how to maintain self-supporting ecologies, which isn't nothing, but it's not like space is a 'solution' for anything; when it comes down to it, there just aren't any useful resources out there except rock.
So barring a major overthrow of what scientific data we've collected so far, it seems like just a very expensive and ultimately pointless hobby for the ultra-rich or ultra-lucky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484257</id>
	<title>Team Human Race F*CK YEAH!</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1246037100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that is some vision, it's just like we stepped back to the '50s while groking the economic realities of the new world order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that is some vision , it 's just like we stepped back to the '50s while groking the economic realities of the new world order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that is some vision, it's just like we stepped back to the '50s while groking the economic realities of the new world order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480445</id>
	<title>Re:About time we had some public debate</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246023540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look closer, with a more optimistic eye, you will see dozens of cases of people developing technology merely to help others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look closer , with a more optimistic eye , you will see dozens of cases of people developing technology merely to help others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look closer, with a more optimistic eye, you will see dozens of cases of people developing technology merely to help others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479273</id>
	<title>Re:Safety?</title>
	<author>savuporo</author>
	<datestamp>1246010700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SpaceX has designed Falcon 9 for manned flight from the outset, and both Atlas and Delta have been considered as manned launchers in various stages ( OSP program ). With slight upgrades, a launch escape system and a reasonably small payload/capsule, they will be even safer.<br>
They are certainly safer than current Shuttle track record ( 1 in 69 loss of crew ). Hey, Redstone and Atlas were considered safe enough at some point in time, with little to no track record, EELVs have quite a bit of successful launch history behind them.<br>
<br>
Anything currently flying, with demonstrated success rate is safer bet than another dreamed-up rocket on paper, with all the unknowns of it, no ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>SpaceX has designed Falcon 9 for manned flight from the outset , and both Atlas and Delta have been considered as manned launchers in various stages ( OSP program ) .
With slight upgrades , a launch escape system and a reasonably small payload/capsule , they will be even safer .
They are certainly safer than current Shuttle track record ( 1 in 69 loss of crew ) .
Hey , Redstone and Atlas were considered safe enough at some point in time , with little to no track record , EELVs have quite a bit of successful launch history behind them .
Anything currently flying , with demonstrated success rate is safer bet than another dreamed-up rocket on paper , with all the unknowns of it , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SpaceX has designed Falcon 9 for manned flight from the outset, and both Atlas and Delta have been considered as manned launchers in various stages ( OSP program ).
With slight upgrades, a launch escape system and a reasonably small payload/capsule, they will be even safer.
They are certainly safer than current Shuttle track record ( 1 in 69 loss of crew ).
Hey, Redstone and Atlas were considered safe enough at some point in time, with little to no track record, EELVs have quite a bit of successful launch history behind them.
Anything currently flying, with demonstrated success rate is safer bet than another dreamed-up rocket on paper, with all the unknowns of it, no ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488039</id>
	<title>Mars in 16 years?</title>
	<author>spidercoz</author>
	<datestamp>1246009620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sign me up.  I will stow away if I have to, I'll be the fucking Coyote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sign me up .
I will stow away if I have to , I 'll be the fucking Coyote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sign me up.
I will stow away if I have to, I'll be the fucking Coyote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363</id>
	<title>Safety?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245959520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Aldrin suggests canceling NASA's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I, instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV, Atlas V, and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.</p></div></blockquote><p>Weren't those considered unsafe for manned flight?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aldrin suggests canceling NASA 's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I , instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV , Atlas V , and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.Were n't those considered unsafe for manned flight ?
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext> Aldrin suggests canceling NASA's troubled and increasingly costly Ares I, instead launching manned capsules on commercial Delta IV, Atlas V, and/or SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.Weren't those considered unsafe for manned flight?
     
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480459</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1246023600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH, there's not a crap-ton of orbiting junk around the Moon, yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , there 's not a crap-ton of orbiting junk around the Moon , yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, there's not a crap-ton of orbiting junk around the Moon, yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480979</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1246026120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the "one way ticket to mars", I have 2 kids, but as soon as they are grown I'd sign up.  The older I get the more attractive this idea becomes. So no, you are not alone in this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the " one way ticket to mars " , I have 2 kids , but as soon as they are grown I 'd sign up .
The older I get the more attractive this idea becomes .
So no , you are not alone in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the "one way ticket to mars", I have 2 kids, but as soon as they are grown I'd sign up.
The older I get the more attractive this idea becomes.
So no, you are not alone in this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480167</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1246021020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's going to be difficult. Would you want to live on titan? Much better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.</p><p>Manned space flight seems like a waste of money as well. What's the point? It makes everything massively heavier and more expensive for very little return.</p><p>We *should* be going to the moon - for Helium3.</p></div><p>All that money spent fixing this world won't be so great when the sun heats up and boils off the oceans. Where would you rather be? Titan or Earth as the sun starts getting older, hotter, and larger?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's going to be difficult .
Would you want to live on titan ?
Much better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.Manned space flight seems like a waste of money as well .
What 's the point ?
It makes everything massively heavier and more expensive for very little return.We * should * be going to the moon - for Helium3.All that money spent fixing this world wo n't be so great when the sun heats up and boils off the oceans .
Where would you rather be ?
Titan or Earth as the sun starts getting older , hotter , and larger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's going to be difficult.
Would you want to live on titan?
Much better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.Manned space flight seems like a waste of money as well.
What's the point?
It makes everything massively heavier and more expensive for very little return.We *should* be going to the moon - for Helium3.All that money spent fixing this world won't be so great when the sun heats up and boils off the oceans.
Where would you rather be?
Titan or Earth as the sun starts getting older, hotter, and larger?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28495879</id>
	<title>And if NASA won't listen? Whack!</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1246127340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If NASA doesn't pay attention to his advice, well...<br>Well, maybe he should give 'em what he delivered to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow"> <b> this annoying pantywaist! </b> </a> [youtube.com]<br>This should wake 'em up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If NASA does n't pay attention to his advice , well...Well , maybe he should give 'em what he delivered to this annoying pantywaist !
[ youtube.com ] This should wake 'em up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If NASA doesn't pay attention to his advice, well...Well, maybe he should give 'em what he delivered to   this annoying pantywaist!
[youtube.com]This should wake 'em up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478531</id>
	<title>Re:I trust the man</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1246047240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's calculated the trajactories for docking two incredibly fast moving bits of metal orbiting the moon on a slide rule!  If he hadn't got that perfectly right he wouldn't be here today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's calculated the trajactories for docking two incredibly fast moving bits of metal orbiting the moon on a slide rule !
If he had n't got that perfectly right he would n't be here today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's calculated the trajactories for docking two incredibly fast moving bits of metal orbiting the moon on a slide rule!
If he hadn't got that perfectly right he wouldn't be here today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481239</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the very least, development of working Biosphere type environments, increases your survival ANYWHERE, and is a necessary precondition for long-term survival on other worlds or deep space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the very least , development of working Biosphere type environments , increases your survival ANYWHERE , and is a necessary precondition for long-term survival on other worlds or deep space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the very least, development of working Biosphere type environments, increases your survival ANYWHERE, and is a necessary precondition for long-term survival on other worlds or deep space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481487</id>
	<title>Phobos?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like Deckard Cain, they never listen to Dr. Carmack!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Deckard Cain , they never listen to Dr. Carmack !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Deckard Cain, they never listen to Dr. Carmack!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478905</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246007160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The moon has effectively zero atmosphere, no water (frozen or otherwise), highly abbrassive surface dust, and offers practically no protection from solar radiation.  It has little in the ways of mineral wealth or useful building materials.  This things (mostly the lack of water) combine to make a truly self-sustaining colony on the moon effectively impossible.  Even with the best recycling technologies, you would still need water, oxygen/replacement atmosphere every now and then.  There would be some leakage, especially whenever airlocks are cycled- even once depressurized they will still release some atmosphere every time they're opened.

<br> <br>
The moon would still be ideal for some things. If we ever figure out the nuts and bolts of profitable fusion, the He-3 on the moon could power us for a century or two.   Yes it's close, so it's a good first place to put some permanent structures.  It would be a great location for a science station and telescope array.  So I'm all for putting an externally-sustained helium-3 mine and telescope base, but I don't think it's the place to try a truly self-sustaining colony.

<br> <br> <br>

Mars has dry and water ices.  That alone provides a major component required for a self-sustained colony.  There's also large amounts of metals and metal oxides in the soil.  These can provide both building materials and oxygen.  Sodium, Aluminum, Sulfur, Titanium, Iron, Magnesium, and Calcium can be found readily in the soil in various oxides.

<br> <br>

The obvious challenges Mars presents are the distance from the earth and the distance from the sun.  Solar power may not be practical since solar cells sufficient for any large colonization effort would weight quite a lot.  A self sustaining colony would likely have to be nuclear powered.  The challenges posed by landing a nuclear reactor on mars would make an orbital power station and microwave power transmission attractive - at least until and unless manufacturing on the surface could eventually locally produce solar and nuclear power systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moon has effectively zero atmosphere , no water ( frozen or otherwise ) , highly abbrassive surface dust , and offers practically no protection from solar radiation .
It has little in the ways of mineral wealth or useful building materials .
This things ( mostly the lack of water ) combine to make a truly self-sustaining colony on the moon effectively impossible .
Even with the best recycling technologies , you would still need water , oxygen/replacement atmosphere every now and then .
There would be some leakage , especially whenever airlocks are cycled- even once depressurized they will still release some atmosphere every time they 're opened .
The moon would still be ideal for some things .
If we ever figure out the nuts and bolts of profitable fusion , the He-3 on the moon could power us for a century or two .
Yes it 's close , so it 's a good first place to put some permanent structures .
It would be a great location for a science station and telescope array .
So I 'm all for putting an externally-sustained helium-3 mine and telescope base , but I do n't think it 's the place to try a truly self-sustaining colony .
Mars has dry and water ices .
That alone provides a major component required for a self-sustained colony .
There 's also large amounts of metals and metal oxides in the soil .
These can provide both building materials and oxygen .
Sodium , Aluminum , Sulfur , Titanium , Iron , Magnesium , and Calcium can be found readily in the soil in various oxides .
The obvious challenges Mars presents are the distance from the earth and the distance from the sun .
Solar power may not be practical since solar cells sufficient for any large colonization effort would weight quite a lot .
A self sustaining colony would likely have to be nuclear powered .
The challenges posed by landing a nuclear reactor on mars would make an orbital power station and microwave power transmission attractive - at least until and unless manufacturing on the surface could eventually locally produce solar and nuclear power systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moon has effectively zero atmosphere, no water (frozen or otherwise), highly abbrassive surface dust, and offers practically no protection from solar radiation.
It has little in the ways of mineral wealth or useful building materials.
This things (mostly the lack of water) combine to make a truly self-sustaining colony on the moon effectively impossible.
Even with the best recycling technologies, you would still need water, oxygen/replacement atmosphere every now and then.
There would be some leakage, especially whenever airlocks are cycled- even once depressurized they will still release some atmosphere every time they're opened.
The moon would still be ideal for some things.
If we ever figure out the nuts and bolts of profitable fusion, the He-3 on the moon could power us for a century or two.
Yes it's close, so it's a good first place to put some permanent structures.
It would be a great location for a science station and telescope array.
So I'm all for putting an externally-sustained helium-3 mine and telescope base, but I don't think it's the place to try a truly self-sustaining colony.
Mars has dry and water ices.
That alone provides a major component required for a self-sustained colony.
There's also large amounts of metals and metal oxides in the soil.
These can provide both building materials and oxygen.
Sodium, Aluminum, Sulfur, Titanium, Iron, Magnesium, and Calcium can be found readily in the soil in various oxides.
The obvious challenges Mars presents are the distance from the earth and the distance from the sun.
Solar power may not be practical since solar cells sufficient for any large colonization effort would weight quite a lot.
A self sustaining colony would likely have to be nuclear powered.
The challenges posed by landing a nuclear reactor on mars would make an orbital power station and microwave power transmission attractive - at least until and unless manufacturing on the surface could eventually locally produce solar and nuclear power systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480361</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Gulthek</author>
	<datestamp>1246022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel. If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.</p></div><p>You don't know that for a fact. It's probable to be sure, but not definite. Why not strive toward the goal of survival to the best of our ability?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we still have * millions * of years to perfect space travel .
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century , it wo n't matter.You do n't know that for a fact .
It 's probable to be sure , but not definite .
Why not strive toward the goal of survival to the best of our ability ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.
If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.You don't know that for a fact.
It's probable to be sure, but not definite.
Why not strive toward the goal of survival to the best of our ability?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481047</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>m50d</author>
	<datestamp>1246026420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.</i> </p><p>Sure. And if we delay them for another half a century after that, it won't matter either. And if we delay them for another century after that, too, that won't matter. And another million years...</p><p>It's not as though there's something specific we're waiting for. Sure, we probably won't be able to found successful space colonies without more experience - but the <b>only</b> way to get that experience is to try first, and fail a few times. If we really want to make progress towards getting off this rock, we do so by starting, right now. Otherwise we as a race end up like my dad talking about how he always plans on fixing the shed someday, maybe in another ten years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century , it wo n't matter .
Sure. And if we delay them for another half a century after that , it wo n't matter either .
And if we delay them for another century after that , too , that wo n't matter .
And another million years...It 's not as though there 's something specific we 're waiting for .
Sure , we probably wo n't be able to found successful space colonies without more experience - but the only way to get that experience is to try first , and fail a few times .
If we really want to make progress towards getting off this rock , we do so by starting , right now .
Otherwise we as a race end up like my dad talking about how he always plans on fixing the shed someday , maybe in another ten years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.
Sure. And if we delay them for another half a century after that, it won't matter either.
And if we delay them for another century after that, too, that won't matter.
And another million years...It's not as though there's something specific we're waiting for.
Sure, we probably won't be able to found successful space colonies without more experience - but the only way to get that experience is to try first, and fail a few times.
If we really want to make progress towards getting off this rock, we do so by starting, right now.
Otherwise we as a race end up like my dad talking about how he always plans on fixing the shed someday, maybe in another ten years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478625</id>
	<title>Re:I trust the man</title>
	<author>Centurix</author>
	<datestamp>1246048080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And not forgetting the whole standing on the moon thing. Brown trouser time.</p><p>All he has to do next is get his knob out in front of the pope and we can rename him Captain Awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And not forgetting the whole standing on the moon thing .
Brown trouser time.All he has to do next is get his knob out in front of the pope and we can rename him Captain Awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not forgetting the whole standing on the moon thing.
Brown trouser time.All he has to do next is get his knob out in front of the pope and we can rename him Captain Awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478597</id>
	<title>Old coot</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1246047840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reading this thing so let me chime in with my annoyances as I read it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead, we should stretch out the six remaining shuttle flights to 2015--one per year. Sure, that will cost money, but we can more than make up for it by canceling the troubled Ares I. In its place, we should use the old reliable Delta IV Heavy or the Atlas V satellite launchers, upgraded for human flight. (It won't take much.)</p></div><p>Sigh.  I expect better from Buzz Aldrin - he's Buzz Freakin' Aldrin!  What it "will take" is 6 years and the time it takes to build and gift new launch facilities to ULA.  And that's <i>their estimate</i>.  It will likely take longer.  SpaceX says they can do it faster, but it's still not an Ares I class vehicle we're talking about here.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA should also step up its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to subsidize private rockets like the SpaceX Falcon 9, which could make its first flight any time now. SpaceX is also developing the Dragon capsule to fly seven astronauts to the space station.</p></div><p>Yah, more money for SpaceX.. I humbly agree with Mr Aldrin.  However, even if SpaceX's COTS D capability was available tomorrow it would not dejustify the Ares I.  They're two different launch vehicles with two different capabilities.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the short term, some combination of an extended shuttle schedule and a new Orion/Delta, Orion/Atlas or Dragon/Falcon would fill the gap and give us the kind of continuity and flexibility we had during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. In the meantime, we need to develop new strategies, new launch vehicles and new spacecraft for the years beyond 2015 to bring us to the threshold of Mars.</p></div><p>Orion isn't ready and won't be ready for 6 years.  Whining about the 5 year gap is not going to change that.  Anyway, I can see that Mr Aldrin is now setting us up for the "love the Mars" speech.. so let me just say the ESAS specifically addressed the support needed for mating with a future Mars Transfer Vehicle and that is being studied right now.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The key to my medium-term plan is simple: Scrap our go-it-alone lunar program and let international partners--China, Europe, Russia, India, Japan--do the lion's share of the planning, technical development and funding. The U.S. would participate, and we would provide the technological leadership.</p></div><p>Wow, you actually want to lunar mission based on the International Space Station model?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To encourage more partners for both the lunar program and the space station, we should develop a manned spacecraft that other countries could afford to buy or lease.</p></div><p>Uh huh.  So you're saying that other countries are interested in paying the small fortune the US spends to launch the shuttle?  Or are you saying that if we just tried a little harder we could make the shuttle cheap and affordable?  Aldrin, you're not this naive.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My alternative plan is simple math: Ares 3+3 is better than Ares 1+5. In other words, two medium-size Ares 3s would be a more efficient way to launch crew and cargo than a small crew-only Ares I and a huge cargo-only Ares V. NASA would require just one much less expensive rocket program.</p> </div><p>Sigh, this again.  Read the ESAS.. is that too much to ask?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If no commercial or mineral exploitation pans out, perhaps a few wealthy space tourists will pay $100 million for a lunar flyby.</p></div><p>Like they're lining up for the Soyuz flyby that is available <i>right now</i>?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To reach Mars, we should use comets, asteroids and Mars's moon Phobos as intermediate destinations. No giant leaps this time. More like a hop, skip and a jump.</p></div><p>News Flash: Buzz Aldrin doesn't understand delta-v.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For these long-duration missions, we need an entirely new spacecraft that I call the Exploration Module, or XM. Unlike the Orion capsule, which is designed for short flights around the Earth and to the moon..</p></div><p>Umm.. no.  It's designed for lifting the crew to the station, or to an ERS/LSAM or to a mars transfer vehicle.  Again, it's <i>right there in the ESAS</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reading this thing so let me chime in with my annoyances as I read it.Instead , we should stretch out the six remaining shuttle flights to 2015--one per year .
Sure , that will cost money , but we can more than make up for it by canceling the troubled Ares I. In its place , we should use the old reliable Delta IV Heavy or the Atlas V satellite launchers , upgraded for human flight .
( It wo n't take much. ) Sigh .
I expect better from Buzz Aldrin - he 's Buzz Freakin ' Aldrin !
What it " will take " is 6 years and the time it takes to build and gift new launch facilities to ULA .
And that 's their estimate .
It will likely take longer .
SpaceX says they can do it faster , but it 's still not an Ares I class vehicle we 're talking about here.NASA should also step up its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to subsidize private rockets like the SpaceX Falcon 9 , which could make its first flight any time now .
SpaceX is also developing the Dragon capsule to fly seven astronauts to the space station.Yah , more money for SpaceX.. I humbly agree with Mr Aldrin .
However , even if SpaceX 's COTS D capability was available tomorrow it would not dejustify the Ares I. They 're two different launch vehicles with two different capabilities.In the short term , some combination of an extended shuttle schedule and a new Orion/Delta , Orion/Atlas or Dragon/Falcon would fill the gap and give us the kind of continuity and flexibility we had during the Mercury , Gemini and Apollo programs .
In the meantime , we need to develop new strategies , new launch vehicles and new spacecraft for the years beyond 2015 to bring us to the threshold of Mars.Orion is n't ready and wo n't be ready for 6 years .
Whining about the 5 year gap is not going to change that .
Anyway , I can see that Mr Aldrin is now setting us up for the " love the Mars " speech.. so let me just say the ESAS specifically addressed the support needed for mating with a future Mars Transfer Vehicle and that is being studied right now.The key to my medium-term plan is simple : Scrap our go-it-alone lunar program and let international partners--China , Europe , Russia , India , Japan--do the lion 's share of the planning , technical development and funding .
The U.S. would participate , and we would provide the technological leadership.Wow , you actually want to lunar mission based on the International Space Station model ? To encourage more partners for both the lunar program and the space station , we should develop a manned spacecraft that other countries could afford to buy or lease.Uh huh .
So you 're saying that other countries are interested in paying the small fortune the US spends to launch the shuttle ?
Or are you saying that if we just tried a little harder we could make the shuttle cheap and affordable ?
Aldrin , you 're not this naive.My alternative plan is simple math : Ares 3 + 3 is better than Ares 1 + 5 .
In other words , two medium-size Ares 3s would be a more efficient way to launch crew and cargo than a small crew-only Ares I and a huge cargo-only Ares V. NASA would require just one much less expensive rocket program .
Sigh , this again .
Read the ESAS.. is that too much to ask ? If no commercial or mineral exploitation pans out , perhaps a few wealthy space tourists will pay $ 100 million for a lunar flyby.Like they 're lining up for the Soyuz flyby that is available right now ? To reach Mars , we should use comets , asteroids and Mars 's moon Phobos as intermediate destinations .
No giant leaps this time .
More like a hop , skip and a jump.News Flash : Buzz Aldrin does n't understand delta-v.For these long-duration missions , we need an entirely new spacecraft that I call the Exploration Module , or XM .
Unlike the Orion capsule , which is designed for short flights around the Earth and to the moon..Umm.. no. It 's designed for lifting the crew to the station , or to an ERS/LSAM or to a mars transfer vehicle .
Again , it 's right there in the ESAS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reading this thing so let me chime in with my annoyances as I read it.Instead, we should stretch out the six remaining shuttle flights to 2015--one per year.
Sure, that will cost money, but we can more than make up for it by canceling the troubled Ares I. In its place, we should use the old reliable Delta IV Heavy or the Atlas V satellite launchers, upgraded for human flight.
(It won't take much.)Sigh.
I expect better from Buzz Aldrin - he's Buzz Freakin' Aldrin!
What it "will take" is 6 years and the time it takes to build and gift new launch facilities to ULA.
And that's their estimate.
It will likely take longer.
SpaceX says they can do it faster, but it's still not an Ares I class vehicle we're talking about here.NASA should also step up its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to subsidize private rockets like the SpaceX Falcon 9, which could make its first flight any time now.
SpaceX is also developing the Dragon capsule to fly seven astronauts to the space station.Yah, more money for SpaceX.. I humbly agree with Mr Aldrin.
However, even if SpaceX's COTS D capability was available tomorrow it would not dejustify the Ares I.  They're two different launch vehicles with two different capabilities.In the short term, some combination of an extended shuttle schedule and a new Orion/Delta, Orion/Atlas or Dragon/Falcon would fill the gap and give us the kind of continuity and flexibility we had during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
In the meantime, we need to develop new strategies, new launch vehicles and new spacecraft for the years beyond 2015 to bring us to the threshold of Mars.Orion isn't ready and won't be ready for 6 years.
Whining about the 5 year gap is not going to change that.
Anyway, I can see that Mr Aldrin is now setting us up for the "love the Mars" speech.. so let me just say the ESAS specifically addressed the support needed for mating with a future Mars Transfer Vehicle and that is being studied right now.The key to my medium-term plan is simple: Scrap our go-it-alone lunar program and let international partners--China, Europe, Russia, India, Japan--do the lion's share of the planning, technical development and funding.
The U.S. would participate, and we would provide the technological leadership.Wow, you actually want to lunar mission based on the International Space Station model?To encourage more partners for both the lunar program and the space station, we should develop a manned spacecraft that other countries could afford to buy or lease.Uh huh.
So you're saying that other countries are interested in paying the small fortune the US spends to launch the shuttle?
Or are you saying that if we just tried a little harder we could make the shuttle cheap and affordable?
Aldrin, you're not this naive.My alternative plan is simple math: Ares 3+3 is better than Ares 1+5.
In other words, two medium-size Ares 3s would be a more efficient way to launch crew and cargo than a small crew-only Ares I and a huge cargo-only Ares V. NASA would require just one much less expensive rocket program.
Sigh, this again.
Read the ESAS.. is that too much to ask?If no commercial or mineral exploitation pans out, perhaps a few wealthy space tourists will pay $100 million for a lunar flyby.Like they're lining up for the Soyuz flyby that is available right now?To reach Mars, we should use comets, asteroids and Mars's moon Phobos as intermediate destinations.
No giant leaps this time.
More like a hop, skip and a jump.News Flash: Buzz Aldrin doesn't understand delta-v.For these long-duration missions, we need an entirely new spacecraft that I call the Exploration Module, or XM.
Unlike the Orion capsule, which is designed for short flights around the Earth and to the moon..Umm.. no.  It's designed for lifting the crew to the station, or to an ERS/LSAM or to a mars transfer vehicle.
Again, it's right there in the ESAS.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478601</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>Mr. Roadkill</author>
	<datestamp>1246047840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The moon is closer, but it's also likely to be a more hostile environment - for the equipment, and possibly the crew too. Moon dust is *really* nasty stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moon is closer , but it 's also likely to be a more hostile environment - for the equipment , and possibly the crew too .
Moon dust is * really * nasty stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moon is closer, but it's also likely to be a more hostile environment - for the equipment, and possibly the crew too.
Moon dust is *really* nasty stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488941</id>
	<title>Larry Niven</title>
	<author>DragonHawk</author>
	<datestamp>1246014000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction.</p></div><p>I like Larry Niven's aphorism better: "The dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program."<br>
<br>
(Someone else posted the aphorism, but they left out the attribution.)<br>
<br>
I do wonder just how practical manned exploration/colonization beyond Earth would be given technology foreseeable in the near future, but certainly we could be doing more in Earth orbit, and telepresence exploration of the Solar system seems like a reasonable step.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Carl Sagan in " Pale Blue Dot " , any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction.I like Larry Niven 's aphorism better : " The dinosaurs are extinct because they did n't have a space program .
" ( Someone else posted the aphorism , but they left out the attribution .
) I do wonder just how practical manned exploration/colonization beyond Earth would be given technology foreseeable in the near future , but certainly we could be doing more in Earth orbit , and telepresence exploration of the Solar system seems like a reasonable step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot", any species that does not move off its planet is doomed to extinction.I like Larry Niven's aphorism better: "The dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't have a space program.
"

(Someone else posted the aphorism, but they left out the attribution.
)

I do wonder just how practical manned exploration/colonization beyond Earth would be given technology foreseeable in the near future, but certainly we could be doing more in Earth orbit, and telepresence exploration of the Solar system seems like a reasonable step.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482241</id>
	<title>Re:About time we had some public debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually space exploration had a very low amount of spinoffs. Many of the claimed spinoffs were invented independently but used by space programs (IC, Velcro, Tang), or are outshoots of NASA research which were aimed at air flight, not space flight, (Carbon fiber, ceramic brakes, APUs).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually space exploration had a very low amount of spinoffs .
Many of the claimed spinoffs were invented independently but used by space programs ( IC , Velcro , Tang ) , or are outshoots of NASA research which were aimed at air flight , not space flight , ( Carbon fiber , ceramic brakes , APUs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually space exploration had a very low amount of spinoffs.
Many of the claimed spinoffs were invented independently but used by space programs (IC, Velcro, Tang), or are outshoots of NASA research which were aimed at air flight, not space flight, (Carbon fiber, ceramic brakes, APUs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479117</id>
	<title>Burt Rutan has the answer</title>
	<author>unix\_geek\_512</author>
	<datestamp>1246009200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Burt Rutan has the answer!</p><p>Launch payloads from a White Knight Two++ vehicle and assemble in orbit.</p><p>It's not rocket science!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Burt Rutan has the answer ! Launch payloads from a White Knight Two + + vehicle and assemble in orbit.It 's not rocket science !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burt Rutan has the answer!Launch payloads from a White Knight Two++ vehicle and assemble in orbit.It's not rocket science!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482055</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.</p></div><p>I think the idea behind "won't somebody think of the children" is to distract the audience from the real issue at hand, in order not to have to argue a weak or plainly wrong argument. eg "we need to deep packet inspect all Internet traffic.... think of the children!"</p><p>I find it very logical knowing that this planet is 100\% guaranteed to be doomed eventually (or at least unable to host complex life such as ourselves), whether by the sun's supernova, the moon leaving orbit, a meteor, or whatever else, the human race should think about its decedents and the survival of our species. Afterall it would be nice to make sure that all our ancestors didn't go through all the sh*t  and pain/suffering they went through to get us here just so that we can all die off in a cataclysmic event. The human race should make it our absolute #1 priority to establish self-sustainable offworld colonies.</p><p>And btw, any given day a cataclysmic meteor hitting earth is highly unlikely, but I don't like running those odds for "*millions* of years" while we are 'perfecting' space travel as you said (and in the meantime still blowing each other up and creating biological weapons and robotic drone armies).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " Wo n't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
" like politicians would use " Wo n't somebody think of the children ? ! ? ! ? !
" , using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.I think the idea behind " wo n't somebody think of the children " is to distract the audience from the real issue at hand , in order not to have to argue a weak or plainly wrong argument .
eg " we need to deep packet inspect all Internet traffic.... think of the children !
" I find it very logical knowing that this planet is 100 \ % guaranteed to be doomed eventually ( or at least unable to host complex life such as ourselves ) , whether by the sun 's supernova , the moon leaving orbit , a meteor , or whatever else , the human race should think about its decedents and the survival of our species .
Afterall it would be nice to make sure that all our ancestors did n't go through all the sh * t and pain/suffering they went through to get us here just so that we can all die off in a cataclysmic event .
The human race should make it our absolute # 1 priority to establish self-sustainable offworld colonies.And btw , any given day a cataclysmic meteor hitting earth is highly unlikely , but I do n't like running those odds for " * millions * of years " while we are 'perfecting ' space travel as you said ( and in the meantime still blowing each other up and creating biological weapons and robotic drone armies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "Won't somebody think of the HUMAN RACE?!?!?!?!
" like politicians would use "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!
", using it to support your agenda by accusing your opponents of 'not caring about the survival of the species'.I think the idea behind "won't somebody think of the children" is to distract the audience from the real issue at hand, in order not to have to argue a weak or plainly wrong argument.
eg "we need to deep packet inspect all Internet traffic.... think of the children!
"I find it very logical knowing that this planet is 100\% guaranteed to be doomed eventually (or at least unable to host complex life such as ourselves), whether by the sun's supernova, the moon leaving orbit, a meteor, or whatever else, the human race should think about its decedents and the survival of our species.
Afterall it would be nice to make sure that all our ancestors didn't go through all the sh*t  and pain/suffering they went through to get us here just so that we can all die off in a cataclysmic event.
The human race should make it our absolute #1 priority to establish self-sustainable offworld colonies.And btw, any given day a cataclysmic meteor hitting earth is highly unlikely, but I don't like running those odds for "*millions* of years" while we are 'perfecting' space travel as you said (and in the meantime still blowing each other up and creating biological weapons and robotic drone armies).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478677</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>Garrett Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1246048620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I understand it, the two environments are substantially different. Mars has higher air pressure, double gravity, less temperature variation (deadly cold to just really cold, instead of deadly cold to deadly hot), and a different and lighter required suit design. The main similarities are that they're far away, hard to reach, require spacesuits, and have that problem with ultra-fine dust. A lot of that scenario can be practiced in Antarctica, and is actually being done. So, I don't think that going to the Moon specifically for practice would be all that useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , the two environments are substantially different .
Mars has higher air pressure , double gravity , less temperature variation ( deadly cold to just really cold , instead of deadly cold to deadly hot ) , and a different and lighter required suit design .
The main similarities are that they 're far away , hard to reach , require spacesuits , and have that problem with ultra-fine dust .
A lot of that scenario can be practiced in Antarctica , and is actually being done .
So , I do n't think that going to the Moon specifically for practice would be all that useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, the two environments are substantially different.
Mars has higher air pressure, double gravity, less temperature variation (deadly cold to just really cold, instead of deadly cold to deadly hot), and a different and lighter required suit design.
The main similarities are that they're far away, hard to reach, require spacesuits, and have that problem with ultra-fine dust.
A lot of that scenario can be practiced in Antarctica, and is actually being done.
So, I don't think that going to the Moon specifically for practice would be all that useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484777</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246038780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather not clutter up Earth's space any more than it already is.  The more trash floating around up there will make it more difficult to fly future missions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather not clutter up Earth 's space any more than it already is .
The more trash floating around up there will make it more difficult to fly future missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather not clutter up Earth's space any more than it already is.
The more trash floating around up there will make it more difficult to fly future missions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488779</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1246013220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spare us the sententious bullshit. The cost is so high that it is in practice impossible. Yours is just a magical-religious superstition that it can or should be done. As to living on Titan, you are very obviously talking out of your ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spare us the sententious bullshit .
The cost is so high that it is in practice impossible .
Yours is just a magical-religious superstition that it can or should be done .
As to living on Titan , you are very obviously talking out of your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spare us the sententious bullshit.
The cost is so high that it is in practice impossible.
Yours is just a magical-religious superstition that it can or should be done.
As to living on Titan, you are very obviously talking out of your ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478633</id>
	<title>Re:Manned space flight is a fucking waste</title>
	<author>wellingj</author>
	<datestamp>1246048200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But what about the human aspect? I kid, I kid...</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what about the human aspect ?
I kid , I kid.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what about the human aspect?
I kid, I kid...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482141</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.</i>
<p>
Actually, there are some who think that is untrue, and here's why. The cost of feeding the world is ever rising as the population climbs. As the population climbs the amount of land available to grow things falls. At the moment, finding the few billions it might take to get us off-world just seems expensive, but at some point finding those billions may actually require taking the decision to stop feeding some people and that will be a tough decision for anyone to make!
</p><p>
There are some who suggest that if we don't det off-world NOW we may never have the spare cash to throw at it again, and that's a BIG risk for the survival of our species, and presumably all the species we take along with us for the ride. Though, to be fair, they often quote 100 years as "NOW", but it's still a gamble upon which our species very survival may rest!
</p><p>
Not only that, but I'd like to see it at least start to happen!
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century , it wo n't matter .
Actually , there are some who think that is untrue , and here 's why .
The cost of feeding the world is ever rising as the population climbs .
As the population climbs the amount of land available to grow things falls .
At the moment , finding the few billions it might take to get us off-world just seems expensive , but at some point finding those billions may actually require taking the decision to stop feeding some people and that will be a tough decision for anyone to make !
There are some who suggest that if we do n't det off-world NOW we may never have the spare cash to throw at it again , and that 's a BIG risk for the survival of our species , and presumably all the species we take along with us for the ride .
Though , to be fair , they often quote 100 years as " NOW " , but it 's still a gamble upon which our species very survival may rest !
Not only that , but I 'd like to see it at least start to happen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we delay manned missions to other planets/moons for half a century, it won't matter.
Actually, there are some who think that is untrue, and here's why.
The cost of feeding the world is ever rising as the population climbs.
As the population climbs the amount of land available to grow things falls.
At the moment, finding the few billions it might take to get us off-world just seems expensive, but at some point finding those billions may actually require taking the decision to stop feeding some people and that will be a tough decision for anyone to make!
There are some who suggest that if we don't det off-world NOW we may never have the spare cash to throw at it again, and that's a BIG risk for the survival of our species, and presumably all the species we take along with us for the ride.
Though, to be fair, they often quote 100 years as "NOW", but it's still a gamble upon which our species very survival may rest!
Not only that, but I'd like to see it at least start to happen!

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480699</id>
	<title>Re:Safety?</title>
	<author>oni</author>
	<datestamp>1246024980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Weren't those considered unsafe for manned flight?</i></p><p>The story I heard was thus: There is a process called "man-rating" which means that you certify a particular launch vehicle to be able to carry a capsule containing people. The process is sort of like ISO9000 or whatever. Essentially, you have gobs of documentation that say things like, "this bolt will fail in this circumstance. The resulting stress on the other 20 bolts is X"  "In the event that this tube leaks, the pressure will be Y"  In some cases, you have to make things redundant: "the failure rate of this pump is X, which is beyond the risk tolerance for manned flight, so we have this backup pump - the chance that both pumps will fail is Y"</p><p>Bottom line: you might have to replace or redesign parts of the rocket in order to make it man-rated. And what I was told is that it might actually be more expensive to man-rate a Delta IV heavy, than to simply design a man-rated rocket like Ares from the ground up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't those considered unsafe for manned flight ? The story I heard was thus : There is a process called " man-rating " which means that you certify a particular launch vehicle to be able to carry a capsule containing people .
The process is sort of like ISO9000 or whatever .
Essentially , you have gobs of documentation that say things like , " this bolt will fail in this circumstance .
The resulting stress on the other 20 bolts is X " " In the event that this tube leaks , the pressure will be Y " In some cases , you have to make things redundant : " the failure rate of this pump is X , which is beyond the risk tolerance for manned flight , so we have this backup pump - the chance that both pumps will fail is Y " Bottom line : you might have to replace or redesign parts of the rocket in order to make it man-rated .
And what I was told is that it might actually be more expensive to man-rate a Delta IV heavy , than to simply design a man-rated rocket like Ares from the ground up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't those considered unsafe for manned flight?The story I heard was thus: There is a process called "man-rating" which means that you certify a particular launch vehicle to be able to carry a capsule containing people.
The process is sort of like ISO9000 or whatever.
Essentially, you have gobs of documentation that say things like, "this bolt will fail in this circumstance.
The resulting stress on the other 20 bolts is X"  "In the event that this tube leaks, the pressure will be Y"  In some cases, you have to make things redundant: "the failure rate of this pump is X, which is beyond the risk tolerance for manned flight, so we have this backup pump - the chance that both pumps will fail is Y"Bottom line: you might have to replace or redesign parts of the rocket in order to make it man-rated.
And what I was told is that it might actually be more expensive to man-rate a Delta IV heavy, than to simply design a man-rated rocket like Ares from the ground up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245959160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's going to be difficult. Would you want to live on titan? Much better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.

Manned space flight seems like a waste of money as well. What's the point? It makes everything massively heavier and more expensive for very little return.

We *should* be going to the moon - for Helium3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's going to be difficult .
Would you want to live on titan ?
Much better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world .
Manned space flight seems like a waste of money as well .
What 's the point ?
It makes everything massively heavier and more expensive for very little return .
We * should * be going to the moon - for Helium3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's going to be difficult.
Would you want to live on titan?
Much better to spend the colossal amount of money on fixing this world.
Manned space flight seems like a waste of money as well.
What's the point?
It makes everything massively heavier and more expensive for very little return.
We *should* be going to the moon - for Helium3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28483159</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1246033140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Well, for one thing, a manned space program keeps some very intelligent scientists and engineers employed. It also hopefully captures the imagination of the youth to provide us with another generation of scientists and engineers.</i>
<br>
<br>
Who will struggle to get jobs just like so many recent science and engineering grads are.  As far as I can tell, the only professions that still offer secure employment are in healthcare, the military, and skilled trades.  Everyone else is screwed.
<br>
<br>
<i>We keep complaining that math and science education in this country keeps sliding. Giving kids something tangible that says "math and science can be fun and exciting" is what we need.</i>
<br>
<br>
Slashdot is filled with people who complain about the state of science and math education, have strong talents in those directions, but decided to go into something more lucrative like software engineering.  How many peopl reading this right now got a perfect score on your math SATs, yet either dropped out of college to make money, or graduated just to go into coding in the business world?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for one thing , a manned space program keeps some very intelligent scientists and engineers employed .
It also hopefully captures the imagination of the youth to provide us with another generation of scientists and engineers .
Who will struggle to get jobs just like so many recent science and engineering grads are .
As far as I can tell , the only professions that still offer secure employment are in healthcare , the military , and skilled trades .
Everyone else is screwed .
We keep complaining that math and science education in this country keeps sliding .
Giving kids something tangible that says " math and science can be fun and exciting " is what we need .
Slashdot is filled with people who complain about the state of science and math education , have strong talents in those directions , but decided to go into something more lucrative like software engineering .
How many peopl reading this right now got a perfect score on your math SATs , yet either dropped out of college to make money , or graduated just to go into coding in the business world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for one thing, a manned space program keeps some very intelligent scientists and engineers employed.
It also hopefully captures the imagination of the youth to provide us with another generation of scientists and engineers.
Who will struggle to get jobs just like so many recent science and engineering grads are.
As far as I can tell, the only professions that still offer secure employment are in healthcare, the military, and skilled trades.
Everyone else is screwed.
We keep complaining that math and science education in this country keeps sliding.
Giving kids something tangible that says "math and science can be fun and exciting" is what we need.
Slashdot is filled with people who complain about the state of science and math education, have strong talents in those directions, but decided to go into something more lucrative like software engineering.
How many peopl reading this right now got a perfect score on your math SATs, yet either dropped out of college to make money, or graduated just to go into coding in the business world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480209</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>CoolGopher</author>
	<datestamp>1246021800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>That's going to be difficult. Would you want to live on titan? </em> </p><p>
  If you'd asked me before I settled down, I'd probably have volunteered. For many people there aren't that many ties that hold them here, and the opportunity to go and be at the forefront of space exploration, to boldly go where no man has gone before, well, that's really exciting and worthwhile! Personally I find people like Armstrong and Aldrin tremendously inspiring. Of course, I'm also finding the engineers behind the Mars rovers really inspiring too. Space is still new and novel and has a high amount of "wow" attached to it. There is new stuff to be discovered. Completely new experiences to be had. I mean, come on, how could you not want to, assuming you had no personal ties holding you back?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's going to be difficult .
Would you want to live on titan ?
If you 'd asked me before I settled down , I 'd probably have volunteered .
For many people there are n't that many ties that hold them here , and the opportunity to go and be at the forefront of space exploration , to boldly go where no man has gone before , well , that 's really exciting and worthwhile !
Personally I find people like Armstrong and Aldrin tremendously inspiring .
Of course , I 'm also finding the engineers behind the Mars rovers really inspiring too .
Space is still new and novel and has a high amount of " wow " attached to it .
There is new stuff to be discovered .
Completely new experiences to be had .
I mean , come on , how could you not want to , assuming you had no personal ties holding you back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's going to be difficult.
Would you want to live on titan?
If you'd asked me before I settled down, I'd probably have volunteered.
For many people there aren't that many ties that hold them here, and the opportunity to go and be at the forefront of space exploration, to boldly go where no man has gone before, well, that's really exciting and worthwhile!
Personally I find people like Armstrong and Aldrin tremendously inspiring.
Of course, I'm also finding the engineers behind the Mars rovers really inspiring too.
Space is still new and novel and has a high amount of "wow" attached to it.
There is new stuff to be discovered.
Completely new experiences to be had.
I mean, come on, how could you not want to, assuming you had no personal ties holding you back?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488395</id>
	<title>Re:Colony practice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246011000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, no.  A Martian or Lunar colony can sustain itself by expending energy (presumably acquired via a nuclear fission reactor) to harvest material from its surroundings and actually grow.  An orbital colony would have to be enormous to close a loop and self sustain.</p><p>Even better, Martian and Lunar resources are exceedingly difficult to utilize, especially insofar as acquisition, so if we actually attack that problem it helps us to better use resources wherever we go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , no .
A Martian or Lunar colony can sustain itself by expending energy ( presumably acquired via a nuclear fission reactor ) to harvest material from its surroundings and actually grow .
An orbital colony would have to be enormous to close a loop and self sustain.Even better , Martian and Lunar resources are exceedingly difficult to utilize , especially insofar as acquisition , so if we actually attack that problem it helps us to better use resources wherever we go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, no.
A Martian or Lunar colony can sustain itself by expending energy (presumably acquired via a nuclear fission reactor) to harvest material from its surroundings and actually grow.
An orbital colony would have to be enormous to close a loop and self sustain.Even better, Martian and Lunar resources are exceedingly difficult to utilize, especially insofar as acquisition, so if we actually attack that problem it helps us to better use resources wherever we go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479663</id>
	<title>But racing is good.</title>
	<author>Dersaidin</author>
	<datestamp>1246015080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA's current lunar plan is a detour. It will derail our Mars effort, siphoning off money and engineering talent for the next two decades. If we aspire to a long-term human presence on Mars--and I believe that should be our overarching goal for the foreseeable future--we must drastically change our focus.

Here's my plan, which I call the Unified Space Vision. It's a blueprint that will maintain U.S. leadership in human spaceflight, avoid a counterproductive space race with China to be second back to the moon, and lead to a permanent American-led presence on Mars by 2035 at the latest.</p></div><p>Counterproductive space race? Sounds like an oxymoron.
<br>
Races between nations produced many technologies.
</p><p>
And second back to the moon isn't a bad thing, particularly for it to be the stepping stone he speaks of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of a steppingstone to Mars , NASA 's current lunar plan is a detour .
It will derail our Mars effort , siphoning off money and engineering talent for the next two decades .
If we aspire to a long-term human presence on Mars--and I believe that should be our overarching goal for the foreseeable future--we must drastically change our focus .
Here 's my plan , which I call the Unified Space Vision .
It 's a blueprint that will maintain U.S. leadership in human spaceflight , avoid a counterproductive space race with China to be second back to the moon , and lead to a permanent American-led presence on Mars by 2035 at the latest.Counterproductive space race ?
Sounds like an oxymoron .
Races between nations produced many technologies .
And second back to the moon is n't a bad thing , particularly for it to be the stepping stone he speaks of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA's current lunar plan is a detour.
It will derail our Mars effort, siphoning off money and engineering talent for the next two decades.
If we aspire to a long-term human presence on Mars--and I believe that should be our overarching goal for the foreseeable future--we must drastically change our focus.
Here's my plan, which I call the Unified Space Vision.
It's a blueprint that will maintain U.S. leadership in human spaceflight, avoid a counterproductive space race with China to be second back to the moon, and lead to a permanent American-led presence on Mars by 2035 at the latest.Counterproductive space race?
Sounds like an oxymoron.
Races between nations produced many technologies.
And second back to the moon isn't a bad thing, particularly for it to be the stepping stone he speaks of.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482449</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>cmat</author>
	<datestamp>1246031100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.</p></div><p>Predicting the future is a dangerous profession.  The only demonstrable, premeditated success at prediction of future events has been in the financial field, and essentially that was betting that things will go bad, and it's just a matter of riding out the "fair weather" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim\_Nicholas\_Taleb" title="wikipedia.org">Nassim Nicholas Taleb)</a> [wikipedia.org]).  So that being said, the only rational thing to do is to buy insurance, and so far, the best insurance we have is spreading the population out a bit so we're not a single target for whatever the universe decides to throw at us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , unless some meteor comes along and kills us all , we still have * millions * of years to perfect space travel.Predicting the future is a dangerous profession .
The only demonstrable , premeditated success at prediction of future events has been in the financial field , and essentially that was betting that things will go bad , and it 's just a matter of riding out the " fair weather " ( Nassim Nicholas Taleb ) [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
So that being said , the only rational thing to do is to buy insurance , and so far , the best insurance we have is spreading the population out a bit so we 're not a single target for whatever the universe decides to throw at us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.Predicting the future is a dangerous profession.
The only demonstrable, premeditated success at prediction of future events has been in the financial field, and essentially that was betting that things will go bad, and it's just a matter of riding out the "fair weather" (Nassim Nicholas Taleb) [wikipedia.org]).
So that being said, the only rational thing to do is to buy insurance, and so far, the best insurance we have is spreading the population out a bit so we're not a single target for whatever the universe decides to throw at us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480799</id>
	<title>One Way Trips To Colonize Mars?</title>
	<author>aquatone282</author>
	<datestamp>1246025460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in - where do I sign up?</p><p>Seriously, if I wasn't going to be 85 years old by the time they get around to this (and I hope they do) I'd be the first in line at the spaceport.</p><p>Guess it's in the blood thanks to all my ancestors who took the risk to get on boats from Europe to travel to a new, distant wilderness with little or no guarantee of success much less survival and then every generation after who kept moving into the wilderness until they reached the Pacific Northwest 130 years ago.</p><p>Well, since Mars is out guess I'll have to settle to sailing around the world - still plenty of wild places on Earth to go visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in - where do I sign up ? Seriously , if I was n't going to be 85 years old by the time they get around to this ( and I hope they do ) I 'd be the first in line at the spaceport.Guess it 's in the blood thanks to all my ancestors who took the risk to get on boats from Europe to travel to a new , distant wilderness with little or no guarantee of success much less survival and then every generation after who kept moving into the wilderness until they reached the Pacific Northwest 130 years ago.Well , since Mars is out guess I 'll have to settle to sailing around the world - still plenty of wild places on Earth to go visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in - where do I sign up?Seriously, if I wasn't going to be 85 years old by the time they get around to this (and I hope they do) I'd be the first in line at the spaceport.Guess it's in the blood thanks to all my ancestors who took the risk to get on boats from Europe to travel to a new, distant wilderness with little or no guarantee of success much less survival and then every generation after who kept moving into the wilderness until they reached the Pacific Northwest 130 years ago.Well, since Mars is out guess I'll have to settle to sailing around the world - still plenty of wild places on Earth to go visit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479037</id>
	<title>Re:Manned space flight is a fucking waste</title>
	<author>Jafafa Hots</author>
	<datestamp>1246008300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be too, but lets be honest - scientific return and thee progress of human knowledge is not measured by what gives you and me a visceral thrill. That's not science, that's entertainment. Good science can of course be entertaining, but what's most entertaining does is not necessarily the best science. If it were, porn would have cured cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be too , but lets be honest - scientific return and thee progress of human knowledge is not measured by what gives you and me a visceral thrill .
That 's not science , that 's entertainment .
Good science can of course be entertaining , but what 's most entertaining does is not necessarily the best science .
If it were , porn would have cured cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be too, but lets be honest - scientific return and thee progress of human knowledge is not measured by what gives you and me a visceral thrill.
That's not science, that's entertainment.
Good science can of course be entertaining, but what's most entertaining does is not necessarily the best science.
If it were, porn would have cured cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484869</id>
	<title>Re:About time we had some public debate</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246039140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And don't forget porn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget porn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget porn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28514379</id>
	<title>An alternative to the moon</title>
	<author>Winkkin</author>
	<datestamp>1246292100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've argued that our space program needs a purpose which justifies the expense.  I'm in the camp of getting a sufficient number of people off this planet to ensure the survival of the species.  The thing I don't understand is why would we expend all this effort to get out of one gravity well only to crawl into another.  The short and mid-term goal of our space program should be to establish a permanant colony in space that is prepared to ensure man's survival.

The earth is still going to be the best place for humans to live.  The purpose of any colony we build should be re-colonize earth in the event of major catastrophe.  It would support seed and gene banks, an exportable technolgy base, and a sufficient population armed with a plan and the resources to jumpstart civilization once the dust settles.

I'm not saying the moon can't play a vital role in the process, but any serious exploitation of the moon for resources is going to require heav lift capabilities on the moon that may be centuries away.

That leaves us with exploration, and to the exteny possible, development of the asteroid belt as a resource base for building a "permanent" habitat in space and equiping it for its mission.  As much as I'd like to see us go to Mars, resources will too valuable for a sight-seeing junket.  Use the resources we have to grab the low hanging fruit if its our there.  Half a dozen exploratory trips to the asteroids should be the short term objective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've argued that our space program needs a purpose which justifies the expense .
I 'm in the camp of getting a sufficient number of people off this planet to ensure the survival of the species .
The thing I do n't understand is why would we expend all this effort to get out of one gravity well only to crawl into another .
The short and mid-term goal of our space program should be to establish a permanant colony in space that is prepared to ensure man 's survival .
The earth is still going to be the best place for humans to live .
The purpose of any colony we build should be re-colonize earth in the event of major catastrophe .
It would support seed and gene banks , an exportable technolgy base , and a sufficient population armed with a plan and the resources to jumpstart civilization once the dust settles .
I 'm not saying the moon ca n't play a vital role in the process , but any serious exploitation of the moon for resources is going to require heav lift capabilities on the moon that may be centuries away .
That leaves us with exploration , and to the exteny possible , development of the asteroid belt as a resource base for building a " permanent " habitat in space and equiping it for its mission .
As much as I 'd like to see us go to Mars , resources will too valuable for a sight-seeing junket .
Use the resources we have to grab the low hanging fruit if its our there .
Half a dozen exploratory trips to the asteroids should be the short term objective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've argued that our space program needs a purpose which justifies the expense.
I'm in the camp of getting a sufficient number of people off this planet to ensure the survival of the species.
The thing I don't understand is why would we expend all this effort to get out of one gravity well only to crawl into another.
The short and mid-term goal of our space program should be to establish a permanant colony in space that is prepared to ensure man's survival.
The earth is still going to be the best place for humans to live.
The purpose of any colony we build should be re-colonize earth in the event of major catastrophe.
It would support seed and gene banks, an exportable technolgy base, and a sufficient population armed with a plan and the resources to jumpstart civilization once the dust settles.
I'm not saying the moon can't play a vital role in the process, but any serious exploitation of the moon for resources is going to require heav lift capabilities on the moon that may be centuries away.
That leaves us with exploration, and to the exteny possible, development of the asteroid belt as a resource base for building a "permanent" habitat in space and equiping it for its mission.
As much as I'd like to see us go to Mars, resources will too valuable for a sight-seeing junket.
Use the resources we have to grab the low hanging fruit if its our there.
Half a dozen exploratory trips to the asteroids should be the short term objective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479927</id>
	<title>Re:Good ideas.</title>
	<author>lifejunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1246018320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; What's the point?  <br> <br>

Because we <i>can</i>. Even if the only result was to inspire the next generation of brilliant engineers, it would all be worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; What 's the point ?
Because we can .
Even if the only result was to inspire the next generation of brilliant engineers , it would all be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; What's the point?
Because we can.
Even if the only result was to inspire the next generation of brilliant engineers, it would all be worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480017</id>
	<title>I am so in line with a Phobos landing</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1246019220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, they circled the moon more than once before they landed.  Lots of stuff that can get ironed out just on the journey and we all know a Martian landing is uniquely tricky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , they circled the moon more than once before they landed .
Lots of stuff that can get ironed out just on the journey and we all know a Martian landing is uniquely tricky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, they circled the moon more than once before they landed.
Lots of stuff that can get ironed out just on the journey and we all know a Martian landing is uniquely tricky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478631</id>
	<title>...Buzzz, if that is your real name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, uh, don't think this contest is over yet Buzz. If that is your real name. I believe there is still a little something called the swimsuit competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , uh , do n't think this contest is over yet Buzz .
If that is your real name .
I believe there is still a little something called the swimsuit competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, uh, don't think this contest is over yet Buzz.
If that is your real name.
I believe there is still a little something called the swimsuit competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482227</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm... Yes?</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1246030500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because you put a blanket over your one basket doesn't mean that not all of your eggs are in it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you put a blanket over your one basket does n't mean that not all of your eggs are in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you put a blanket over your one basket doesn't mean that not all of your eggs are in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28483095</id>
	<title>avoid spring</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1246033020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...a 2025 trip to the Martian moon Phobos</p></div><p>I'd recommend staying away from Phobos in the spring..imps get a little feisty during mating season.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a 2025 trip to the Martian moon PhobosI 'd recommend staying away from Phobos in the spring..imps get a little feisty during mating season .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...a 2025 trip to the Martian moon PhobosI'd recommend staying away from Phobos in the spring..imps get a little feisty during mating season.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28487693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28508837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28483159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28508795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28490725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0410259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478703
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480073
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28483159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479287
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488779
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480979
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28488941
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480181
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481239
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479581
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482449
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481047
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480993
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482227
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482141
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28508837
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480379
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481647
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481943
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482055
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484259
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480851
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480361
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481831
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481623
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482327
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28508795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28487693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28481767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0410259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28478563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28480445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28484869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28479429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28482241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0410259.28490725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
