<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_05_2345248</id>
	<title>NASA Hedges Their Bets On Return To Moon</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246790400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>With budget cuts in the works for everyone these days, NASA has decided to float an <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/MN2218GD18.DTL&amp;type=science">alternate plan for returning to the moon</a> that is just a little bit cheaper than the current proposal.  Of course, the new option would be very reminiscent of the old Apollo space capsule instead of the tricked out shuttle currently planned.  <i>"Officially, the space agency is still on track with a 4-year-old plan to spend $35 billion to build new rockets and return astronauts to the moon in several years. However, a top NASA manager is floating a cut-rate alternative that costs around $6.6 billion.  This cheaper option is not as powerful as NASA's current design with its fancy new rockets, the people-carrying Ares I and cargo-lifting Ares V. But the cut-rate plan would still get to the moon."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>With budget cuts in the works for everyone these days , NASA has decided to float an alternate plan for returning to the moon that is just a little bit cheaper than the current proposal .
Of course , the new option would be very reminiscent of the old Apollo space capsule instead of the tricked out shuttle currently planned .
" Officially , the space agency is still on track with a 4-year-old plan to spend $ 35 billion to build new rockets and return astronauts to the moon in several years .
However , a top NASA manager is floating a cut-rate alternative that costs around $ 6.6 billion .
This cheaper option is not as powerful as NASA 's current design with its fancy new rockets , the people-carrying Ares I and cargo-lifting Ares V. But the cut-rate plan would still get to the moon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With budget cuts in the works for everyone these days, NASA has decided to float an alternate plan for returning to the moon that is just a little bit cheaper than the current proposal.
Of course, the new option would be very reminiscent of the old Apollo space capsule instead of the tricked out shuttle currently planned.
"Officially, the space agency is still on track with a 4-year-old plan to spend $35 billion to build new rockets and return astronauts to the moon in several years.
However, a top NASA manager is floating a cut-rate alternative that costs around $6.6 billion.
This cheaper option is not as powerful as NASA's current design with its fancy new rockets, the people-carrying Ares I and cargo-lifting Ares V. But the cut-rate plan would still get to the moon.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595655</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1246901040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, and also want to cautiously (given the audience here) posit the thought that spending that much money on something like that, at this point in the economic downswing, is just kinda <i>wrong</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , and also want to cautiously ( given the audience here ) posit the thought that spending that much money on something like that , at this point in the economic downswing , is just kinda wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, and also want to cautiously (given the audience here) posit the thought that spending that much money on something like that, at this point in the economic downswing, is just kinda wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594403</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246894920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Direct Team is concerned about NASA reprisals for two reasons. The first is that they've already happened. Look at these URLs for a specific case:</p><p>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg349876#msg349876<br>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg349945#msg349945</p><p>The second reason is a highly flawed NASA analysis of Direct created in October 2007 but only made public in July 2008 after its existence was revealed by Wired.com:</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main\_NASA\%20Performance\%20Assessment\%20of\%20(DIRECT\%202)\%20Compiled.0702.pdf</p><p>
&nbsp; The Rebuttal created by the Direct Team states that NASA's conclusions in the analysis are "suspect because of the flawed inputs that informed the analysis" and that "the launch vehicle that was the subject of the analysis was not the launch vehicle that was proposed by DIRECT":</p><p>http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT\_Analysis\_Rebuttal\_Final\_090518.pdf</p><p>Griffin himself said that Direct 2.0 "defied the laws of physics":</p><p>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news\_space\_thewritestuff/2009/05/is-ares-i-adequate-obama-administration-or-order-a-new-study.html</p><p>One can only conclude from this that there is concerted opposition to Direct that is not based on technical merit.</p><p>As for John Shannon not being afraid to speak out, that's because he has nothing to fear. A switch to "Not-Shuttle-C" would require Congress to alter the Vision for Space Exploration, which dictates how NASA projects are funded. This would face significant opposition from NASA contractors, some of whom would stand to loose a lot of money if Constellation is canceled or significantly scaled back. Not to mention that Shannon himself said that he only has a team of about three people and that they haven't done even a basic analysis of the safety of a crewed version of Not-Shuttle-C.</p><p>I'd like to also point out that if NASA switches to Shannon's shuttle, it would actually make it easier to switch to Direct 3.0. Assuming an upper stage is developed for Not-Shuttle-C, all the engines needed for the Jupiter rocket would have already been developed and human rated. Furthermore, the external tank tooling is also needed to build the Jupiter core, so all the necessary tooling for the Jupiter-130 will be in place. That means that switching to Jupiter rockets will be significantly easier than switching back to Ares I/V.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Direct Team is concerned about NASA reprisals for two reasons .
The first is that they 've already happened .
Look at these URLs for a specific case : http : //forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php ? topic = 12379.msg349876 # msg349876http : //forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php ? topic = 12379.msg349945 # msg349945The second reason is a highly flawed NASA analysis of Direct created in October 2007 but only made public in July 2008 after its existence was revealed by Wired.com : http : //www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main \ _NASA \ % 20Performance \ % 20Assessment \ % 20of \ % 20 ( DIRECT \ % 202 ) \ % 20Compiled.0702.pdf   The Rebuttal created by the Direct Team states that NASA 's conclusions in the analysis are " suspect because of the flawed inputs that informed the analysis " and that " the launch vehicle that was the subject of the analysis was not the launch vehicle that was proposed by DIRECT " : http : //www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT \ _Analysis \ _Rebuttal \ _Final \ _090518.pdfGriffin himself said that Direct 2.0 " defied the laws of physics " : http : //blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news \ _space \ _thewritestuff/2009/05/is-ares-i-adequate-obama-administration-or-order-a-new-study.htmlOne can only conclude from this that there is concerted opposition to Direct that is not based on technical merit.As for John Shannon not being afraid to speak out , that 's because he has nothing to fear .
A switch to " Not-Shuttle-C " would require Congress to alter the Vision for Space Exploration , which dictates how NASA projects are funded .
This would face significant opposition from NASA contractors , some of whom would stand to loose a lot of money if Constellation is canceled or significantly scaled back .
Not to mention that Shannon himself said that he only has a team of about three people and that they have n't done even a basic analysis of the safety of a crewed version of Not-Shuttle-C.I 'd like to also point out that if NASA switches to Shannon 's shuttle , it would actually make it easier to switch to Direct 3.0 .
Assuming an upper stage is developed for Not-Shuttle-C , all the engines needed for the Jupiter rocket would have already been developed and human rated .
Furthermore , the external tank tooling is also needed to build the Jupiter core , so all the necessary tooling for the Jupiter-130 will be in place .
That means that switching to Jupiter rockets will be significantly easier than switching back to Ares I/V .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Direct Team is concerned about NASA reprisals for two reasons.
The first is that they've already happened.
Look at these URLs for a specific case:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg349876#msg349876http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg349945#msg349945The second reason is a highly flawed NASA analysis of Direct created in October 2007 but only made public in July 2008 after its existence was revealed by Wired.com:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main\_NASA\%20Performance\%20Assessment\%20of\%20(DIRECT\%202)\%20Compiled.0702.pdf
  The Rebuttal created by the Direct Team states that NASA's conclusions in the analysis are "suspect because of the flawed inputs that informed the analysis" and that "the launch vehicle that was the subject of the analysis was not the launch vehicle that was proposed by DIRECT":http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT\_Analysis\_Rebuttal\_Final\_090518.pdfGriffin himself said that Direct 2.0 "defied the laws of physics":http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news\_space\_thewritestuff/2009/05/is-ares-i-adequate-obama-administration-or-order-a-new-study.htmlOne can only conclude from this that there is concerted opposition to Direct that is not based on technical merit.As for John Shannon not being afraid to speak out, that's because he has nothing to fear.
A switch to "Not-Shuttle-C" would require Congress to alter the Vision for Space Exploration, which dictates how NASA projects are funded.
This would face significant opposition from NASA contractors, some of whom would stand to loose a lot of money if Constellation is canceled or significantly scaled back.
Not to mention that Shannon himself said that he only has a team of about three people and that they haven't done even a basic analysis of the safety of a crewed version of Not-Shuttle-C.I'd like to also point out that if NASA switches to Shannon's shuttle, it would actually make it easier to switch to Direct 3.0.
Assuming an upper stage is developed for Not-Shuttle-C, all the engines needed for the Jupiter rocket would have already been developed and human rated.
Furthermore, the external tank tooling is also needed to build the Jupiter core, so all the necessary tooling for the Jupiter-130 will be in place.
That means that switching to Jupiter rockets will be significantly easier than switching back to Ares I/V.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28598805</id>
	<title>Re:Getting TO the moon is easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm...you don't know oceanic explorers very well do you???<br> <br>

Oceanic exploration *IS* one giant pork program. Explorers havn't met a cost estimate they could not go over.<br> <br>

Seriously, do some research before you mouth off. Then you will realize how much waste has been going on.<br> <br>

Oh and another thing....WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE AMERICAS!!<br> <br>

Going back is a giant waste of time &amp; money and accomplishes nothing. Noone is clamoring to go back to the Americas. As before any real value can be gained by using telescopes and prayer. Sending humans gains nothing and increases the risk to human life.<br> <br>

It's amazing how the science illiterate swallow this garbage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm...you do n't know oceanic explorers very well do you ? ? ?
Oceanic exploration * IS * one giant pork program .
Explorers hav n't met a cost estimate they could not go over .
Seriously , do some research before you mouth off .
Then you will realize how much waste has been going on .
Oh and another thing....WE 'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE AMERICAS ! !
Going back is a giant waste of time &amp; money and accomplishes nothing .
Noone is clamoring to go back to the Americas .
As before any real value can be gained by using telescopes and prayer .
Sending humans gains nothing and increases the risk to human life .
It 's amazing how the science illiterate swallow this garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...you don't know oceanic explorers very well do you???
Oceanic exploration *IS* one giant pork program.
Explorers havn't met a cost estimate they could not go over.
Seriously, do some research before you mouth off.
Then you will realize how much waste has been going on.
Oh and another thing....WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE AMERICAS!!
Going back is a giant waste of time &amp; money and accomplishes nothing.
Noone is clamoring to go back to the Americas.
As before any real value can be gained by using telescopes and prayer.
Sending humans gains nothing and increases the risk to human life.
It's amazing how the science illiterate swallow this garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594049</id>
	<title>Re:Do it well or don't do it at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246892640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a meaningful mission would cost too much now, there's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.</p></div><p>I believe the technology is there.  When Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were aboard on Apollo 11, the computer they were using is comparable to a TI-83 today.<br>We have the knowledge and the tools to get there.  It's just a matter of $$.<br>Rather than throwing gigantic amounts of money at the defense department, try throwing it in research and see how far we can go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a meaningful mission would cost too much now , there 's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.I believe the technology is there .
When Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were aboard on Apollo 11 , the computer they were using is comparable to a TI-83 today.We have the knowledge and the tools to get there .
It 's just a matter of $ $ .Rather than throwing gigantic amounts of money at the defense department , try throwing it in research and see how far we can go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a meaningful mission would cost too much now, there's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.I believe the technology is there.
When Niel Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were aboard on Apollo 11, the computer they were using is comparable to a TI-83 today.We have the knowledge and the tools to get there.
It's just a matter of $$.Rather than throwing gigantic amounts of money at the defense department, try throwing it in research and see how far we can go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593631</id>
	<title>Hmmmm....</title>
	<author>coryking</author>
	<datestamp>1246890180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965</p></div></blockquote><p>I think Brooks of <i>The Mythical Man-Month</i> fame has a name for that--"The Second System Effect". Rather than paraphrase, I'll just quote the book:</p><blockquote><div><p>An architect's first work is apt to be spare and clean. He knows he doesn't know what he's doing, so he does it carefully and with great restraint.</p><p>As he designs the first work, frill after frill and embellishment after embellishment occur to him. These get stored away to be used "next time." Sooner or later the first system is finished, and the architect, with firm confidence and a demonstrated mastery of that class of systems, is ready to build a second system.</p><p>This second is the most dangerous system a man ever designs. When he does his third and later ones, his prior experiences will confirm each other as to the general characteristics of such systems, and their differences will identify those parts of his experience that are particular and not generalizable.</p><p>The general tendency is to over-design the second system, using all the ideas and frills that were cautiously sidetracked on the first one. The result, as Ovid says, is a "big pile."</p></div></blockquote><p><i>Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.<br>The Mythical Man-Month</i></p><p>Does this parallel?  Dunno.  But it might.</p><p>PS: Slashdot needs to support unicode.  Sheesh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965I think Brooks of The Mythical Man-Month fame has a name for that-- " The Second System Effect " .
Rather than paraphrase , I 'll just quote the book : An architect 's first work is apt to be spare and clean .
He knows he does n't know what he 's doing , so he does it carefully and with great restraint.As he designs the first work , frill after frill and embellishment after embellishment occur to him .
These get stored away to be used " next time .
" Sooner or later the first system is finished , and the architect , with firm confidence and a demonstrated mastery of that class of systems , is ready to build a second system.This second is the most dangerous system a man ever designs .
When he does his third and later ones , his prior experiences will confirm each other as to the general characteristics of such systems , and their differences will identify those parts of his experience that are particular and not generalizable.The general tendency is to over-design the second system , using all the ideas and frills that were cautiously sidetracked on the first one .
The result , as Ovid says , is a " big pile .
" Frederick P. Brooks , Jr.The Mythical Man-MonthDoes this parallel ?
Dunno. But it might.PS : Slashdot needs to support unicode .
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965I think Brooks of The Mythical Man-Month fame has a name for that--"The Second System Effect".
Rather than paraphrase, I'll just quote the book:An architect's first work is apt to be spare and clean.
He knows he doesn't know what he's doing, so he does it carefully and with great restraint.As he designs the first work, frill after frill and embellishment after embellishment occur to him.
These get stored away to be used "next time.
" Sooner or later the first system is finished, and the architect, with firm confidence and a demonstrated mastery of that class of systems, is ready to build a second system.This second is the most dangerous system a man ever designs.
When he does his third and later ones, his prior experiences will confirm each other as to the general characteristics of such systems, and their differences will identify those parts of his experience that are particular and not generalizable.The general tendency is to over-design the second system, using all the ideas and frills that were cautiously sidetracked on the first one.
The result, as Ovid says, is a "big pile.
"Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.The Mythical Man-MonthDoes this parallel?
Dunno.  But it might.PS: Slashdot needs to support unicode.
Sheesh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592725</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246883040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>6.6 G$</p></div><p>6.6 GoogleSoft?</p><p>I remember when people were taught to put the currency symbol before the number, and to use "m" or "b" to denote millions or billions. "$6.6b", simples.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>6.6 G $ 6.6 GoogleSoft ? I remember when people were taught to put the currency symbol before the number , and to use " m " or " b " to denote millions or billions .
" $ 6.6b " , simples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6.6 G$6.6 GoogleSoft?I remember when people were taught to put the currency symbol before the number, and to use "m" or "b" to denote millions or billions.
"$6.6b", simples.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28659051</id>
	<title>NASA failing to talk-the-talk with new Administrat</title>
	<author>CertifiedSpaceCadet</author>
	<datestamp>1247317260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
NASA is inherently conservative.  It thinks itself politically neutral which it most definitely is not.  As a result, the transition to the new progressive Administration has been a roller coaster ride starting with a low (Dr. Griffin talking himself out of his job), and rising to a high (billions in stimulus money promised), and back to a low (the Augustine Committee putting everything manned on the block).   Surprisingly a science-based technical analysis (Frames) is available that could smooth these waters.  Not surprisingly, my efforts to discuss this with my management at a NASA center have been stonewalled. This mess was avoidable.  Now we must contain the damage before is spills over into the sciences where it could delay our getting the space data we need to address problems like global warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is inherently conservative .
It thinks itself politically neutral which it most definitely is not .
As a result , the transition to the new progressive Administration has been a roller coaster ride starting with a low ( Dr. Griffin talking himself out of his job ) , and rising to a high ( billions in stimulus money promised ) , and back to a low ( the Augustine Committee putting everything manned on the block ) .
Surprisingly a science-based technical analysis ( Frames ) is available that could smooth these waters .
Not surprisingly , my efforts to discuss this with my management at a NASA center have been stonewalled .
This mess was avoidable .
Now we must contain the damage before is spills over into the sciences where it could delay our getting the space data we need to address problems like global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
NASA is inherently conservative.
It thinks itself politically neutral which it most definitely is not.
As a result, the transition to the new progressive Administration has been a roller coaster ride starting with a low (Dr. Griffin talking himself out of his job), and rising to a high (billions in stimulus money promised), and back to a low (the Augustine Committee putting everything manned on the block).
Surprisingly a science-based technical analysis (Frames) is available that could smooth these waters.
Not surprisingly, my efforts to discuss this with my management at a NASA center have been stonewalled.
This mess was avoidable.
Now we must contain the damage before is spills over into the sciences where it could delay our getting the space data we need to address problems like global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593467</id>
	<title>Re:Getting TO the moon is easy</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1246889280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is probably even a guy proposing they just dust off the old set and fake it again. It's win-win. It would save money and give Michael Bay something to do besides making crappy summer action movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is probably even a guy proposing they just dust off the old set and fake it again .
It 's win-win .
It would save money and give Michael Bay something to do besides making crappy summer action movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is probably even a guy proposing they just dust off the old set and fake it again.
It's win-win.
It would save money and give Michael Bay something to do besides making crappy summer action movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592903</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246885020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we there yet ?, Are we there yet ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,Are we there yet ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we there yet ? , Are we there yet ?
,Are we there yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we there yet ?, Are we there yet ?
,Are we there yet ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592839</id>
	<title>Re:Getting TO the moon is easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246884300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hell in theory a great big Trebuchet could get someone to the moon...</p></div><p>While I agree it's a great acheivement to get people to the moon AND back, I think you're understating the challenge of hitting an object
382500 km away and moving at 3600 km/h relative to the earth. That's not a bet I'd like to take.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell in theory a great big Trebuchet could get someone to the moon...While I agree it 's a great acheivement to get people to the moon AND back , I think you 're understating the challenge of hitting an object 382500 km away and moving at 3600 km/h relative to the earth .
That 's not a bet I 'd like to take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell in theory a great big Trebuchet could get someone to the moon...While I agree it's a great acheivement to get people to the moon AND back, I think you're understating the challenge of hitting an object
382500 km away and moving at 3600 km/h relative to the earth.
That's not a bet I'd like to take.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28616207</id>
	<title>A Business Point of View</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1246973520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sending a Shuttle crew up to ISS to construct a Lunar Excursion Module from parts flown up to ISS by generic robotic rockets is a solved problem.  Landing safely on the Moon is a solved problem.  OK, I'm now on the Moon.  How can I make a Buck?  What can I "harvest" so that someone will trade resources with me so that I can keep looking at the surface of the Moon up close and personal?  And lets project this commerce over the next 10 years?  Tugs can come and get my harvest and fly it to the ISS, then down to earth.  But man, I got to eat something other toothpaste flavored steak.  Anyone can sit on their bun and say no, how about a working solution that gets my outsourced rear to work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sending a Shuttle crew up to ISS to construct a Lunar Excursion Module from parts flown up to ISS by generic robotic rockets is a solved problem .
Landing safely on the Moon is a solved problem .
OK , I 'm now on the Moon .
How can I make a Buck ?
What can I " harvest " so that someone will trade resources with me so that I can keep looking at the surface of the Moon up close and personal ?
And lets project this commerce over the next 10 years ?
Tugs can come and get my harvest and fly it to the ISS , then down to earth .
But man , I got to eat something other toothpaste flavored steak .
Anyone can sit on their bun and say no , how about a working solution that gets my outsourced rear to work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sending a Shuttle crew up to ISS to construct a Lunar Excursion Module from parts flown up to ISS by generic robotic rockets is a solved problem.
Landing safely on the Moon is a solved problem.
OK, I'm now on the Moon.
How can I make a Buck?
What can I "harvest" so that someone will trade resources with me so that I can keep looking at the surface of the Moon up close and personal?
And lets project this commerce over the next 10 years?
Tugs can come and get my harvest and fly it to the ISS, then down to earth.
But man, I got to eat something other toothpaste flavored steak.
Anyone can sit on their bun and say no, how about a working solution that gets my outsourced rear to work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595579</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>severoon</author>
	<datestamp>1246900680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe China makes telescopes that actually could see the stamp from here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe China makes telescopes that actually could see the stamp from here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe China makes telescopes that actually could see the stamp from here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592887</id>
	<title>"Return" to the moon...bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246884900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite part is the "return astronauts to the moon"...as if we were ever Really there in the first place...thanks Mr. Kubrick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite part is the " return astronauts to the moon " ...as if we were ever Really there in the first place...thanks Mr. Kubrick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite part is the "return astronauts to the moon"...as if we were ever Really there in the first place...thanks Mr. Kubrick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</id>
	<title>Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh, they're not hedging their bets.  Shannon thought it was interesting, so his team studied it.  That's all.  This is what people at NASA do.  It's their job.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGBxP3rYWw" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGBxP3rYWw</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>"It is a small effort, it hasn't been looked at across NASA, because we already have a plan: Constellation.  I think we should fund the plan."</p><p>The point of Shannon's presentation was to say exactly what he says at the beginning of that video.  NASA is *always* looking at *all* the options and the DIRECT people are just, simply, wrong; that's why no-one is interested in their shit.  Not because there is some great big conspiracy to quash their option.. but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicle.  NASA has been given the mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon, use in-situ resources and stay there permanently.. then move on to Mars.  You're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher, and you're definitely not going to go to Mars with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh , they 're not hedging their bets .
Shannon thought it was interesting , so his team studied it .
That 's all .
This is what people at NASA do .
It 's their job.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = nDGBxP3rYWw [ youtube.com ] " It is a small effort , it has n't been looked at across NASA , because we already have a plan : Constellation .
I think we should fund the plan .
" The point of Shannon 's presentation was to say exactly what he says at the beginning of that video .
NASA is * always * looking at * all * the options and the DIRECT people are just , simply , wrong ; that 's why no-one is interested in their shit .
Not because there is some great big conspiracy to quash their option.. but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicle .
NASA has been given the mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon , use in-situ resources and stay there permanently.. then move on to Mars .
You 're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher , and you 're definitely not going to go to Mars with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh, they're not hedging their bets.
Shannon thought it was interesting, so his team studied it.
That's all.
This is what people at NASA do.
It's their job.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGBxP3rYWw [youtube.com]"It is a small effort, it hasn't been looked at across NASA, because we already have a plan: Constellation.
I think we should fund the plan.
"The point of Shannon's presentation was to say exactly what he says at the beginning of that video.
NASA is *always* looking at *all* the options and the DIRECT people are just, simply, wrong; that's why no-one is interested in their shit.
Not because there is some great big conspiracy to quash their option.. but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicle.
NASA has been given the mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon, use in-situ resources and stay there permanently.. then move on to Mars.
You're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher, and you're definitely not going to go to Mars with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593311</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246888140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah.  India and China are soooo last year.  Outsource it to the Czech Republic, Puerto Rico, or Brazil.  I hear the <a href="http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1991-10-14/" title="dilbert.com" rel="nofollow">Elbonians</a> [dilbert.com] will work for pennies on the dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah .
India and China are soooo last year .
Outsource it to the Czech Republic , Puerto Rico , or Brazil .
I hear the Elbonians [ dilbert.com ] will work for pennies on the dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah.
India and China are soooo last year.
Outsource it to the Czech Republic, Puerto Rico, or Brazil.
I hear the Elbonians [dilbert.com] will work for pennies on the dollar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593299</id>
	<title>Go Fever</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246888080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We don't need another Apollo-like mission to the moon. We've already done those enough. It's just going to cost money without any substantial new information</i></p><p>I think the point is that every iteration of Apollo would get cheaper if we kept doing new revisions.  I agree that NASA should have more money.  I'm a Republican paleoconservative and I have no problem paying the taxes to support NASA.  Building up knowledge of space requires practice.  I think NASA has missions and the track record that the private sector has yet to match.</p><p>We need a 2nd generation shuttle design as well.</p><p>And we also desperately need a practical nuclear powered spacecraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need another Apollo-like mission to the moon .
We 've already done those enough .
It 's just going to cost money without any substantial new informationI think the point is that every iteration of Apollo would get cheaper if we kept doing new revisions .
I agree that NASA should have more money .
I 'm a Republican paleoconservative and I have no problem paying the taxes to support NASA .
Building up knowledge of space requires practice .
I think NASA has missions and the track record that the private sector has yet to match.We need a 2nd generation shuttle design as well.And we also desperately need a practical nuclear powered spacecraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need another Apollo-like mission to the moon.
We've already done those enough.
It's just going to cost money without any substantial new informationI think the point is that every iteration of Apollo would get cheaper if we kept doing new revisions.
I agree that NASA should have more money.
I'm a Republican paleoconservative and I have no problem paying the taxes to support NASA.
Building up knowledge of space requires practice.
I think NASA has missions and the track record that the private sector has yet to match.We need a 2nd generation shuttle design as well.And we also desperately need a practical nuclear powered spacecraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667</id>
	<title>Do it well or don't do it at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246882200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't need another Apollo-like mission to the moon. We've already done those enough. It's just going to cost money without any substantial new information. The next mission to the moon should be bigger and a lot different from what we have done before. Either have the balls to commit yourselves and the money to something meaningful or don't do it at all. I'd also like to point out that the moon isn't going anywhere in the near future. If a meaningful mission would cost too much now, there's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need another Apollo-like mission to the moon .
We 've already done those enough .
It 's just going to cost money without any substantial new information .
The next mission to the moon should be bigger and a lot different from what we have done before .
Either have the balls to commit yourselves and the money to something meaningful or do n't do it at all .
I 'd also like to point out that the moon is n't going anywhere in the near future .
If a meaningful mission would cost too much now , there 's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need another Apollo-like mission to the moon.
We've already done those enough.
It's just going to cost money without any substantial new information.
The next mission to the moon should be bigger and a lot different from what we have done before.
Either have the balls to commit yourselves and the money to something meaningful or don't do it at all.
I'd also like to point out that the moon isn't going anywhere in the near future.
If a meaningful mission would cost too much now, there's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595231</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1246899000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The old design, even if we could build it, does not meet current safety standards.  I've heard it said that, if they knew just how narrow the flight window was for Saturn V, they would not have flown it.  I don't believe that's true; but, the mere fact that someone did make that statement, is indicative of how things <i>have</i> changed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The old design , even if we could build it , does not meet current safety standards .
I 've heard it said that , if they knew just how narrow the flight window was for Saturn V , they would not have flown it .
I do n't believe that 's true ; but , the mere fact that someone did make that statement , is indicative of how things have changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old design, even if we could build it, does not meet current safety standards.
I've heard it said that, if they knew just how narrow the flight window was for Saturn V, they would not have flown it.
I don't believe that's true; but, the mere fact that someone did make that statement, is indicative of how things have changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594923</id>
	<title>Re:Getting TO the moon is easy</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1246897740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high (the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths)</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't confuse luck with skill - especially when the sample set is so very small.<br>
&nbsp; <br>For example, consider the (un)safety record of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar\_Landing\_Research\_Vehicle" title="wikipedia.org">LLRV</a> [wikipedia.org] and it's descendant the LLTV.  Consider also the loss of Apollo 1 and the accident on Apollo 13.  Then there is the the failure of the CSM/LM docking system on Apollo 14, overcome only with brute force and potentially fatal had it occurred in Lunar orbit..  There's also the near failure of the SPS on Apollo 16 <i>in Lunar orbit</i>, where the mission controllers continued the mission despite partial loss of the primary control systems for the engine.  Not to mention the leaking fuel tanks on Skylab III and the leakage of fuel fumes into the spacecraft cabin during ASTP's landing.<br>
&nbsp; <br>They were playing Russian Roulette and they were very lucky.  (And I haven't even mentioned the incidents in the Mercury and Gemini programs.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>This is a HUGE challenge and one where a government agency has to do so at levels of safety that a commercial organisation wouldn't bother to meet.</p></div></blockquote><p>Overall, the best safety record in space flight is either the Shuttle or Soyuz programs which both come in at around 98\% or so.  To put that in perspective - if commercial aviation had that safety record, there would be (roughly) 20 fatal crashes per day <i>at Seattle-Tacoma International alone</i>!  (And Apollo's record is even worse than either Shuttle or Soyuz, coming in at about 94\%.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high ( the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths ) Do n't confuse luck with skill - especially when the sample set is so very small .
  For example , consider the ( un ) safety record of the LLRV [ wikipedia.org ] and it 's descendant the LLTV .
Consider also the loss of Apollo 1 and the accident on Apollo 13 .
Then there is the the failure of the CSM/LM docking system on Apollo 14 , overcome only with brute force and potentially fatal had it occurred in Lunar orbit.. There 's also the near failure of the SPS on Apollo 16 in Lunar orbit , where the mission controllers continued the mission despite partial loss of the primary control systems for the engine .
Not to mention the leaking fuel tanks on Skylab III and the leakage of fuel fumes into the spacecraft cabin during ASTP 's landing .
  They were playing Russian Roulette and they were very lucky .
( And I have n't even mentioned the incidents in the Mercury and Gemini programs .
)     This is a HUGE challenge and one where a government agency has to do so at levels of safety that a commercial organisation would n't bother to meet.Overall , the best safety record in space flight is either the Shuttle or Soyuz programs which both come in at around 98 \ % or so .
To put that in perspective - if commercial aviation had that safety record , there would be ( roughly ) 20 fatal crashes per day at Seattle-Tacoma International alone !
( And Apollo 's record is even worse than either Shuttle or Soyuz , coming in at about 94 \ % .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high (the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths)Don't confuse luck with skill - especially when the sample set is so very small.
  For example, consider the (un)safety record of the LLRV [wikipedia.org] and it's descendant the LLTV.
Consider also the loss of Apollo 1 and the accident on Apollo 13.
Then there is the the failure of the CSM/LM docking system on Apollo 14, overcome only with brute force and potentially fatal had it occurred in Lunar orbit..  There's also the near failure of the SPS on Apollo 16 in Lunar orbit, where the mission controllers continued the mission despite partial loss of the primary control systems for the engine.
Not to mention the leaking fuel tanks on Skylab III and the leakage of fuel fumes into the spacecraft cabin during ASTP's landing.
  They were playing Russian Roulette and they were very lucky.
(And I haven't even mentioned the incidents in the Mercury and Gemini programs.
)
  
  This is a HUGE challenge and one where a government agency has to do so at levels of safety that a commercial organisation wouldn't bother to meet.Overall, the best safety record in space flight is either the Shuttle or Soyuz programs which both come in at around 98\% or so.
To put that in perspective - if commercial aviation had that safety record, there would be (roughly) 20 fatal crashes per day at Seattle-Tacoma International alone!
(And Apollo's record is even worse than either Shuttle or Soyuz, coming in at about 94\%.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596285</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of responses with partial answers, but no one has addressed the single most important one.  Politics.  The reason the Shuttle is what it is.  They had to spread the pork around to get enough congress critters to vote for it.  This is why NASA is pretty stubbornly refusing to seriously consider any non-Shuttle based plans for the replacement; the people with good pork contracts in their districts don't want to give them up.</p><p>Which is criminal.  Sticking with this stupid heavily solid-fuel based design is just continuing (and compounding!) one of the dumbest mistakes we've made.  Unfortunately no-one has the required combination of interest, balls and power to tell the SRB manufacturers (and their senators and representatives) to suck it.</p><p>A ground-up, bottom-up redesign using an all liquid fueled single-stack rocket (like Saturn and Energia, etc) using modern materials and methods would be by far the best long-term investment.  Don't expect NASA to even pretend to consider doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of responses with partial answers , but no one has addressed the single most important one .
Politics. The reason the Shuttle is what it is .
They had to spread the pork around to get enough congress critters to vote for it .
This is why NASA is pretty stubbornly refusing to seriously consider any non-Shuttle based plans for the replacement ; the people with good pork contracts in their districts do n't want to give them up.Which is criminal .
Sticking with this stupid heavily solid-fuel based design is just continuing ( and compounding !
) one of the dumbest mistakes we 've made .
Unfortunately no-one has the required combination of interest , balls and power to tell the SRB manufacturers ( and their senators and representatives ) to suck it.A ground-up , bottom-up redesign using an all liquid fueled single-stack rocket ( like Saturn and Energia , etc ) using modern materials and methods would be by far the best long-term investment .
Do n't expect NASA to even pretend to consider doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of responses with partial answers, but no one has addressed the single most important one.
Politics.  The reason the Shuttle is what it is.
They had to spread the pork around to get enough congress critters to vote for it.
This is why NASA is pretty stubbornly refusing to seriously consider any non-Shuttle based plans for the replacement; the people with good pork contracts in their districts don't want to give them up.Which is criminal.
Sticking with this stupid heavily solid-fuel based design is just continuing (and compounding!
) one of the dumbest mistakes we've made.
Unfortunately no-one has the required combination of interest, balls and power to tell the SRB manufacturers (and their senators and representatives) to suck it.A ground-up, bottom-up redesign using an all liquid fueled single-stack rocket (like Saturn and Energia, etc) using modern materials and methods would be by far the best long-term investment.
Don't expect NASA to even pretend to consider doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593935</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246892160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we never had the plans in the first place, as the contractors kept them to keep costs down, and then went out of business.  also, most of the people who worked in that era are now retired, so NASA is generally reverse engineering the items they kept in storage with no documentation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we never had the plans in the first place , as the contractors kept them to keep costs down , and then went out of business .
also , most of the people who worked in that era are now retired , so NASA is generally reverse engineering the items they kept in storage with no documentation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we never had the plans in the first place, as the contractors kept them to keep costs down, and then went out of business.
also, most of the people who worked in that era are now retired, so NASA is generally reverse engineering the items they kept in storage with no documentation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594149</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246893360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Number one - yes, we can't 'just rebuild' Saturn V rockets.  The massive infrastructure required is gone, and in fact I'm reasonably sure some of the knowledge on how to build *that* (though I don't think the rockets themselves) is gone.  I mean, who still makes 1970's era computer parts?  What, we should update the plans for the modern era?  Oh wait, now we're back where we started<br>
<br>
Number two - the whole thing was stupidly dangerous the first time.  It was incredible luck that only one crew was killed.  Back then, it was a small price to pay to beat the Russians to the moon.  These days it's completely unacceptable risk.<br>
<br>
Number three - we have different goals this time then the Apollo program.  Some of them require extensive additional capability.  For example, using the same vehicles to get to mars, and building a permanent base on the moon.  Sure, you could cobble together additional rockets that do nothing but move things to the moon, and give the ship a boost to mars... but now we're not just rebuilding Apollo.<br>
<br>
Combine all three reasons and it's almost certainly better to start from scratch (and by 'scratch' I mean 'use knowledge earned in the last 40 years of space travel including billions in fundamental research') then to try to build Apollo again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number one - yes , we ca n't 'just rebuild ' Saturn V rockets .
The massive infrastructure required is gone , and in fact I 'm reasonably sure some of the knowledge on how to build * that * ( though I do n't think the rockets themselves ) is gone .
I mean , who still makes 1970 's era computer parts ?
What , we should update the plans for the modern era ?
Oh wait , now we 're back where we started Number two - the whole thing was stupidly dangerous the first time .
It was incredible luck that only one crew was killed .
Back then , it was a small price to pay to beat the Russians to the moon .
These days it 's completely unacceptable risk .
Number three - we have different goals this time then the Apollo program .
Some of them require extensive additional capability .
For example , using the same vehicles to get to mars , and building a permanent base on the moon .
Sure , you could cobble together additional rockets that do nothing but move things to the moon , and give the ship a boost to mars... but now we 're not just rebuilding Apollo .
Combine all three reasons and it 's almost certainly better to start from scratch ( and by 'scratch ' I mean 'use knowledge earned in the last 40 years of space travel including billions in fundamental research ' ) then to try to build Apollo again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number one - yes, we can't 'just rebuild' Saturn V rockets.
The massive infrastructure required is gone, and in fact I'm reasonably sure some of the knowledge on how to build *that* (though I don't think the rockets themselves) is gone.
I mean, who still makes 1970's era computer parts?
What, we should update the plans for the modern era?
Oh wait, now we're back where we started

Number two - the whole thing was stupidly dangerous the first time.
It was incredible luck that only one crew was killed.
Back then, it was a small price to pay to beat the Russians to the moon.
These days it's completely unacceptable risk.
Number three - we have different goals this time then the Apollo program.
Some of them require extensive additional capability.
For example, using the same vehicles to get to mars, and building a permanent base on the moon.
Sure, you could cobble together additional rockets that do nothing but move things to the moon, and give the ship a boost to mars... but now we're not just rebuilding Apollo.
Combine all three reasons and it's almost certainly better to start from scratch (and by 'scratch' I mean 'use knowledge earned in the last 40 years of space travel including billions in fundamental research') then to try to build Apollo again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246888860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Americans have already been to the moon.  I find it sad that they managed to do the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_program#Program\_costs\_and\_cancellation" title="wikipedia.org">entire Apollo program</a> [wikipedia.org] for somewhere between 20 and 25 million (135 billion in 2005 dollars), when they had to develop completely new technology.  Why can't they just rebuild the Apollo rockets. Did they lose the plans along with the moon landing tapes?  Going to the moon should have been figured out by now.  We don't need any new technologies to accomplish this.  Just reuse old designs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Americans have already been to the moon .
I find it sad that they managed to do the entire Apollo program [ wikipedia.org ] for somewhere between 20 and 25 million ( 135 billion in 2005 dollars ) , when they had to develop completely new technology .
Why ca n't they just rebuild the Apollo rockets .
Did they lose the plans along with the moon landing tapes ?
Going to the moon should have been figured out by now .
We do n't need any new technologies to accomplish this .
Just reuse old designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Americans have already been to the moon.
I find it sad that they managed to do the entire Apollo program [wikipedia.org] for somewhere between 20 and 25 million (135 billion in 2005 dollars), when they had to develop completely new technology.
Why can't they just rebuild the Apollo rockets.
Did they lose the plans along with the moon landing tapes?
Going to the moon should have been figured out by now.
We don't need any new technologies to accomplish this.
Just reuse old designs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593577</id>
	<title>Re:Do it well or don't do it at all</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1246889880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't sound interesting to me. I mean, people have been to moons before. Been there done that. I think we should go to the Sun next. Nobody's even thinking about doing that right now. It'd be pretty hard core. Screw that. The Sun is too puny. Let's go to a really big star like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta\_Carinae" title="wikipedia.org">Eta Carinae</a> [wikipedia.org]. It's only 7500-8000 light-years away. I think in a really tricked out spaceship, we can fly that in no time. Bring plenty of brew and your best skateboards!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't sound interesting to me .
I mean , people have been to moons before .
Been there done that .
I think we should go to the Sun next .
Nobody 's even thinking about doing that right now .
It 'd be pretty hard core .
Screw that .
The Sun is too puny .
Let 's go to a really big star like Eta Carinae [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 's only 7500-8000 light-years away .
I think in a really tricked out spaceship , we can fly that in no time .
Bring plenty of brew and your best skateboards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't sound interesting to me.
I mean, people have been to moons before.
Been there done that.
I think we should go to the Sun next.
Nobody's even thinking about doing that right now.
It'd be pretty hard core.
Screw that.
The Sun is too puny.
Let's go to a really big star like Eta Carinae [wikipedia.org].
It's only 7500-8000 light-years away.
I think in a really tricked out spaceship, we can fly that in no time.
Bring plenty of brew and your best skateboards!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639</id>
	<title>Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why send people? (The article doesn't explain.) 6.6 G$ would indeed be less than I'd wildly guess it would cost to send humans; but it's still a lot of moolah, and presumably a lot of that would be for a human-required payload. How about devoting just one measly little gigabuck to robot design, and then sending robots instead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why send people ?
( The article does n't explain .
) 6.6 G $ would indeed be less than I 'd wildly guess it would cost to send humans ; but it 's still a lot of moolah , and presumably a lot of that would be for a human-required payload .
How about devoting just one measly little gigabuck to robot design , and then sending robots instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why send people?
(The article doesn't explain.
) 6.6 G$ would indeed be less than I'd wildly guess it would cost to send humans; but it's still a lot of moolah, and presumably a lot of that would be for a human-required payload.
How about devoting just one measly little gigabuck to robot design, and then sending robots instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592827</id>
	<title>RyanAir</title>
	<author>Linker3000</author>
	<datestamp>1246884180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand NASA is going to buy some return tickets from RyanAir - they fly to Moon(ISS) - sure, that's a bit out of town, but there's a shuttle bus for the remainder of the journey and it makes the actual main ticket cost look quite cheap. It may be also be possible to share a ride from ISS to Moon and split the fare.</p><p>Just avoid the in-flight food as the prices are a rip-off - best take a few freeze-dried panninis and a carton of orange juice with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand NASA is going to buy some return tickets from RyanAir - they fly to Moon ( ISS ) - sure , that 's a bit out of town , but there 's a shuttle bus for the remainder of the journey and it makes the actual main ticket cost look quite cheap .
It may be also be possible to share a ride from ISS to Moon and split the fare.Just avoid the in-flight food as the prices are a rip-off - best take a few freeze-dried panninis and a carton of orange juice with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand NASA is going to buy some return tickets from RyanAir - they fly to Moon(ISS) - sure, that's a bit out of town, but there's a shuttle bus for the remainder of the journey and it makes the actual main ticket cost look quite cheap.
It may be also be possible to share a ride from ISS to Moon and split the fare.Just avoid the in-flight food as the prices are a rip-off - best take a few freeze-dried panninis and a carton of orange juice with you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28605243</id>
	<title>Solid Rocket Booster agenda of NASA</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1246960920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main reason why NASA is so eager to use the Sold Rocket Boosters (SRB) of the shuttle is that the military uses a lot of solid rocket engines in their missiles.  The manufacturers of the solid rocket engines would lose a lot of business when the shuttles are retired, reducing their economies of scale for the rest of their products.  The SRBs cause a lot of stress on the shuttle because they accelerate at full power, vibrate a lot, and cause heavy air resistance at low altitudes.  On the first flight of the shuttle, the SRBs thrust over-stressed the shuttle's tail and the hydraulic system of some control surfaces.   The pilots have said that had they known what had happened they would not have had confidence in the shuttle to safely return and would have ejected at low level.  Columbia could easily have been destroyed on the first flight!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason why NASA is so eager to use the Sold Rocket Boosters ( SRB ) of the shuttle is that the military uses a lot of solid rocket engines in their missiles .
The manufacturers of the solid rocket engines would lose a lot of business when the shuttles are retired , reducing their economies of scale for the rest of their products .
The SRBs cause a lot of stress on the shuttle because they accelerate at full power , vibrate a lot , and cause heavy air resistance at low altitudes .
On the first flight of the shuttle , the SRBs thrust over-stressed the shuttle 's tail and the hydraulic system of some control surfaces .
The pilots have said that had they known what had happened they would not have had confidence in the shuttle to safely return and would have ejected at low level .
Columbia could easily have been destroyed on the first flight !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason why NASA is so eager to use the Sold Rocket Boosters (SRB) of the shuttle is that the military uses a lot of solid rocket engines in their missiles.
The manufacturers of the solid rocket engines would lose a lot of business when the shuttles are retired, reducing their economies of scale for the rest of their products.
The SRBs cause a lot of stress on the shuttle because they accelerate at full power, vibrate a lot, and cause heavy air resistance at low altitudes.
On the first flight of the shuttle, the SRBs thrust over-stressed the shuttle's tail and the hydraulic system of some control surfaces.
The pilots have said that had they known what had happened they would not have had confidence in the shuttle to safely return and would have ejected at low level.
Columbia could easily have been destroyed on the first flight!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28609529</id>
	<title>Cement Mixers in Space</title>
	<author>VirtualJWN</author>
	<datestamp>1246986840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "new" moon effort is a joke.

Using the "advanced design" of the Apollo capsule (same shape as a missile warhead) is very important for space travel.

Thing is, we don't have to impress the russians anymore and show how big anICBM launcher we can build, so the missile paradigm is really not necessary.

Besides, it cuts down on the sound generated as the craft goes through space, and doesn't annoy the aliens.

Shuttle has exceeded its original operational lifetime by 17 years.  It was supposed to be retired in 1990 after flying through the 1980's to the "Skylab" based Space Station.

Trouble is congress, even with money grabbing power like Ted "Keg" Kennedy, can't reach into space and embezzle, so the money stays on earth.

It is easier to promote graft and corruption when you can keep your grubby hands on it instead of watching it fly out of reach.

We should have had a moon colony 20 years ago.  a space station years earlier.

We can't even put up a two bit space station ourselves.  We have to rely on the French, russians, and the EU.

Let alone the type envisioned by people like Sir Arthur C. Clarke.  The key to space exploration is establishment of an orbital platform at one of the La Grange Points between Earth and Moon, and launching from there with much less fuel requirements.  Also provides a very stable and long life orbit with very little chance of decay.

Good jump off point for Mars as well as you are not fighting Earth's gravity as much.

Use the remaining shuttle launch vehicles (tanks and boosters) to heavy lift materials into orbit, and then assemble in orbit and ferry to the LaGrange point of choice.

Problem is that a gov Agency is running the space program.  They want to run GM too, can you imagine the new "Curved Dash Olds electric Car????  Hey it was a good idea in 1901, basically a golf Cart sized car.   Just up the governments alley.

The space program such as it is is such a disappointment in general.

As one of the children of the 60's and 70's, the bright dream of a future of space travel has turned into a very dim nightmare of R/C cars on Mars, and the inability to even return to the Moon.

Ideas are abundant in Science Fiction (often written by scientists) of how to construct logical space vehicles.

Space : 1999 for example, or the Old "U.F.O." TV series,  or any numnber of other examples.  that technology is well within reach, and fro some reason, we resort to Cement Mixers again.

Burt Rutan built a reusable launch vehicle and turned it around in two weeks for a repeat trip.  (Spaceship 1)

Where are the engineers like that at NASA??

It frightens one to consider how GM and Chrysler will emerge with Genius like this as a precedent.

Jim</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " new " moon effort is a joke .
Using the " advanced design " of the Apollo capsule ( same shape as a missile warhead ) is very important for space travel .
Thing is , we do n't have to impress the russians anymore and show how big anICBM launcher we can build , so the missile paradigm is really not necessary .
Besides , it cuts down on the sound generated as the craft goes through space , and does n't annoy the aliens .
Shuttle has exceeded its original operational lifetime by 17 years .
It was supposed to be retired in 1990 after flying through the 1980 's to the " Skylab " based Space Station .
Trouble is congress , even with money grabbing power like Ted " Keg " Kennedy , ca n't reach into space and embezzle , so the money stays on earth .
It is easier to promote graft and corruption when you can keep your grubby hands on it instead of watching it fly out of reach .
We should have had a moon colony 20 years ago .
a space station years earlier .
We ca n't even put up a two bit space station ourselves .
We have to rely on the French , russians , and the EU .
Let alone the type envisioned by people like Sir Arthur C. Clarke. The key to space exploration is establishment of an orbital platform at one of the La Grange Points between Earth and Moon , and launching from there with much less fuel requirements .
Also provides a very stable and long life orbit with very little chance of decay .
Good jump off point for Mars as well as you are not fighting Earth 's gravity as much .
Use the remaining shuttle launch vehicles ( tanks and boosters ) to heavy lift materials into orbit , and then assemble in orbit and ferry to the LaGrange point of choice .
Problem is that a gov Agency is running the space program .
They want to run GM too , can you imagine the new " Curved Dash Olds electric Car ? ? ? ?
Hey it was a good idea in 1901 , basically a golf Cart sized car .
Just up the governments alley .
The space program such as it is is such a disappointment in general .
As one of the children of the 60 's and 70 's , the bright dream of a future of space travel has turned into a very dim nightmare of R/C cars on Mars , and the inability to even return to the Moon .
Ideas are abundant in Science Fiction ( often written by scientists ) of how to construct logical space vehicles .
Space : 1999 for example , or the Old " U.F.O .
" TV series , or any numnber of other examples .
that technology is well within reach , and fro some reason , we resort to Cement Mixers again .
Burt Rutan built a reusable launch vehicle and turned it around in two weeks for a repeat trip .
( Spaceship 1 ) Where are the engineers like that at NASA ? ?
It frightens one to consider how GM and Chrysler will emerge with Genius like this as a precedent .
Jim</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "new" moon effort is a joke.
Using the "advanced design" of the Apollo capsule (same shape as a missile warhead) is very important for space travel.
Thing is, we don't have to impress the russians anymore and show how big anICBM launcher we can build, so the missile paradigm is really not necessary.
Besides, it cuts down on the sound generated as the craft goes through space, and doesn't annoy the aliens.
Shuttle has exceeded its original operational lifetime by 17 years.
It was supposed to be retired in 1990 after flying through the 1980's to the "Skylab" based Space Station.
Trouble is congress, even with money grabbing power like Ted "Keg" Kennedy, can't reach into space and embezzle, so the money stays on earth.
It is easier to promote graft and corruption when you can keep your grubby hands on it instead of watching it fly out of reach.
We should have had a moon colony 20 years ago.
a space station years earlier.
We can't even put up a two bit space station ourselves.
We have to rely on the French, russians, and the EU.
Let alone the type envisioned by people like Sir Arthur C. Clarke.  The key to space exploration is establishment of an orbital platform at one of the La Grange Points between Earth and Moon, and launching from there with much less fuel requirements.
Also provides a very stable and long life orbit with very little chance of decay.
Good jump off point for Mars as well as you are not fighting Earth's gravity as much.
Use the remaining shuttle launch vehicles (tanks and boosters) to heavy lift materials into orbit, and then assemble in orbit and ferry to the LaGrange point of choice.
Problem is that a gov Agency is running the space program.
They want to run GM too, can you imagine the new "Curved Dash Olds electric Car????
Hey it was a good idea in 1901, basically a golf Cart sized car.
Just up the governments alley.
The space program such as it is is such a disappointment in general.
As one of the children of the 60's and 70's, the bright dream of a future of space travel has turned into a very dim nightmare of R/C cars on Mars, and the inability to even return to the Moon.
Ideas are abundant in Science Fiction (often written by scientists) of how to construct logical space vehicles.
Space : 1999 for example, or the Old "U.F.O.
" TV series,  or any numnber of other examples.
that technology is well within reach, and fro some reason, we resort to Cement Mixers again.
Burt Rutan built a reusable launch vehicle and turned it around in two weeks for a repeat trip.
(Spaceship 1)

Where are the engineers like that at NASA??
It frightens one to consider how GM and Chrysler will emerge with Genius like this as a precedent.
Jim</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593973</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1246892340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using the most energetic path we have available, Mars is over 3 months away.</p> </div><p>I've heard three weeks not three months. Even the <a href="http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/Hohmann\_trajectory#Travelling\_to\_Mars\_via\_Hohmann" title="newmars.com">Hohmann trajectory</a> [newmars.com] for Earth to Mars is 8.6 months. That can be achieved with chemical propulsion. Something like a solar powered ion drive, that doesn't need to stop accelerating might cut even more time off. All your times seem too long.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the most energetic path we have available , Mars is over 3 months away .
I 've heard three weeks not three months .
Even the Hohmann trajectory [ newmars.com ] for Earth to Mars is 8.6 months .
That can be achieved with chemical propulsion .
Something like a solar powered ion drive , that does n't need to stop accelerating might cut even more time off .
All your times seem too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the most energetic path we have available, Mars is over 3 months away.
I've heard three weeks not three months.
Even the Hohmann trajectory [newmars.com] for Earth to Mars is 8.6 months.
That can be achieved with chemical propulsion.
Something like a solar powered ion drive, that doesn't need to stop accelerating might cut even more time off.
All your times seem too long.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592817</id>
	<title>If only they hadn't spent all their money</title>
	<author>solevita</author>
	<datestamp>1246884060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>On <a href="http://blogs.thehumanjourney.net/oaubuntu/entry/world\_s\_most\_detailed\_fail" title="thehumanjourney.net">software licenses</a> [thehumanjourney.net]... Lower their TCO and get to the Moon? We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On software licenses [ thehumanjourney.net ] ... Lower their TCO and get to the Moon ?
We do these things not because they are easy , but because they are hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On software licenses [thehumanjourney.net]... Lower their TCO and get to the Moon?
We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594669</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1246896360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last winter I took a trip to the Kennedy Space Centre to watch a launch.  While I was there I stopped in at the gift shop and picked up a coffee cup with a picture of the Space Shuttle on the side.
</p><p>It wasn't until I got home and washed the thing that I noticed the "Made In China" sticker on the bottom.
</p><p>Somehow it seemed appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last winter I took a trip to the Kennedy Space Centre to watch a launch .
While I was there I stopped in at the gift shop and picked up a coffee cup with a picture of the Space Shuttle on the side .
It was n't until I got home and washed the thing that I noticed the " Made In China " sticker on the bottom .
Somehow it seemed appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last winter I took a trip to the Kennedy Space Centre to watch a launch.
While I was there I stopped in at the gift shop and picked up a coffee cup with a picture of the Space Shuttle on the side.
It wasn't until I got home and washed the thing that I noticed the "Made In China" sticker on the bottom.
Somehow it seemed appropriate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592687</id>
	<title>You know where this is going, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246882620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to reduce the deficit, even Nasa is facing cuts, so please understand when we start raising taxes.  Everyone must pay their part.  We are democrats after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to reduce the deficit , even Nasa is facing cuts , so please understand when we start raising taxes .
Everyone must pay their part .
We are democrats after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to reduce the deficit, even Nasa is facing cuts, so please understand when we start raising taxes.
Everyone must pay their part.
We are democrats after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594111</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1246893120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because it "worked" back then does not mean that using the old designs would be acceptable today even if it were possible. There are too many advantages to modern technology to simply stick to the original plans. In any case, it wouldn't even be cheap to use the original plans considering you'd have to set up production of all the parts and so on.</p><p>I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the value of the original Apollo program is being written off - undoubtedly they have avoided billions of dollars of expense due to the experience (if nothing else) of the original program.</p><p>If you think sticking to "tried and trusted" technology is a good idea, just look at the American car industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because it " worked " back then does not mean that using the old designs would be acceptable today even if it were possible .
There are too many advantages to modern technology to simply stick to the original plans .
In any case , it would n't even be cheap to use the original plans considering you 'd have to set up production of all the parts and so on.I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the value of the original Apollo program is being written off - undoubtedly they have avoided billions of dollars of expense due to the experience ( if nothing else ) of the original program.If you think sticking to " tried and trusted " technology is a good idea , just look at the American car industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because it "worked" back then does not mean that using the old designs would be acceptable today even if it were possible.
There are too many advantages to modern technology to simply stick to the original plans.
In any case, it wouldn't even be cheap to use the original plans considering you'd have to set up production of all the parts and so on.I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the value of the original Apollo program is being written off - undoubtedly they have avoided billions of dollars of expense due to the experience (if nothing else) of the original program.If you think sticking to "tried and trusted" technology is a good idea, just look at the American car industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28606843</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>mkilpatric</author>
	<datestamp>1246976280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just keep in mind the fact that somewhere, someone who counts those beans is trying to force even NASA managers and leaders to rethink the possibilities with spending in mind.
My thought?  If the public as a collective showed the interest in space exploration that our country showed in the 60's, I think the bean counters would have a lot less to say about how much it cost for us to perform a long term mission plan than the short ones they are still forced to even research and think about...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just keep in mind the fact that somewhere , someone who counts those beans is trying to force even NASA managers and leaders to rethink the possibilities with spending in mind .
My thought ?
If the public as a collective showed the interest in space exploration that our country showed in the 60 's , I think the bean counters would have a lot less to say about how much it cost for us to perform a long term mission plan than the short ones they are still forced to even research and think about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just keep in mind the fact that somewhere, someone who counts those beans is trying to force even NASA managers and leaders to rethink the possibilities with spending in mind.
My thought?
If the public as a collective showed the interest in space exploration that our country showed in the 60's, I think the bean counters would have a lot less to say about how much it cost for us to perform a long term mission plan than the short ones they are still forced to even research and think about...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593151</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>ab8ten</author>
	<datestamp>1246887120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, then we're not going anywhere. NASA cannot *afford* a Saturn V class vehicle with its current budget. That budget is not going to increase any time soon. Therefore, we have to get the best for our money. That means Shuttle-C or DIRECT. Ares 5 is just too big for the infrastructure we have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , then we 're not going anywhere .
NASA can not * afford * a Saturn V class vehicle with its current budget .
That budget is not going to increase any time soon .
Therefore , we have to get the best for our money .
That means Shuttle-C or DIRECT .
Ares 5 is just too big for the infrastructure we have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, then we're not going anywhere.
NASA cannot *afford* a Saturn V class vehicle with its current budget.
That budget is not going to increase any time soon.
Therefore, we have to get the best for our money.
That means Shuttle-C or DIRECT.
Ares 5 is just too big for the infrastructure we have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593601</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1246890000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obsolescence.  Many of the parts used in those old designs are no longer available, and it would cost far more to try and get those production lines spooled up (probably 3/4 of the production lines used to make electronic components for the old Apollo series computers are now EPA Superfund sites...) than to create a completely new design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obsolescence .
Many of the parts used in those old designs are no longer available , and it would cost far more to try and get those production lines spooled up ( probably 3/4 of the production lines used to make electronic components for the old Apollo series computers are now EPA Superfund sites... ) than to create a completely new design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obsolescence.
Many of the parts used in those old designs are no longer available, and it would cost far more to try and get those production lines spooled up (probably 3/4 of the production lines used to make electronic components for the old Apollo series computers are now EPA Superfund sites...) than to create a completely new design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613</id>
	<title>Outsource it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know it makes sense. India or China could do it much cheaper. I'm sure they will be more than happy to stick a Stars and Stripes flag on the moon for you. And from this distance you won't even be able to see the 'Made in China' stamp on the flag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know it makes sense .
India or China could do it much cheaper .
I 'm sure they will be more than happy to stick a Stars and Stripes flag on the moon for you .
And from this distance you wo n't even be able to see the 'Made in China ' stamp on the flag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know it makes sense.
India or China could do it much cheaper.
I'm sure they will be more than happy to stick a Stars and Stripes flag on the moon for you.
And from this distance you won't even be able to see the 'Made in China' stamp on the flag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592773</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246883580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, but we are also incapable to send humans to mars either.</p><p>I guess the question is whether to spend all that money on human mission or on better robots.</p><p>I believe that spending them on robots is much better option, in long term. Humanity needs to move into space; we cannot do that without advanced technology/robotics anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , but we are also incapable to send humans to mars either.I guess the question is whether to spend all that money on human mission or on better robots.I believe that spending them on robots is much better option , in long term .
Humanity needs to move into space ; we can not do that without advanced technology/robotics anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, but we are also incapable to send humans to mars either.I guess the question is whether to spend all that money on human mission or on better robots.I believe that spending them on robots is much better option, in long term.
Humanity needs to move into space; we cannot do that without advanced technology/robotics anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594725</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>WagonWheelsRX8</author>
	<datestamp>1246896600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did this get modded troll??
I wholeheartedly agree and find this to be a legitimate question.  What's the point of sending humans to the moon again (seriously...what is to be gained?).  I can't think of any reason to send people to the moon again.  It won't woo the public like it did during the original Apollo missions and that's the only logical reason I can see for sending people there (PR stunt).  A robot would be more efficient, cheaper, and could stay longer and do a lot more research than a human crew could.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did this get modded troll ? ?
I wholeheartedly agree and find this to be a legitimate question .
What 's the point of sending humans to the moon again ( seriously...what is to be gained ? ) .
I ca n't think of any reason to send people to the moon again .
It wo n't woo the public like it did during the original Apollo missions and that 's the only logical reason I can see for sending people there ( PR stunt ) .
A robot would be more efficient , cheaper , and could stay longer and do a lot more research than a human crew could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did this get modded troll??
I wholeheartedly agree and find this to be a legitimate question.
What's the point of sending humans to the moon again (seriously...what is to be gained?).
I can't think of any reason to send people to the moon again.
It won't woo the public like it did during the original Apollo missions and that's the only logical reason I can see for sending people there (PR stunt).
A robot would be more efficient, cheaper, and could stay longer and do a lot more research than a human crew could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627</id>
	<title>Getting TO the moon is easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the idea that this is some how shocking.</p><p>"NASA investigates other options and doesn't look at problem in blinkered and myopic way" - News at 11.</p><p>NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high (the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths) or that it just doesn't stack up as something that will deliver the overall objectives.</p><p>Hell in theory a great big Trebuchet could get someone to the moon, pretty one way mission though.  The challenge here is to get someone to the moon, return them safely to earth and to establish a base on the moon.  This is a HUGE challenge and one where a government agency has to do so at levels of safety that a commercial organisation wouldn't bother to meet.</p><p>When people bitch and moan about the price then that is fair enough, but please lets be honest here.  Getting to the moon remains a HARD problem, the Chinese are going to take a long bunch of years to get there, and you can't solve hard problems with CostCo models.  Either the aim is to go to the moon or not.  The price comes from the aim and ambition not because NASA act like congress after pork.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the idea that this is some how shocking .
" NASA investigates other options and does n't look at problem in blinkered and myopic way " - News at 11.NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high ( the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths ) or that it just does n't stack up as something that will deliver the overall objectives.Hell in theory a great big Trebuchet could get someone to the moon , pretty one way mission though .
The challenge here is to get someone to the moon , return them safely to earth and to establish a base on the moon .
This is a HUGE challenge and one where a government agency has to do so at levels of safety that a commercial organisation would n't bother to meet.When people bitch and moan about the price then that is fair enough , but please lets be honest here .
Getting to the moon remains a HARD problem , the Chinese are going to take a long bunch of years to get there , and you ca n't solve hard problems with CostCo models .
Either the aim is to go to the moon or not .
The price comes from the aim and ambition not because NASA act like congress after pork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the idea that this is some how shocking.
"NASA investigates other options and doesn't look at problem in blinkered and myopic way" - News at 11.NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high (the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths) or that it just doesn't stack up as something that will deliver the overall objectives.Hell in theory a great big Trebuchet could get someone to the moon, pretty one way mission though.
The challenge here is to get someone to the moon, return them safely to earth and to establish a base on the moon.
This is a HUGE challenge and one where a government agency has to do so at levels of safety that a commercial organisation wouldn't bother to meet.When people bitch and moan about the price then that is fair enough, but please lets be honest here.
Getting to the moon remains a HARD problem, the Chinese are going to take a long bunch of years to get there, and you can't solve hard problems with CostCo models.
Either the aim is to go to the moon or not.
The price comes from the aim and ambition not because NASA act like congress after pork.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592695</id>
	<title>Error in summary?</title>
	<author>FTWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1246882800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course the new option would be very reminiscent of the old Apollo space capsule instead of the tricked out shuttle currently planned.</p></div><p>Methinks that even the author didn't RTFA... The shuttle-based plan <i>is</i> the new contingiency plan. And both plans would involve the same "Apollo-like" Orion capsules. I guess that if no one else does, then its misguided to even expect authors to RTFA?
<br> <br>
The worrying part of this design is that the same orion capsule would be only able to carry 2 astronauts at a time during launch, presumably due to fuel constraints. While the rest of it sounds like a pretty reasonable bet, this bit just makes me think "well what's the point?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the new option would be very reminiscent of the old Apollo space capsule instead of the tricked out shuttle currently planned.Methinks that even the author did n't RTFA... The shuttle-based plan is the new contingiency plan .
And both plans would involve the same " Apollo-like " Orion capsules .
I guess that if no one else does , then its misguided to even expect authors to RTFA ?
The worrying part of this design is that the same orion capsule would be only able to carry 2 astronauts at a time during launch , presumably due to fuel constraints .
While the rest of it sounds like a pretty reasonable bet , this bit just makes me think " well what 's the point ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the new option would be very reminiscent of the old Apollo space capsule instead of the tricked out shuttle currently planned.Methinks that even the author didn't RTFA... The shuttle-based plan is the new contingiency plan.
And both plans would involve the same "Apollo-like" Orion capsules.
I guess that if no one else does, then its misguided to even expect authors to RTFA?
The worrying part of this design is that the same orion capsule would be only able to carry 2 astronauts at a time during launch, presumably due to fuel constraints.
While the rest of it sounds like a pretty reasonable bet, this bit just makes me think "well what's the point?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28602059</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1246886880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher, and you're definitely not going to go to Mars with that.</p></div><p>This is a common belief, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence for it. With existing and/or straightforward upgrade launchers it seems quite reasonable to do a lunar outpost (and perhaps even a Mars outpost), no super-heavy-lift required. Just take a look at the studies done for NASA before Michael Griffin came in and tossed all the prior work out. You just need to take advantage of things like in-orbit assembly, propellant depots, etc.</p><p><a href="http://selenianboondocks.com/category/lunar-exploration-and-development/" title="selenianboondocks.com">http://selenianboondocks.com/category/lunar-exploration-and-development/</a> [selenianboondocks.com]<br><a href="http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Boeing.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Boeing.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/tSpace.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/tSpace.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_midterm/tSpace.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_midterm/tSpace.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Lockheed\_Martin.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Lockheed\_Martin.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Schafer.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Schafer.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher , and you 're definitely not going to go to Mars with that.This is a common belief , but there does n't seem to be much evidence for it .
With existing and/or straightforward upgrade launchers it seems quite reasonable to do a lunar outpost ( and perhaps even a Mars outpost ) , no super-heavy-lift required .
Just take a look at the studies done for NASA before Michael Griffin came in and tossed all the prior work out .
You just need to take advantage of things like in-orbit assembly , propellant depots , etc.http : //selenianboondocks.com/category/lunar-exploration-and-development/ [ selenianboondocks.com ] http : //exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer \ _final/Boeing.pdf [ nasa.gov ] http : //exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer \ _final/tSpace.pdf [ nasa.gov ] http : //exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer \ _midterm/tSpace.pdf [ nasa.gov ] http : //exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer \ _final/Lockheed \ _Martin.pdf [ nasa.gov ] http : //exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer \ _final/Schafer.pdf [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher, and you're definitely not going to go to Mars with that.This is a common belief, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence for it.
With existing and/or straightforward upgrade launchers it seems quite reasonable to do a lunar outpost (and perhaps even a Mars outpost), no super-heavy-lift required.
Just take a look at the studies done for NASA before Michael Griffin came in and tossed all the prior work out.
You just need to take advantage of things like in-orbit assembly, propellant depots, etc.http://selenianboondocks.com/category/lunar-exploration-and-development/ [selenianboondocks.com]http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Boeing.pdf [nasa.gov]http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/tSpace.pdf [nasa.gov]http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_midterm/tSpace.pdf [nasa.gov]http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Lockheed\_Martin.pdf [nasa.gov]http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer\_final/Schafer.pdf [nasa.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596343</id>
	<title>No one's going to the moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time the NASA topic comes up on Slashdot, there are several hundred technical comments about the nature of the rockets and environment of space.  And every time the subject appears it is necessary for someone to point out the reality of the situation.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The reality is that the USA is broke.  Not only broke but trillions of dollars in debt.  Not just trillions in debt but facing unprecedented challenges in energy resource depletion, over-population, financial collapse of the world banking institutions, climate change, permanent governmental grid-lock, and near-universal hostility from the other countries with growing economies.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Priorities are going to be set.  The things that were important in the 1960s are not important any more.  What this means is that there is going to be a lot of talk about man's destiny to travel to the moon and some superficial funding.  <i>But there is going to be no real effort made to return to the moon.</i>  The programs are going to be cut year after year.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The reason is obvious.  There are real problems on the earth. They can't be ignored. There are no real solutions to these problems on the moon.  Actually there is nothing on the moon.  Going there is essentially a symbolic gesture:it's an act of engineering masturbation.  Back when the USA was rich and powerful in the 1960s, these kind of symbolic projects could be supported and funded.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Those days are gone.  We live in a different era.  Accept it; because it's reality.  And as engineers, reality is the most important consideration.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Man will return to the moon, it's true.  But it won't happen in our lifetimes.  It will happen in two or three hundred years from now.  Learn to think long term.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The same thing applies to Mars exploration.  You've seen the photos from the robot landers.  It's a desert.  No plants, no water, no nothing, just rocks and dust.  Given the problems of the USA and Earth at the present time, there is <i>no moral, physical, military, or political justification</i> for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on space projects of this magnitude.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Please understand,  it is in your best interest as technocrats and engineers to not support such projects of no social import such as manned interplanetary travel.  If billions are spent on projects of this nature, and the economy continues to collapse, then <b>you</b> will be presented to the angry public as a scapegoat by the politicians.  Lost your 401K, no health care for your children, living in your car because your underwater home foreclosed?  The politicians will claim that it is all the fault of the engineers who pissed away billions of dollars for Mars/Moon landings.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Believe me, you don't want to be in the position where the massive social unrest of the 2020s is going to be blamed on the projects like moon landings that you publicly supported in 2009.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Please consider the political reality of this situation.  Space engineers are being set up like fools to take the blame for situations that they had nothing to with creating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time the NASA topic comes up on Slashdot , there are several hundred technical comments about the nature of the rockets and environment of space .
And every time the subject appears it is necessary for someone to point out the reality of the situation .
    The reality is that the USA is broke .
Not only broke but trillions of dollars in debt .
Not just trillions in debt but facing unprecedented challenges in energy resource depletion , over-population , financial collapse of the world banking institutions , climate change , permanent governmental grid-lock , and near-universal hostility from the other countries with growing economies .
    Priorities are going to be set .
The things that were important in the 1960s are not important any more .
What this means is that there is going to be a lot of talk about man 's destiny to travel to the moon and some superficial funding .
But there is going to be no real effort made to return to the moon .
The programs are going to be cut year after year .
    The reason is obvious .
There are real problems on the earth .
They ca n't be ignored .
There are no real solutions to these problems on the moon .
Actually there is nothing on the moon .
Going there is essentially a symbolic gesture : it 's an act of engineering masturbation .
Back when the USA was rich and powerful in the 1960s , these kind of symbolic projects could be supported and funded .
    Those days are gone .
We live in a different era .
Accept it ; because it 's reality .
And as engineers , reality is the most important consideration .
    Man will return to the moon , it 's true .
But it wo n't happen in our lifetimes .
It will happen in two or three hundred years from now .
Learn to think long term .
    The same thing applies to Mars exploration .
You 've seen the photos from the robot landers .
It 's a desert .
No plants , no water , no nothing , just rocks and dust .
Given the problems of the USA and Earth at the present time , there is no moral , physical , military , or political justification for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on space projects of this magnitude .
    Please understand , it is in your best interest as technocrats and engineers to not support such projects of no social import such as manned interplanetary travel .
If billions are spent on projects of this nature , and the economy continues to collapse , then you will be presented to the angry public as a scapegoat by the politicians .
Lost your 401K , no health care for your children , living in your car because your underwater home foreclosed ?
The politicians will claim that it is all the fault of the engineers who pissed away billions of dollars for Mars/Moon landings .
    Believe me , you do n't want to be in the position where the massive social unrest of the 2020s is going to be blamed on the projects like moon landings that you publicly supported in 2009 .
    Please consider the political reality of this situation .
Space engineers are being set up like fools to take the blame for situations that they had nothing to with creating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time the NASA topic comes up on Slashdot, there are several hundred technical comments about the nature of the rockets and environment of space.
And every time the subject appears it is necessary for someone to point out the reality of the situation.
    The reality is that the USA is broke.
Not only broke but trillions of dollars in debt.
Not just trillions in debt but facing unprecedented challenges in energy resource depletion, over-population, financial collapse of the world banking institutions, climate change, permanent governmental grid-lock, and near-universal hostility from the other countries with growing economies.
    Priorities are going to be set.
The things that were important in the 1960s are not important any more.
What this means is that there is going to be a lot of talk about man's destiny to travel to the moon and some superficial funding.
But there is going to be no real effort made to return to the moon.
The programs are going to be cut year after year.
    The reason is obvious.
There are real problems on the earth.
They can't be ignored.
There are no real solutions to these problems on the moon.
Actually there is nothing on the moon.
Going there is essentially a symbolic gesture:it's an act of engineering masturbation.
Back when the USA was rich and powerful in the 1960s, these kind of symbolic projects could be supported and funded.
    Those days are gone.
We live in a different era.
Accept it; because it's reality.
And as engineers, reality is the most important consideration.
    Man will return to the moon, it's true.
But it won't happen in our lifetimes.
It will happen in two or three hundred years from now.
Learn to think long term.
    The same thing applies to Mars exploration.
You've seen the photos from the robot landers.
It's a desert.
No plants, no water, no nothing, just rocks and dust.
Given the problems of the USA and Earth at the present time, there is no moral, physical, military, or political justification for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on space projects of this magnitude.
    Please understand,  it is in your best interest as technocrats and engineers to not support such projects of no social import such as manned interplanetary travel.
If billions are spent on projects of this nature, and the economy continues to collapse, then you will be presented to the angry public as a scapegoat by the politicians.
Lost your 401K, no health care for your children, living in your car because your underwater home foreclosed?
The politicians will claim that it is all the fault of the engineers who pissed away billions of dollars for Mars/Moon landings.
    Believe me, you don't want to be in the position where the massive social unrest of the 2020s is going to be blamed on the projects like moon landings that you publicly supported in 2009.
    Please consider the political reality of this situation.
Space engineers are being set up like fools to take the blame for situations that they had nothing to with creating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593695</id>
	<title>This was the best quote by one of the Mercury 7</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1246890660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When asked by a reporter, if anything about space flight scared him, one astronaut responded...
"The only thing that bothers me is I'm sitting on top of something that was built by the LOWEST bidder.
When NASA cuts costs, the safety margins go down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When asked by a reporter , if anything about space flight scared him , one astronaut responded.. . " The only thing that bothers me is I 'm sitting on top of something that was built by the LOWEST bidder .
When NASA cuts costs , the safety margins go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When asked by a reporter, if anything about space flight scared him, one astronaut responded...
"The only thing that bothers me is I'm sitting on top of something that was built by the LOWEST bidder.
When NASA cuts costs, the safety margins go down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594179</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246893600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the fifty millionth time, those plans were indeed fucking LOST.  Shredded.  Tossed out.  And furthermore, they had several flaws that could have been fatal and never became so only by sheer luck.  Funny, you can only get so far with a drafting desk and a slide rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the fifty millionth time , those plans were indeed fucking LOST .
Shredded. Tossed out .
And furthermore , they had several flaws that could have been fatal and never became so only by sheer luck .
Funny , you can only get so far with a drafting desk and a slide rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the fifty millionth time, those plans were indeed fucking LOST.
Shredded.  Tossed out.
And furthermore, they had several flaws that could have been fatal and never became so only by sheer luck.
Funny, you can only get so far with a drafting desk and a slide rule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711</id>
	<title>Re:Do it well or don't do it at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246882920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965. Sometimes it can be hard to get relatively easy projects off the ground because the return is too small. I think the next mission should go to Titan. Don't go back to the moon. Its been done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965 .
Sometimes it can be hard to get relatively easy projects off the ground because the return is too small .
I think the next mission should go to Titan .
Do n't go back to the moon .
Its been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965.
Sometimes it can be hard to get relatively easy projects off the ground because the return is too small.
I think the next mission should go to Titan.
Don't go back to the moon.
Its been done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593329</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>giorgist</author>
	<datestamp>1246888320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, all those sex crazed irrational women are a concern</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , all those sex crazed irrational women are a concern</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, all those sex crazed irrational women are a concern</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593597</id>
	<title>Re:Getting TO the moon is easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246890000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm...you don't know NASA very well do you???</p><p>NASA *IS* one giant pork program.  NASA hasn't met a cost estimate it could not go over.</p><p>Seriously, do some research before you mouth off.  Then you will realize how much waste has been going on.</p><p>Oh and another thing....WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE MOON!!</p><p>Going back is a giant waste of time &amp; money and accomplishes nothing.  Noone is clamoring to go back to the moon.  As before any real scientific value can be gained by using probes and satellites.  Sending humans gains nothing and increases the risk to human life.</p><p>It's amazing how the science illiterate swallow this garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm...you do n't know NASA very well do you ? ?
? NASA * IS * one giant pork program .
NASA has n't met a cost estimate it could not go over.Seriously , do some research before you mouth off .
Then you will realize how much waste has been going on.Oh and another thing....WE 'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE MOON !
! Going back is a giant waste of time &amp; money and accomplishes nothing .
Noone is clamoring to go back to the moon .
As before any real scientific value can be gained by using probes and satellites .
Sending humans gains nothing and increases the risk to human life.It 's amazing how the science illiterate swallow this garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...you don't know NASA very well do you??
?NASA *IS* one giant pork program.
NASA hasn't met a cost estimate it could not go over.Seriously, do some research before you mouth off.
Then you will realize how much waste has been going on.Oh and another thing....WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE MOON!
!Going back is a giant waste of time &amp; money and accomplishes nothing.
Noone is clamoring to go back to the moon.
As before any real scientific value can be gained by using probes and satellites.
Sending humans gains nothing and increases the risk to human life.It's amazing how the science illiterate swallow this garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28598997</id>
	<title>Re:Do it well or don't do it at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I mean, people have been to moons before.
</p><p>Simples? <a href="http://www.comparethemeerkat.com/home" title="comparethemeerkat.com" rel="nofollow">Aleksandr</a> [comparethemeerkat.com], is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , people have been to moons before .
Simples ? Aleksandr [ comparethemeerkat.com ] , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I mean, people have been to moons before.
Simples? Aleksandr [comparethemeerkat.com], is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592847</id>
	<title>Re:Do it well or don't do it at all</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1246884300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a meaningful mission would cost too much now, there's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.</p></div><p>But you must also remember that technology doesn't just mature on your own, especially if it's something specialized.  If this were a matter of computing power or technology, for example, you actually could just wait, since there are enough other pressures driving its development to keep it moving.  But things like deep-space propulsion, closed-cycle life support systems, and vacuum-qualified hardware are pretty specific to the space industry; if you don't pay to keep developing them, they won't mature.</p><p>And even then, you'll still need to use them and test them on occasion.  Doing so probably involves flying some kind of mission.  And if you're going to be doing that, you might as well accomplish other stuff on that mission, like, oh, land on the moon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a meaningful mission would cost too much now , there 's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.But you must also remember that technology does n't just mature on your own , especially if it 's something specialized .
If this were a matter of computing power or technology , for example , you actually could just wait , since there are enough other pressures driving its development to keep it moving .
But things like deep-space propulsion , closed-cycle life support systems , and vacuum-qualified hardware are pretty specific to the space industry ; if you do n't pay to keep developing them , they wo n't mature.And even then , you 'll still need to use them and test them on occasion .
Doing so probably involves flying some kind of mission .
And if you 're going to be doing that , you might as well accomplish other stuff on that mission , like , oh , land on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a meaningful mission would cost too much now, there's no shame in waiting for the technology to became more mature.But you must also remember that technology doesn't just mature on your own, especially if it's something specialized.
If this were a matter of computing power or technology, for example, you actually could just wait, since there are enough other pressures driving its development to keep it moving.
But things like deep-space propulsion, closed-cycle life support systems, and vacuum-qualified hardware are pretty specific to the space industry; if you don't pay to keep developing them, they won't mature.And even then, you'll still need to use them and test them on occasion.
Doing so probably involves flying some kind of mission.
And if you're going to be doing that, you might as well accomplish other stuff on that mission, like, oh, land on the moon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592635</id>
	<title>Earth or Lunar orbit?</title>
	<author>gadget junkie</author>
	<datestamp>1246881540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>James Michener, the writer, was also on the NASA  advisory board, and in his fiction <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org"> Space</a> [wikipedia.org], there are a few pages on the conflict in the planning stage between the Earth orbit faction, in which the base module would orbit Earth and the lander would go to the Moon surface and back, and the Lunar orbit faction, whose design was more efficient and eventually won. <br> One of the characters says that by doing that the US had foregone the availability of a space station. It is interesting that the fallback plan goes in that direction, because it could be relatively easy to have the cargo craft double as a lorry to the ISS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>James Michener , the writer , was also on the NASA advisory board , and in his fiction Space [ wikipedia.org ] , there are a few pages on the conflict in the planning stage between the Earth orbit faction , in which the base module would orbit Earth and the lander would go to the Moon surface and back , and the Lunar orbit faction , whose design was more efficient and eventually won .
One of the characters says that by doing that the US had foregone the availability of a space station .
It is interesting that the fallback plan goes in that direction , because it could be relatively easy to have the cargo craft double as a lorry to the ISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Michener, the writer, was also on the NASA  advisory board, and in his fiction  Space [wikipedia.org], there are a few pages on the conflict in the planning stage between the Earth orbit faction, in which the base module would orbit Earth and the lander would go to the Moon surface and back, and the Lunar orbit faction, whose design was more efficient and eventually won.
One of the characters says that by doing that the US had foregone the availability of a space station.
It is interesting that the fallback plan goes in that direction, because it could be relatively easy to have the cargo craft double as a lorry to the ISS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595919</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1246901940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how $30 billion for space exploration -- which is important for the future of the human race as well as for making sure we are not just subjected to everything being controlled by the Chinese or something outside of our planet -- is a unthinkably high price to everyone. But hundreds of billions to bail out banks? No sweat! $7.5 trillion dollars total corporate rescue spending? No problem, fella!</p><p>I have given up on expecting anything exciting or particularly stirring in a "spirit of human exploration" sort of way during my life time. The generation before me got to see us land on the moon. AT BEST, I'll get to see us.... uh... land on the moon. Again. *yawn*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how $ 30 billion for space exploration -- which is important for the future of the human race as well as for making sure we are not just subjected to everything being controlled by the Chinese or something outside of our planet -- is a unthinkably high price to everyone .
But hundreds of billions to bail out banks ?
No sweat !
$ 7.5 trillion dollars total corporate rescue spending ?
No problem , fella ! I have given up on expecting anything exciting or particularly stirring in a " spirit of human exploration " sort of way during my life time .
The generation before me got to see us land on the moon .
AT BEST , I 'll get to see us.... uh... land on the moon .
Again. * yawn * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how $30 billion for space exploration -- which is important for the future of the human race as well as for making sure we are not just subjected to everything being controlled by the Chinese or something outside of our planet -- is a unthinkably high price to everyone.
But hundreds of billions to bail out banks?
No sweat!
$7.5 trillion dollars total corporate rescue spending?
No problem, fella!I have given up on expecting anything exciting or particularly stirring in a "spirit of human exploration" sort of way during my life time.
The generation before me got to see us land on the moon.
AT BEST, I'll get to see us.... uh... land on the moon.
Again. *yawn*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594929</id>
	<title>Re:Do it well or don't do it at all</title>
	<author>WagonWheelsRX8</author>
	<datestamp>1246897740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree (if it's unmanned).  There are a lot of other, more interesting places in our Solar System worth spending money on exploring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree ( if it 's unmanned ) .
There are a lot of other , more interesting places in our Solar System worth spending money on exploring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree (if it's unmanned).
There are a lot of other, more interesting places in our Solar System worth spending money on exploring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246883580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why people...  Let's see.  The ultimate goal of the program, as stated by Pres. Bush, is to put a man on Mars. </p><p>Using the most energetic path we have available, Mars is over 3 months away.  Assuming the nuclear power plant is out, then the time to Mars is closer to 9 months with an ion/vasimr engine; or, 18 months coasting.</p><p>IF you're going to send people to Mars, it seems like a good idea to test your equipment and get some practical experience living in a little (Mars) or no (Moon) atmosphere, low gravity, high incident solar radiation environment with dust that can best be described using the word "evil".  If you can help it, you want to do this as close to help as possible in case something goes wrong.  The Moon is 3 days from Earth.</p><p>Now someone is about to post the comment whose premise is "The Moon is NOT Mars!"  I'm aware of that.  So is NASA.  Mars has a toxic atmosphere (0.01\% Earth pressure, primarily CO2).  Mars has water vapor, condensation, and ice, all of which affect equipment and all of which the Moon lacks.  Martian dust is not Lunar dust (you could argue Lunar dust is <i>more</i> evil).  Martian gravity (1/3G) is higher than Lunar gravity (1/6G).  There's still a lot of commonality, enough to gain valuable experience testing equipment and methodologies.  It would not be much help to our astronauts if we send them to Mars with equipment that fails within hours, or send them with a survival plan that's unworkable.  Especially if those problems could have been found with a little testing.</p><p>For what it's worth, I think we will get to Mars; but, it's going to be 30 to 50 years, not the 20-25 former Pres. Bush was arguing for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why people... Let 's see .
The ultimate goal of the program , as stated by Pres .
Bush , is to put a man on Mars .
Using the most energetic path we have available , Mars is over 3 months away .
Assuming the nuclear power plant is out , then the time to Mars is closer to 9 months with an ion/vasimr engine ; or , 18 months coasting.IF you 're going to send people to Mars , it seems like a good idea to test your equipment and get some practical experience living in a little ( Mars ) or no ( Moon ) atmosphere , low gravity , high incident solar radiation environment with dust that can best be described using the word " evil " .
If you can help it , you want to do this as close to help as possible in case something goes wrong .
The Moon is 3 days from Earth.Now someone is about to post the comment whose premise is " The Moon is NOT Mars !
" I 'm aware of that .
So is NASA .
Mars has a toxic atmosphere ( 0.01 \ % Earth pressure , primarily CO2 ) .
Mars has water vapor , condensation , and ice , all of which affect equipment and all of which the Moon lacks .
Martian dust is not Lunar dust ( you could argue Lunar dust is more evil ) .
Martian gravity ( 1/3G ) is higher than Lunar gravity ( 1/6G ) .
There 's still a lot of commonality , enough to gain valuable experience testing equipment and methodologies .
It would not be much help to our astronauts if we send them to Mars with equipment that fails within hours , or send them with a survival plan that 's unworkable .
Especially if those problems could have been found with a little testing.For what it 's worth , I think we will get to Mars ; but , it 's going to be 30 to 50 years , not the 20-25 former Pres .
Bush was arguing for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why people...  Let's see.
The ultimate goal of the program, as stated by Pres.
Bush, is to put a man on Mars.
Using the most energetic path we have available, Mars is over 3 months away.
Assuming the nuclear power plant is out, then the time to Mars is closer to 9 months with an ion/vasimr engine; or, 18 months coasting.IF you're going to send people to Mars, it seems like a good idea to test your equipment and get some practical experience living in a little (Mars) or no (Moon) atmosphere, low gravity, high incident solar radiation environment with dust that can best be described using the word "evil".
If you can help it, you want to do this as close to help as possible in case something goes wrong.
The Moon is 3 days from Earth.Now someone is about to post the comment whose premise is "The Moon is NOT Mars!
"  I'm aware of that.
So is NASA.
Mars has a toxic atmosphere (0.01\% Earth pressure, primarily CO2).
Mars has water vapor, condensation, and ice, all of which affect equipment and all of which the Moon lacks.
Martian dust is not Lunar dust (you could argue Lunar dust is more evil).
Martian gravity (1/3G) is higher than Lunar gravity (1/6G).
There's still a lot of commonality, enough to gain valuable experience testing equipment and methodologies.
It would not be much help to our astronauts if we send them to Mars with equipment that fails within hours, or send them with a survival plan that's unworkable.
Especially if those problems could have been found with a little testing.For what it's worth, I think we will get to Mars; but, it's going to be 30 to 50 years, not the 20-25 former Pres.
Bush was arguing for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28608261</id>
	<title>Can you count?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246981920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$6.6 billion is not a little bit cheaper than $35 billion. They reduced the cost by $28.4 billion.  That's a huge reduction in cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 6.6 billion is not a little bit cheaper than $ 35 billion .
They reduced the cost by $ 28.4 billion .
That 's a huge reduction in cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$6.6 billion is not a little bit cheaper than $35 billion.
They reduced the cost by $28.4 billion.
That's a huge reduction in cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596267</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the production lines including the machining tools were destroyed after the last apollo mission. They would have to rebuild the entire infrastructure. Instead, the new design leverages the existing shuttle infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the production lines including the machining tools were destroyed after the last apollo mission .
They would have to rebuild the entire infrastructure .
Instead , the new design leverages the existing shuttle infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the production lines including the machining tools were destroyed after the last apollo mission.
They would have to rebuild the entire infrastructure.
Instead, the new design leverages the existing shuttle infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592851</id>
	<title>tester</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246884360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tter tserter this is a test for post in</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tter tserter this is a test for post in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tter tserter this is a test for post in</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593731</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1246890960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; NASA is *always* looking at *all* the options and the DIRECT people are just, simply, wrong;</p><p>Uhhh, ok.</p><p>&gt; but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicle</p><p>A vehicle that already exists in the majority, and the part that doesn't is much smaller than even Ares I . THAT'S the difference between DIRECT and Ares. Complaining about "their shit" and failing to mention this point is either bad politics or the height of stupidity.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; NASA is * always * looking at * all * the options and the DIRECT people are just , simply , wrong ; Uhhh , ok. &gt; but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicleA vehicle that already exists in the majority , and the part that does n't is much smaller than even Ares I .
THAT 'S the difference between DIRECT and Ares .
Complaining about " their shit " and failing to mention this point is either bad politics or the height of stupidity.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; NASA is *always* looking at *all* the options and the DIRECT people are just, simply, wrong;Uhhh, ok.&gt; but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicleA vehicle that already exists in the majority, and the part that doesn't is much smaller than even Ares I .
THAT'S the difference between DIRECT and Ares.
Complaining about "their shit" and failing to mention this point is either bad politics or the height of stupidity.Maury</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592845</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1246884300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Mars has a toxic atmosphere (0.01\% Earth pressure, primarily CO2). </i> <p>

Err<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the atmosphere of Mars is hardly toxic. The partial pressure of CO2 isn't anywhere near levels required for toxicity. Of course, it doesn't contain oxygen in the partial pressure range required by humans, but that makes it about as toxic as breathing a mix of 99.9\% Nitrogen and 0.1\% CO2. Fatal, yes, but not because of anything toxic in the gas mixture.</p><p>
If you want toxic, try everyone's favorite hellhole, Venus. Sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc. But of course, if you happen land on Venus, toxic compounds in the atmosphere are going to be the least of your worries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mars has a toxic atmosphere ( 0.01 \ % Earth pressure , primarily CO2 ) .
Err ... the atmosphere of Mars is hardly toxic .
The partial pressure of CO2 is n't anywhere near levels required for toxicity .
Of course , it does n't contain oxygen in the partial pressure range required by humans , but that makes it about as toxic as breathing a mix of 99.9 \ % Nitrogen and 0.1 \ % CO2 .
Fatal , yes , but not because of anything toxic in the gas mixture .
If you want toxic , try everyone 's favorite hellhole , Venus .
Sulfur dioxide , carbon monoxide , etc .
But of course , if you happen land on Venus , toxic compounds in the atmosphere are going to be the least of your worries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mars has a toxic atmosphere (0.01\% Earth pressure, primarily CO2).
Err ... the atmosphere of Mars is hardly toxic.
The partial pressure of CO2 isn't anywhere near levels required for toxicity.
Of course, it doesn't contain oxygen in the partial pressure range required by humans, but that makes it about as toxic as breathing a mix of 99.9\% Nitrogen and 0.1\% CO2.
Fatal, yes, but not because of anything toxic in the gas mixture.
If you want toxic, try everyone's favorite hellhole, Venus.
Sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc.
But of course, if you happen land on Venus, toxic compounds in the atmosphere are going to be the least of your worries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595669</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1246901100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Assuming the nuclear power plant is out, then the time to Mars is closer to 9 months with an ion/vasimr engine; or, 18 months coasting.</p></div></blockquote><p>Umm, the MINIMUM energy transfer orbit to Mars is less than nine months.  Wherever did you get the idea that it would take 18 months coasting?  Or that a vasimr/ion engine would take that long?
</p><p>Note also that a six month Earth Return trajectory to Mars is quite achievable with chemical fuel, though a NERVA would be nice to decrease required payload to Earth orbit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming the nuclear power plant is out , then the time to Mars is closer to 9 months with an ion/vasimr engine ; or , 18 months coasting.Umm , the MINIMUM energy transfer orbit to Mars is less than nine months .
Wherever did you get the idea that it would take 18 months coasting ?
Or that a vasimr/ion engine would take that long ?
Note also that a six month Earth Return trajectory to Mars is quite achievable with chemical fuel , though a NERVA would be nice to decrease required payload to Earth orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming the nuclear power plant is out, then the time to Mars is closer to 9 months with an ion/vasimr engine; or, 18 months coasting.Umm, the MINIMUM energy transfer orbit to Mars is less than nine months.
Wherever did you get the idea that it would take 18 months coasting?
Or that a vasimr/ion engine would take that long?
Note also that a six month Earth Return trajectory to Mars is quite achievable with chemical fuel, though a NERVA would be nice to decrease required payload to Earth orbit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592621</id>
	<title>thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice thought.
Carrol spncr
<a href="http://themastercleanse.org/evercleanse" title="themastercleanse.org" rel="nofollow">Hot to Evercleanse</a> [themastercleanse.org]
URL Text or Anchor Text:</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice thought .
Carrol spncr Hot to Evercleanse [ themastercleanse.org ] URL Text or Anchor Text :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice thought.
Carrol spncr
Hot to Evercleanse [themastercleanse.org]
URL Text or Anchor Text:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592599</id>
	<title>meh....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not just outsource it to China....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not just outsource it to China... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not just outsource it to China....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595281</id>
	<title>Re:Outsource it</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1246899180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is because we had dems most in charge from 1933 until 1980. Since 1980, we have been going downhill. We will see what happens from here on out. The hard part will be that over the last 30 years, esp. the last 8, we have LITERALLY throw away our manufactuering capabilities. In fact, the entire west has been all too happy to let it go (though less so in EU). We need it back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is because we had dems most in charge from 1933 until 1980 .
Since 1980 , we have been going downhill .
We will see what happens from here on out .
The hard part will be that over the last 30 years , esp .
the last 8 , we have LITERALLY throw away our manufactuering capabilities .
In fact , the entire west has been all too happy to let it go ( though less so in EU ) .
We need it back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is because we had dems most in charge from 1933 until 1980.
Since 1980, we have been going downhill.
We will see what happens from here on out.
The hard part will be that over the last 30 years, esp.
the last 8, we have LITERALLY throw away our manufactuering capabilities.
In fact, the entire west has been all too happy to let it go (though less so in EU).
We need it back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592705</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246882860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because robots are completely incapable of doing the task.</p><p>The fantastic work of Spirit and Opportunity could have been done by a competent field geologist in an afternoon.. remember that is the ultimate goal of the VSE, put humans on Mars by learning how to support them permanently on the Moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because robots are completely incapable of doing the task.The fantastic work of Spirit and Opportunity could have been done by a competent field geologist in an afternoon.. remember that is the ultimate goal of the VSE , put humans on Mars by learning how to support them permanently on the Moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because robots are completely incapable of doing the task.The fantastic work of Spirit and Opportunity could have been done by a competent field geologist in an afternoon.. remember that is the ultimate goal of the VSE, put humans on Mars by learning how to support them permanently on the Moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28603199</id>
	<title>Re:Um, why?</title>
	<author>JCallery</author>
	<datestamp>1246895280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Why send people?" is modded "Troll"?  A bit offtopic maybe, but not "Troll".  This is the question we must be able to answer if we are to have a successful manned space program, Constellation, DIRECT, COTS, or otherwise.<br>
<br>
In the Apollo era, manned space flight provided another means to fund weapons development.  The launch vehicles of the early space program, including the Saturn family, are variations of ballistic missiles or started development as heavy launch vehicles for DoD payloads.  We are no longer in the same kind of arms race, and finding money to fund civil aerospace ventures is not as easy as military ones.<br>
<br>
Many have tried to explain "why" manned space flight in general, let alone the moon and Mars (recently <a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1406/1" title="thespacereview.com">here</a> [thespacereview.com] and <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1334" title="spaceref.com">here</a> [spaceref.com]).  It is not an easy question to answer.  Arguments to the contrary range from "robots are cheaper" to "we should stop spending money on space altogether and address the large number of problems we have here on Earth".<br>
<br>
There are those that will say we should do it simply because it is there to explore.  That it is human nature.  Because it is the unknown, the "final frontier", if you will.  A romantic notion (and one that is more than enough to convince some of us), but in the end, this is a political question.  We must justify spending tax dollars on manned space flight.  What's in it for the taxpayers?  While some like to <a href="http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/" title="nasa.gov">point to technologies that have been spun off</a> [nasa.gov] of NASA's work over the years, it's not easy to say that the tax-paying public will get X, Y, and Z from future investments.<br>
<br>
The true answer here is one that few, if any, politician would ever use even if they knew it was the answer.  Why send people?  So that we can to guarantee our survival as a species.  Humanity has spread beyond the cradle of its birth for many reasons.  Initially the exodus was to find more room and resources to support our growing species.  Later it was from reasons ranging from natural disasters to religious disputes to dreams of fortune in other lands.  If our entire species lived at the foot of a volcano, the volcano could wipe us all out.  Our species has spread such that it cannot be wiped out by most natural (or even man-made) disasters.  It is only recently that we have started thinking at a scale larger than our local area on this planet.  There is plenty of evidence of mass extinctions throughout the Earth's history.  Whether by internal (global climate change) or external (comet/asteroid) forces, we are essentially planted at the base of a cosmic volcano.  It is time to move beyond the fertile cradle of humanity's birth to ensure its long-term survival.  In the past it took picking up and moving to a new field or forest or across a desert or an ocean.  These took a variety of effort and planning, but none compare to the journey ahead of us.  Our vision as a species, recognizing our strengths and weaknesses and the environment that surrounds us, must guide these decisions for the future.  We have taken the first steps to develop habitats for humans to live and work and experiment and learn outside of Earth's atmosphere.  We now must take the next steps to develop habitats and technologies that allow us to survive in even harsher environments...those on other planetary bodies.  The moon is the closest, and perhaps one of the harshest, places for us to start to take these steps.  Without this step, we cannot make the more important steps of leaving our orbit for others around the sun, and someday to other solar systems.  We will most definitely not see the results in our lifetimes, but we need to be at a place where our short individual lives don't dictate every decision we make as a species.<br>
<br>
Most people alive today can name Armstrong and Aldrin (and some even Collins...though sadly not enough).  How many know the names of Cernan, Evans, and Schmitt?  Or can name the most recent shuttle o</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why send people ?
" is modded " Troll " ?
A bit offtopic maybe , but not " Troll " .
This is the question we must be able to answer if we are to have a successful manned space program , Constellation , DIRECT , COTS , or otherwise .
In the Apollo era , manned space flight provided another means to fund weapons development .
The launch vehicles of the early space program , including the Saturn family , are variations of ballistic missiles or started development as heavy launch vehicles for DoD payloads .
We are no longer in the same kind of arms race , and finding money to fund civil aerospace ventures is not as easy as military ones .
Many have tried to explain " why " manned space flight in general , let alone the moon and Mars ( recently here [ thespacereview.com ] and here [ spaceref.com ] ) .
It is not an easy question to answer .
Arguments to the contrary range from " robots are cheaper " to " we should stop spending money on space altogether and address the large number of problems we have here on Earth " .
There are those that will say we should do it simply because it is there to explore .
That it is human nature .
Because it is the unknown , the " final frontier " , if you will .
A romantic notion ( and one that is more than enough to convince some of us ) , but in the end , this is a political question .
We must justify spending tax dollars on manned space flight .
What 's in it for the taxpayers ?
While some like to point to technologies that have been spun off [ nasa.gov ] of NASA 's work over the years , it 's not easy to say that the tax-paying public will get X , Y , and Z from future investments .
The true answer here is one that few , if any , politician would ever use even if they knew it was the answer .
Why send people ?
So that we can to guarantee our survival as a species .
Humanity has spread beyond the cradle of its birth for many reasons .
Initially the exodus was to find more room and resources to support our growing species .
Later it was from reasons ranging from natural disasters to religious disputes to dreams of fortune in other lands .
If our entire species lived at the foot of a volcano , the volcano could wipe us all out .
Our species has spread such that it can not be wiped out by most natural ( or even man-made ) disasters .
It is only recently that we have started thinking at a scale larger than our local area on this planet .
There is plenty of evidence of mass extinctions throughout the Earth 's history .
Whether by internal ( global climate change ) or external ( comet/asteroid ) forces , we are essentially planted at the base of a cosmic volcano .
It is time to move beyond the fertile cradle of humanity 's birth to ensure its long-term survival .
In the past it took picking up and moving to a new field or forest or across a desert or an ocean .
These took a variety of effort and planning , but none compare to the journey ahead of us .
Our vision as a species , recognizing our strengths and weaknesses and the environment that surrounds us , must guide these decisions for the future .
We have taken the first steps to develop habitats for humans to live and work and experiment and learn outside of Earth 's atmosphere .
We now must take the next steps to develop habitats and technologies that allow us to survive in even harsher environments...those on other planetary bodies .
The moon is the closest , and perhaps one of the harshest , places for us to start to take these steps .
Without this step , we can not make the more important steps of leaving our orbit for others around the sun , and someday to other solar systems .
We will most definitely not see the results in our lifetimes , but we need to be at a place where our short individual lives do n't dictate every decision we make as a species .
Most people alive today can name Armstrong and Aldrin ( and some even Collins...though sadly not enough ) .
How many know the names of Cernan , Evans , and Schmitt ?
Or can name the most recent shuttle o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why send people?
" is modded "Troll"?
A bit offtopic maybe, but not "Troll".
This is the question we must be able to answer if we are to have a successful manned space program, Constellation, DIRECT, COTS, or otherwise.
In the Apollo era, manned space flight provided another means to fund weapons development.
The launch vehicles of the early space program, including the Saturn family, are variations of ballistic missiles or started development as heavy launch vehicles for DoD payloads.
We are no longer in the same kind of arms race, and finding money to fund civil aerospace ventures is not as easy as military ones.
Many have tried to explain "why" manned space flight in general, let alone the moon and Mars (recently here [thespacereview.com] and here [spaceref.com]).
It is not an easy question to answer.
Arguments to the contrary range from "robots are cheaper" to "we should stop spending money on space altogether and address the large number of problems we have here on Earth".
There are those that will say we should do it simply because it is there to explore.
That it is human nature.
Because it is the unknown, the "final frontier", if you will.
A romantic notion (and one that is more than enough to convince some of us), but in the end, this is a political question.
We must justify spending tax dollars on manned space flight.
What's in it for the taxpayers?
While some like to point to technologies that have been spun off [nasa.gov] of NASA's work over the years, it's not easy to say that the tax-paying public will get X, Y, and Z from future investments.
The true answer here is one that few, if any, politician would ever use even if they knew it was the answer.
Why send people?
So that we can to guarantee our survival as a species.
Humanity has spread beyond the cradle of its birth for many reasons.
Initially the exodus was to find more room and resources to support our growing species.
Later it was from reasons ranging from natural disasters to religious disputes to dreams of fortune in other lands.
If our entire species lived at the foot of a volcano, the volcano could wipe us all out.
Our species has spread such that it cannot be wiped out by most natural (or even man-made) disasters.
It is only recently that we have started thinking at a scale larger than our local area on this planet.
There is plenty of evidence of mass extinctions throughout the Earth's history.
Whether by internal (global climate change) or external (comet/asteroid) forces, we are essentially planted at the base of a cosmic volcano.
It is time to move beyond the fertile cradle of humanity's birth to ensure its long-term survival.
In the past it took picking up and moving to a new field or forest or across a desert or an ocean.
These took a variety of effort and planning, but none compare to the journey ahead of us.
Our vision as a species, recognizing our strengths and weaknesses and the environment that surrounds us, must guide these decisions for the future.
We have taken the first steps to develop habitats for humans to live and work and experiment and learn outside of Earth's atmosphere.
We now must take the next steps to develop habitats and technologies that allow us to survive in even harsher environments...those on other planetary bodies.
The moon is the closest, and perhaps one of the harshest, places for us to start to take these steps.
Without this step, we cannot make the more important steps of leaving our orbit for others around the sun, and someday to other solar systems.
We will most definitely not see the results in our lifetimes, but we need to be at a place where our short individual lives don't dictate every decision we make as a species.
Most people alive today can name Armstrong and Aldrin (and some even Collins...though sadly not enough).
How many know the names of Cernan, Evans, and Schmitt?
Or can name the most recent shuttle o</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594175</id>
	<title>Re:Getting TO the moon is easy</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1246893540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I love the idea that this is some how shocking.<br> <br>

"NASA investigates other options and doesn't look at problem in blinkered and myopic way" - News at 11.</p></div><p>Just look at the Explorations Systems Architecture Study for an example of NASA looking at problems in a blinkered and myopic way. Recently, they finally released most of the appendices that described the reasoning and data that they used for justifying the Ares I. There were numerous biases. For example, the ULA people couldn't correct NASA's mistakes about the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy vehicles. Assumptions were made about those two vehicles' performance (namely upper stage performance, IIRC) that fell well short of existing counterparts that the ULA launches today. Bogus safety numbers were used to inflate the Ares I loss of crew and loss of mission number (namely, that the failure rate of the solid rocket motor is something like 1 in 3700, which doesn't mesh with what it historically is). They ignored thrust oscillation which is a well known property of solid rocket motors. And the Ares I wouldn't even qualify, if it had to meet the same requirements as the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy. As I dimly recall, either max acceleration or max Q (the point of maximum force from air resistance) requirements had to be relaxed significantly in order to let in any vehicle which used a solid rocket motor as first stage.<br> <br>

And to top this all, speculation has it that Shannon introduced the Shuttle C study merely to divide support for the DIRECT option (another Shuttle derived rival to the Ares I/V platforms which is a bit less Shuttle derived than the Shuttle C option). There's the possibility that NASA still is going on in its blinkered and myopic way.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high (the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths) or that it just doesn't stack up as something that will deliver the overall objectives.</p></div><p>That's the excuse they always use. But it's worth keeping in mind that in the case of the Ares I/V mess, NASA decided the objectives to be just out of reach of the Delta IV Heavy, they stacked the study (whether it was intentional or not remains unknown) in favor of the Ares I, and they decided the Ares I was safer and would deliver the overall objectives even though no such vehicle will come about till some time in 2015 (when the Ares 1-Y finally launches).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When people bitch and moan about the price then that is fair enough, but please lets be honest here. Getting to the moon remains a HARD problem, the Chinese are going to take a long bunch of years to get there, and you can't solve hard problems with CostCo models. Either the aim is to go to the moon or not. The price comes from the aim and ambition not because NASA act like congress after pork.</p></div><p>Who said anything about "CostCo models"? Shuttle C, DIRECT are same building blocks as the Ares vehicles. The ULA (who launches the Delta IV Heavy and would launch the Atlas V Heavy, if it gets developed) has far more launch experience with developing, building, and launching expendable launch vehicles than NASA does. They also launch DoD payloads, perhaps the most expensive payloads on the planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the idea that this is some how shocking .
" NASA investigates other options and does n't look at problem in blinkered and myopic way " - News at 11.Just look at the Explorations Systems Architecture Study for an example of NASA looking at problems in a blinkered and myopic way .
Recently , they finally released most of the appendices that described the reasoning and data that they used for justifying the Ares I. There were numerous biases .
For example , the ULA people could n't correct NASA 's mistakes about the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy vehicles .
Assumptions were made about those two vehicles ' performance ( namely upper stage performance , IIRC ) that fell well short of existing counterparts that the ULA launches today .
Bogus safety numbers were used to inflate the Ares I loss of crew and loss of mission number ( namely , that the failure rate of the solid rocket motor is something like 1 in 3700 , which does n't mesh with what it historically is ) .
They ignored thrust oscillation which is a well known property of solid rocket motors .
And the Ares I would n't even qualify , if it had to meet the same requirements as the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy .
As I dimly recall , either max acceleration or max Q ( the point of maximum force from air resistance ) requirements had to be relaxed significantly in order to let in any vehicle which used a solid rocket motor as first stage .
And to top this all , speculation has it that Shannon introduced the Shuttle C study merely to divide support for the DIRECT option ( another Shuttle derived rival to the Ares I/V platforms which is a bit less Shuttle derived than the Shuttle C option ) .
There 's the possibility that NASA still is going on in its blinkered and myopic way.NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high ( the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths ) or that it just does n't stack up as something that will deliver the overall objectives.That 's the excuse they always use .
But it 's worth keeping in mind that in the case of the Ares I/V mess , NASA decided the objectives to be just out of reach of the Delta IV Heavy , they stacked the study ( whether it was intentional or not remains unknown ) in favor of the Ares I , and they decided the Ares I was safer and would deliver the overall objectives even though no such vehicle will come about till some time in 2015 ( when the Ares 1-Y finally launches ) .When people bitch and moan about the price then that is fair enough , but please lets be honest here .
Getting to the moon remains a HARD problem , the Chinese are going to take a long bunch of years to get there , and you ca n't solve hard problems with CostCo models .
Either the aim is to go to the moon or not .
The price comes from the aim and ambition not because NASA act like congress after pork.Who said anything about " CostCo models " ?
Shuttle C , DIRECT are same building blocks as the Ares vehicles .
The ULA ( who launches the Delta IV Heavy and would launch the Atlas V Heavy , if it gets developed ) has far more launch experience with developing , building , and launching expendable launch vehicles than NASA does .
They also launch DoD payloads , perhaps the most expensive payloads on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the idea that this is some how shocking.
"NASA investigates other options and doesn't look at problem in blinkered and myopic way" - News at 11.Just look at the Explorations Systems Architecture Study for an example of NASA looking at problems in a blinkered and myopic way.
Recently, they finally released most of the appendices that described the reasoning and data that they used for justifying the Ares I. There were numerous biases.
For example, the ULA people couldn't correct NASA's mistakes about the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy vehicles.
Assumptions were made about those two vehicles' performance (namely upper stage performance, IIRC) that fell well short of existing counterparts that the ULA launches today.
Bogus safety numbers were used to inflate the Ares I loss of crew and loss of mission number (namely, that the failure rate of the solid rocket motor is something like 1 in 3700, which doesn't mesh with what it historically is).
They ignored thrust oscillation which is a well known property of solid rocket motors.
And the Ares I wouldn't even qualify, if it had to meet the same requirements as the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy.
As I dimly recall, either max acceleration or max Q (the point of maximum force from air resistance) requirements had to be relaxed significantly in order to let in any vehicle which used a solid rocket motor as first stage.
And to top this all, speculation has it that Shannon introduced the Shuttle C study merely to divide support for the DIRECT option (another Shuttle derived rival to the Ares I/V platforms which is a bit less Shuttle derived than the Shuttle C option).
There's the possibility that NASA still is going on in its blinkered and myopic way.NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high (the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths) or that it just doesn't stack up as something that will deliver the overall objectives.That's the excuse they always use.
But it's worth keeping in mind that in the case of the Ares I/V mess, NASA decided the objectives to be just out of reach of the Delta IV Heavy, they stacked the study (whether it was intentional or not remains unknown) in favor of the Ares I, and they decided the Ares I was safer and would deliver the overall objectives even though no such vehicle will come about till some time in 2015 (when the Ares 1-Y finally launches).When people bitch and moan about the price then that is fair enough, but please lets be honest here.
Getting to the moon remains a HARD problem, the Chinese are going to take a long bunch of years to get there, and you can't solve hard problems with CostCo models.
Either the aim is to go to the moon or not.
The price comes from the aim and ambition not because NASA act like congress after pork.Who said anything about "CostCo models"?
Shuttle C, DIRECT are same building blocks as the Ares vehicles.
The ULA (who launches the Delta IV Heavy and would launch the Atlas V Heavy, if it gets developed) has far more launch experience with developing, building, and launching expendable launch vehicles than NASA does.
They also launch DoD payloads, perhaps the most expensive payloads on the planet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28602059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28606843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28598997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28603199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28598805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_2345248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593577
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28598997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592845
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28603199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28598805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28606843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28602059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_2345248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28592613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28596267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28594179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28595579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_2345248.28593311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
