<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_06_1556208</id>
	<title>Successful Test of Superconducting Plasma Rocket Engine</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246901820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://spacefellowship.com/" rel="nofollow">xp65</a> writes to mention that Ad Astra has <a href="http://spacefellowship.com/2009/07/06/vx-200-demonstrates-superconducting-first-stage-at-full-power/">successfully tested their VX-200 plasma engine</a> at full power in superconducting conditions, the first time such an engine has been tested at those power levels.  <i>"The VX-200 engine is the first flight-like prototype of the VASIMR&#174; propulsion system, a new high-power plasma-based rocket, initially studied by NASA and now being developed privately by Ad Astra. VASIMR&#174; engines could enable space operations far more efficiently than today's chemical rockets and ultimately they could also greatly speed up robotic and human transit times for missions to Mars and beyond."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>xp65 writes to mention that Ad Astra has successfully tested their VX-200 plasma engine at full power in superconducting conditions , the first time such an engine has been tested at those power levels .
" The VX-200 engine is the first flight-like prototype of the VASIMR   propulsion system , a new high-power plasma-based rocket , initially studied by NASA and now being developed privately by Ad Astra .
VASIMR   engines could enable space operations far more efficiently than today 's chemical rockets and ultimately they could also greatly speed up robotic and human transit times for missions to Mars and beyond .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xp65 writes to mention that Ad Astra has successfully tested their VX-200 plasma engine at full power in superconducting conditions, the first time such an engine has been tested at those power levels.
"The VX-200 engine is the first flight-like prototype of the VASIMR® propulsion system, a new high-power plasma-based rocket, initially studied by NASA and now being developed privately by Ad Astra.
VASIMR® engines could enable space operations far more efficiently than today's chemical rockets and ultimately they could also greatly speed up robotic and human transit times for missions to Mars and beyond.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599963</id>
	<title>Also obligatory post</title>
	<author>hansoloaf</author>
	<datestamp>1246875960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>everytime VASMIR is mentioned - one should read up Franklin Chang-Diaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin\_Chang-Diaz) who invented this.
<br> <br>
His life story is amazing and should be inspirational for many people in which education and hard work can enable you to succeed in life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>everytime VASMIR is mentioned - one should read up Franklin Chang-Diaz ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin \ _Chang-Diaz ) who invented this .
His life story is amazing and should be inspirational for many people in which education and hard work can enable you to succeed in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everytime VASMIR is mentioned - one should read up Franklin Chang-Diaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin\_Chang-Diaz) who invented this.
His life story is amazing and should be inspirational for many people in which education and hard work can enable you to succeed in life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604301</id>
	<title>Re:Referring Back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>how is this off-topic? oh yeah the rooting racism, carry on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how is this off-topic ?
oh yeah the rooting racism , carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is this off-topic?
oh yeah the rooting racism, carry on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604705</id>
	<title>Re:Checklist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laser:</p><p>3 of 5. Hmmm... I don't think it's that great. My computer scores 2 of 5 after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laser : 3 of 5 .
Hmmm... I do n't think it 's that great .
My computer scores 2 of 5 after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laser:3 of 5.
Hmmm... I don't think it's that great.
My computer scores 2 of 5 after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599709</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honey, crank Hank or yank Hank or spank Hank or a little Hanky panky?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honey , crank Hank or yank Hank or spank Hank or a little Hanky panky ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honey, crank Hank or yank Hank or spank Hank or a little Hanky panky?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598945</id>
	<title>This is great for America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a great feat, and sorry for the rest of world. BUT congrats to the USA.</p><p>Not being blind and total supporter, but USA still is a great place of science, for research and smart people.</p><p>While in the "rest" of the world......</p><p>They are still thinking if human rights or democracy is good. USA still can keep its advantage even not beating or killing its own people...<br>(we know whom I am talking about)</p><p>Go america!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great feat , and sorry for the rest of world .
BUT congrats to the USA.Not being blind and total supporter , but USA still is a great place of science , for research and smart people.While in the " rest " of the world......They are still thinking if human rights or democracy is good .
USA still can keep its advantage even not beating or killing its own people... ( we know whom I am talking about ) Go america !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great feat, and sorry for the rest of world.
BUT congrats to the USA.Not being blind and total supporter, but USA still is a great place of science, for research and smart people.While in the "rest" of the world......They are still thinking if human rights or democracy is good.
USA still can keep its advantage even not beating or killing its own people...(we know whom I am talking about)Go america!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597023</id>
	<title>Superconducting Plasma Rocket Engine?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1246906380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Superconducting Plasma Rocket Engine?</p><p>Sounds like it oughta be able to make at least Warp 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Superconducting Plasma Rocket Engine ? Sounds like it oughta be able to make at least Warp 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Superconducting Plasma Rocket Engine?Sounds like it oughta be able to make at least Warp 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598191</id>
	<title>Yiddish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246911360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Yiddish (the Jewish-German creole of Eastern Europe), VASIMR means "woe is me".</p><p>I know, probably o/t.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Yiddish ( the Jewish-German creole of Eastern Europe ) , VASIMR means " woe is me " .I know , probably o/t .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Yiddish (the Jewish-German creole of Eastern Europe), VASIMR means "woe is me".I know, probably o/t.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</id>
	<title>What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>grub</author>
	<datestamp>1246905420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Damn, this is terrible timing. On the weekend my lady and I were
thinking that a new pet name for my penis was due.  The current
"<b>Superfluidic Particle Accelerating Colossus</b>" was getting a bit
stale.<br> <br>The better half suggested "<b>Superconducting Plasma Rocket
Engine</b>".  But now that that name is taken we'll have to use our second
favourite choice: "<b>Hank</b>".<br> <br>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , this is terrible timing .
On the weekend my lady and I were thinking that a new pet name for my penis was due .
The current " Superfluidic Particle Accelerating Colossus " was getting a bit stale .
The better half suggested " Superconducting Plasma Rocket Engine " .
But now that that name is taken we 'll have to use our second favourite choice : " Hank " .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, this is terrible timing.
On the weekend my lady and I were
thinking that a new pet name for my penis was due.
The current
"Superfluidic Particle Accelerating Colossus" was getting a bit
stale.
The better half suggested "Superconducting Plasma Rocket
Engine".
But now that that name is taken we'll have to use our second
favourite choice: "Hank".
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597949</id>
	<title>Referring Back</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1246910220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Referring back to <a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/27/0152216" title="slashdot.org">http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/27/0152216</a> [slashdot.org] , where someone asked about a freer country to move to, I suggested Costa Rica.</p><p>Besides the humanitarian lean of their universities, they're quite up on technology. They don't have a lot, but they like it. TFA is an example -- Ad Astra is based there in part. It's founder is a native of C.R. and ex-NASA astronaut, Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz.</p><p>There's also been a few folks go down there to check it out for a possible launch site for commercial and private launches. It's around 10 degrees north latitude, close enough to the equator to go the same rotational boost as they get down there. Nothing announced yet, but the visits were very positive. After all, the VASMIR motor will never get off the ground on its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Referring back to http : //ask.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/27/0152216 [ slashdot.org ] , where someone asked about a freer country to move to , I suggested Costa Rica.Besides the humanitarian lean of their universities , they 're quite up on technology .
They do n't have a lot , but they like it .
TFA is an example -- Ad Astra is based there in part .
It 's founder is a native of C.R .
and ex-NASA astronaut , Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz.There 's also been a few folks go down there to check it out for a possible launch site for commercial and private launches .
It 's around 10 degrees north latitude , close enough to the equator to go the same rotational boost as they get down there .
Nothing announced yet , but the visits were very positive .
After all , the VASMIR motor will never get off the ground on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Referring back to http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/27/0152216 [slashdot.org] , where someone asked about a freer country to move to, I suggested Costa Rica.Besides the humanitarian lean of their universities, they're quite up on technology.
They don't have a lot, but they like it.
TFA is an example -- Ad Astra is based there in part.
It's founder is a native of C.R.
and ex-NASA astronaut, Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz.There's also been a few folks go down there to check it out for a possible launch site for commercial and private launches.
It's around 10 degrees north latitude, close enough to the equator to go the same rotational boost as they get down there.
Nothing announced yet, but the visits were very positive.
After all, the VASMIR motor will never get off the ground on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598793</id>
	<title>Rockets?</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1246870920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What? We're still using rockets???</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
We 're still using rockets ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
We're still using rockets??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597703</id>
	<title>another example why government is not the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246909080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are you sure you want them to take over health care. NASA is an example of how slow things progress when uncle sam is in charge. good old broke uncle sam has been unable to repeat their success from the 1960 (remember they had help from captured German scientists back then to help...)  this story shows how private industry is always the best answer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are you sure you want them to take over health care .
NASA is an example of how slow things progress when uncle sam is in charge .
good old broke uncle sam has been unable to repeat their success from the 1960 ( remember they had help from captured German scientists back then to help... ) this story shows how private industry is always the best answer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are you sure you want them to take over health care.
NASA is an example of how slow things progress when uncle sam is in charge.
good old broke uncle sam has been unable to repeat their success from the 1960 (remember they had help from captured German scientists back then to help...)  this story shows how private industry is always the best answer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28612167</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might be missing something, could anybody explain why 5 Newtons of thrust at 30,000 seconds is better than Shuttle's 10 Mega Newtons at 450 seconds?</p><p>My (maybe flawed) calculation shows that Shuttle engines are giving 30,000 times greater impulse than VASIMR. Is potential VASIMIR vehicle going to weight 30,000 times less than less?</p><p>VASIMR impulse = 30,000 * 5 Ns = 150,000 Ns<br>Shuttle Impulse = 450 * 10,000,000 Ns = 4,500,000,000 Ns</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be missing something , could anybody explain why 5 Newtons of thrust at 30,000 seconds is better than Shuttle 's 10 Mega Newtons at 450 seconds ? My ( maybe flawed ) calculation shows that Shuttle engines are giving 30,000 times greater impulse than VASIMR .
Is potential VASIMIR vehicle going to weight 30,000 times less than less ? VASIMR impulse = 30,000 * 5 Ns = 150,000 NsShuttle Impulse = 450 * 10,000,000 Ns = 4,500,000,000 Ns</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be missing something, could anybody explain why 5 Newtons of thrust at 30,000 seconds is better than Shuttle's 10 Mega Newtons at 450 seconds?My (maybe flawed) calculation shows that Shuttle engines are giving 30,000 times greater impulse than VASIMR.
Is potential VASIMIR vehicle going to weight 30,000 times less than less?VASIMR impulse = 30,000 * 5 Ns = 150,000 NsShuttle Impulse = 450 * 10,000,000 Ns = 4,500,000,000 Ns</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598351</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not get out of hand about Mars</title>
	<author>olderphart</author>
	<datestamp>1246911960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're thinking about an unaccelerated Hohmann transfer orbit.</p><p>Continuous acceleration greatly mitigates the cost of out-of-phase travel to Mars. And, since you're carting along a honkin' heavy nuclear reactor and you're starting in orbit, there's no reason NOT to use it continuously.</p><p>--<br>phunctor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking about an unaccelerated Hohmann transfer orbit.Continuous acceleration greatly mitigates the cost of out-of-phase travel to Mars .
And , since you 're carting along a honkin ' heavy nuclear reactor and you 're starting in orbit , there 's no reason NOT to use it continuously.--phunctor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking about an unaccelerated Hohmann transfer orbit.Continuous acceleration greatly mitigates the cost of out-of-phase travel to Mars.
And, since you're carting along a honkin' heavy nuclear reactor and you're starting in orbit, there's no reason NOT to use it continuously.--phunctor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598681</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not get out of hand about Mars</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1246913580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been a couple decades for me, too, though my masters class in space vehicle guidance and nav had the final as a mars shot (NASA Admin Griffin was the professor; yes he has always been hyped on mars!)</p><p>Anyway, while the sibling posts are correct, there are orders of magnitude between this technology  and the reality of meaningfully shifting the duration of a Mars shot.  There are certain "safe" transfer orbits which get the crew back to earth automatically (you can intercept mars, and if you miss injection your orbit will return you to earth orbit, tangent to earth's orbit, and at the same time that earth is in that location).</p><p>Even if you go with a non-safe orbit (non-tangential initial delta V) which doesn't intercept Mars at perihelion (Hohmann transfer of you leave earth tangential to the orbit), you've got to have some significant acceleration.</p><p>Now, this thing is going to need 200kW per engine to apply 5N worth of thrust. To get this into perspective, do you remember those old Estes engines you played with as a kid? The small ones produce about 5N of thrust. Now, strap one of those to a 200kW generator. The Topaz generator, flown by the Soviets produced 5kW of power and weighed over a ton. Now, that's the only thing I could find on google in 2 seconds, so we'll assume you can get an order of magnitude better performance today - strap that Estes C6 engine to a 5,000lb nuclear reactor. You're not exactly going to be racing the new Veyron in terms of acceleration. (okay, the Veyron won't do well in space...point taken).</p><p>If you do the math, I'm thinking you'll be getting 0.0001m/s/s acceleration if you count the generator/engine combo as 50\% of the spaceship mass. In 9 months, you'll be traveling at 2.3km/s faster than when you left earth orbit, which was probably in the 6-7km/s range. At that point you can turn around and start decelerating to you reach Mars at a desirable rate.</p><p>None of which really matters (since the orbital durations may be highly suspect), except to say that you're not going to be getting any massive delta-V out of this thing on a short term basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a couple decades for me , too , though my masters class in space vehicle guidance and nav had the final as a mars shot ( NASA Admin Griffin was the professor ; yes he has always been hyped on mars !
) Anyway , while the sibling posts are correct , there are orders of magnitude between this technology and the reality of meaningfully shifting the duration of a Mars shot .
There are certain " safe " transfer orbits which get the crew back to earth automatically ( you can intercept mars , and if you miss injection your orbit will return you to earth orbit , tangent to earth 's orbit , and at the same time that earth is in that location ) .Even if you go with a non-safe orbit ( non-tangential initial delta V ) which does n't intercept Mars at perihelion ( Hohmann transfer of you leave earth tangential to the orbit ) , you 've got to have some significant acceleration.Now , this thing is going to need 200kW per engine to apply 5N worth of thrust .
To get this into perspective , do you remember those old Estes engines you played with as a kid ?
The small ones produce about 5N of thrust .
Now , strap one of those to a 200kW generator .
The Topaz generator , flown by the Soviets produced 5kW of power and weighed over a ton .
Now , that 's the only thing I could find on google in 2 seconds , so we 'll assume you can get an order of magnitude better performance today - strap that Estes C6 engine to a 5,000lb nuclear reactor .
You 're not exactly going to be racing the new Veyron in terms of acceleration .
( okay , the Veyron wo n't do well in space...point taken ) .If you do the math , I 'm thinking you 'll be getting 0.0001m/s/s acceleration if you count the generator/engine combo as 50 \ % of the spaceship mass .
In 9 months , you 'll be traveling at 2.3km/s faster than when you left earth orbit , which was probably in the 6-7km/s range .
At that point you can turn around and start decelerating to you reach Mars at a desirable rate.None of which really matters ( since the orbital durations may be highly suspect ) , except to say that you 're not going to be getting any massive delta-V out of this thing on a short term basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a couple decades for me, too, though my masters class in space vehicle guidance and nav had the final as a mars shot (NASA Admin Griffin was the professor; yes he has always been hyped on mars!
)Anyway, while the sibling posts are correct, there are orders of magnitude between this technology  and the reality of meaningfully shifting the duration of a Mars shot.
There are certain "safe" transfer orbits which get the crew back to earth automatically (you can intercept mars, and if you miss injection your orbit will return you to earth orbit, tangent to earth's orbit, and at the same time that earth is in that location).Even if you go with a non-safe orbit (non-tangential initial delta V) which doesn't intercept Mars at perihelion (Hohmann transfer of you leave earth tangential to the orbit), you've got to have some significant acceleration.Now, this thing is going to need 200kW per engine to apply 5N worth of thrust.
To get this into perspective, do you remember those old Estes engines you played with as a kid?
The small ones produce about 5N of thrust.
Now, strap one of those to a 200kW generator.
The Topaz generator, flown by the Soviets produced 5kW of power and weighed over a ton.
Now, that's the only thing I could find on google in 2 seconds, so we'll assume you can get an order of magnitude better performance today - strap that Estes C6 engine to a 5,000lb nuclear reactor.
You're not exactly going to be racing the new Veyron in terms of acceleration.
(okay, the Veyron won't do well in space...point taken).If you do the math, I'm thinking you'll be getting 0.0001m/s/s acceleration if you count the generator/engine combo as 50\% of the spaceship mass.
In 9 months, you'll be traveling at 2.3km/s faster than when you left earth orbit, which was probably in the 6-7km/s range.
At that point you can turn around and start decelerating to you reach Mars at a desirable rate.None of which really matters (since the orbital durations may be highly suspect), except to say that you're not going to be getting any massive delta-V out of this thing on a short term basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</id>
	<title>High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you who are unclear on why the VASMIR system is so cool, allow me to give you a brief bit of background. Practically every propulsion method developed to date falls into one of two categories:</p><p>1. High thrust, low efficiency<br>2. Low thrust, high efficiency</p><p>Generally how it works is that the more power you get out of engines, the less energy you extract from the fuel. This is the case of chemical fuels like Liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen or Kerosine. These fuels provide the massive amounts of thrust necessary to get off the ground, but they burn through their fuel very quickly. Interestingly, LHOx is more efficient than Kerosine, but it's also harder to get as much raw thrust out of it. That's one of the reasons why Kerosine was the heavy lifter during the space race with the LHOx engines reserved for in-space stages.</p><p>On the other side of the coin, you have engines like Ion propulsion. These engines are able to inject incredible amounts of energy into tiny amounts of fuel, thus making them extremely fuel efficient. The only problem is that the amount of thrust is very low. Most of the ion engines that have operated to date produce thrust that matches the weight of a sheet of paper. Definitely not enough for liftoff, but perfect for extended missions in space where constant low thrust provides more velocity over time than the chemical engines which fire once, then coast the rest of the way.</p><p>The problem with both types of engines is that neither one gets spacecraft to their destination all that fast. Chemical rockets have the thrust to do it, but you couldn't feasibly build a chemical rocket with enough fuel to get you to another planet in a reasonable amount of time. A nuclear pulse propulsion craft could feasibly get fairly close, but it would just have more power in the intial thrust rather than providing a constant, high power thrust. (Obviously these have been discounted over the difficulties of building a large enough craft without using a nuclear ground launch. Nuclear ground launches are a no-no under current test-ban treaties.)</p><p>This is where VASMIR comes in. These engines are incredibly efficient. The specific impulse (measurement of efficiency) is between 3,000-30,000 seconds depending on the configuration and current thrust levels of the engine. This compares favorably with the ~450 seconds of shuttle engines and 3,000-10,000 seconds of Ion thrusters. Meanwhile, the thrust of Ion engines ranges from 90-3,000 mN while the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.</p><p>What this means is that we may be able to build spacecraft where a trip from LEO to the moon is a daily affair and a trip from LEO to Mars takes only a few months (or less!) vs. the current flight time of nearly a year. The better these engines get (and the more we can put on a craft), the faster those flight times will get!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you who are unclear on why the VASMIR system is so cool , allow me to give you a brief bit of background .
Practically every propulsion method developed to date falls into one of two categories : 1 .
High thrust , low efficiency2 .
Low thrust , high efficiencyGenerally how it works is that the more power you get out of engines , the less energy you extract from the fuel .
This is the case of chemical fuels like Liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen or Kerosine .
These fuels provide the massive amounts of thrust necessary to get off the ground , but they burn through their fuel very quickly .
Interestingly , LHOx is more efficient than Kerosine , but it 's also harder to get as much raw thrust out of it .
That 's one of the reasons why Kerosine was the heavy lifter during the space race with the LHOx engines reserved for in-space stages.On the other side of the coin , you have engines like Ion propulsion .
These engines are able to inject incredible amounts of energy into tiny amounts of fuel , thus making them extremely fuel efficient .
The only problem is that the amount of thrust is very low .
Most of the ion engines that have operated to date produce thrust that matches the weight of a sheet of paper .
Definitely not enough for liftoff , but perfect for extended missions in space where constant low thrust provides more velocity over time than the chemical engines which fire once , then coast the rest of the way.The problem with both types of engines is that neither one gets spacecraft to their destination all that fast .
Chemical rockets have the thrust to do it , but you could n't feasibly build a chemical rocket with enough fuel to get you to another planet in a reasonable amount of time .
A nuclear pulse propulsion craft could feasibly get fairly close , but it would just have more power in the intial thrust rather than providing a constant , high power thrust .
( Obviously these have been discounted over the difficulties of building a large enough craft without using a nuclear ground launch .
Nuclear ground launches are a no-no under current test-ban treaties .
) This is where VASMIR comes in .
These engines are incredibly efficient .
The specific impulse ( measurement of efficiency ) is between 3,000-30,000 seconds depending on the configuration and current thrust levels of the engine .
This compares favorably with the ~ 450 seconds of shuttle engines and 3,000-10,000 seconds of Ion thrusters .
Meanwhile , the thrust of Ion engines ranges from 90-3,000 mN while the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~ 5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.What this means is that we may be able to build spacecraft where a trip from LEO to the moon is a daily affair and a trip from LEO to Mars takes only a few months ( or less !
) vs. the current flight time of nearly a year .
The better these engines get ( and the more we can put on a craft ) , the faster those flight times will get !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you who are unclear on why the VASMIR system is so cool, allow me to give you a brief bit of background.
Practically every propulsion method developed to date falls into one of two categories:1.
High thrust, low efficiency2.
Low thrust, high efficiencyGenerally how it works is that the more power you get out of engines, the less energy you extract from the fuel.
This is the case of chemical fuels like Liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen or Kerosine.
These fuels provide the massive amounts of thrust necessary to get off the ground, but they burn through their fuel very quickly.
Interestingly, LHOx is more efficient than Kerosine, but it's also harder to get as much raw thrust out of it.
That's one of the reasons why Kerosine was the heavy lifter during the space race with the LHOx engines reserved for in-space stages.On the other side of the coin, you have engines like Ion propulsion.
These engines are able to inject incredible amounts of energy into tiny amounts of fuel, thus making them extremely fuel efficient.
The only problem is that the amount of thrust is very low.
Most of the ion engines that have operated to date produce thrust that matches the weight of a sheet of paper.
Definitely not enough for liftoff, but perfect for extended missions in space where constant low thrust provides more velocity over time than the chemical engines which fire once, then coast the rest of the way.The problem with both types of engines is that neither one gets spacecraft to their destination all that fast.
Chemical rockets have the thrust to do it, but you couldn't feasibly build a chemical rocket with enough fuel to get you to another planet in a reasonable amount of time.
A nuclear pulse propulsion craft could feasibly get fairly close, but it would just have more power in the intial thrust rather than providing a constant, high power thrust.
(Obviously these have been discounted over the difficulties of building a large enough craft without using a nuclear ground launch.
Nuclear ground launches are a no-no under current test-ban treaties.
)This is where VASMIR comes in.
These engines are incredibly efficient.
The specific impulse (measurement of efficiency) is between 3,000-30,000 seconds depending on the configuration and current thrust levels of the engine.
This compares favorably with the ~450 seconds of shuttle engines and 3,000-10,000 seconds of Ion thrusters.
Meanwhile, the thrust of Ion engines ranges from 90-3,000 mN while the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.What this means is that we may be able to build spacecraft where a trip from LEO to the moon is a daily affair and a trip from LEO to Mars takes only a few months (or less!
) vs. the current flight time of nearly a year.
The better these engines get (and the more we can put on a craft), the faster those flight times will get!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597605</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>She told me its real name is "hanky-dinky."</htmltext>
<tokenext>She told me its real name is " hanky-dinky .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She told me its real name is "hanky-dinky.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598187</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1246911360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real breakthrough will be takeoff to spaceflight in one stage with a sustained 1G of acceleration (I seem to remember that 1G X 355 days = 92\% C) if we do that our future may be brighter than it looks now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real breakthrough will be takeoff to spaceflight in one stage with a sustained 1G of acceleration ( I seem to remember that 1G X 355 days = 92 \ % C ) if we do that our future may be brighter than it looks now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real breakthrough will be takeoff to spaceflight in one stage with a sustained 1G of acceleration (I seem to remember that 1G X 355 days = 92\% C) if we do that our future may be brighter than it looks now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598671</id>
	<title>Re:Yiddish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yiddish isn't a creole. A creole is a language that has been created starting from a simple pidgin, then gradually become complex enough to use as a complete language on its own. Yiddish, in contrast, evolved from a language that was already complete. Yiddish has lots of loanwords from Hebrew and the Slavic languages. But in most respects it's Germanic and not a creole.</p><p>Still, I enjoyed your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yiddish is n't a creole .
A creole is a language that has been created starting from a simple pidgin , then gradually become complex enough to use as a complete language on its own .
Yiddish , in contrast , evolved from a language that was already complete .
Yiddish has lots of loanwords from Hebrew and the Slavic languages .
But in most respects it 's Germanic and not a creole.Still , I enjoyed your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yiddish isn't a creole.
A creole is a language that has been created starting from a simple pidgin, then gradually become complex enough to use as a complete language on its own.
Yiddish, in contrast, evolved from a language that was already complete.
Yiddish has lots of loanwords from Hebrew and the Slavic languages.
But in most respects it's Germanic and not a creole.Still, I enjoyed your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597081</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you into dicks, brah?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you into dicks , brah ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you into dicks, brah?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597243</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>CubicleView</author>
	<datestamp>1246907400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should call it a WMD.<br> <br>
Since your lady probably has trouble finding it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should call it a WMD .
Since your lady probably has trouble finding it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should call it a WMD.
Since your lady probably has trouble finding it....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596971</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>Penguin Follower</author>
	<datestamp>1246906200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tasteless yet hilarious. Two thumbs up!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tasteless yet hilarious .
Two thumbs up !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tasteless yet hilarious.
Two thumbs up!
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28601157</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.</p></div></blockquote><p>5000 mN, 5N, is enough force to lift a 1lb melon 1 meter every dozen seconds, increasing by a meter every dozen seconds, away from our 1G Earth (F=ma). 200KW (268HP) is about triple the redline output of a big car engine. We clearly have a lot of efficiency improvements to look forward to in our climbs into space.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~ 5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.5000 mN , 5N , is enough force to lift a 1lb melon 1 meter every dozen seconds , increasing by a meter every dozen seconds , away from our 1G Earth ( F = ma ) .
200KW ( 268HP ) is about triple the redline output of a big car engine .
We clearly have a lot of efficiency improvements to look forward to in our climbs into space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.5000 mN, 5N, is enough force to lift a 1lb melon 1 meter every dozen seconds, increasing by a meter every dozen seconds, away from our 1G Earth (F=ma).
200KW (268HP) is about triple the redline output of a big car engine.
We clearly have a lot of efficiency improvements to look forward to in our climbs into space.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600219</id>
	<title>Re:Checklist</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1246877100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The engine control computer can run linux -- four out of four.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The engine control computer can run linux -- four out of four .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The engine control computer can run linux -- four out of four.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597711</id>
	<title>Summary Wrong</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1246909080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was a full power test of the superconducting magnet and first stage only.  The first stage is a 30kW ionization stage.  The 170kW RF second stage has not yet been tested.  Testing of the combined first and second stage will commence July 14th.  From the manufacturer's site:  <a href="http://www.adastrarocket.com/Release\%20020709.pdf" title="adastrarocket.com">http://www.adastrarocket.com/Release\%20020709.pdf</a> [adastrarocket.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was a full power test of the superconducting magnet and first stage only .
The first stage is a 30kW ionization stage .
The 170kW RF second stage has not yet been tested .
Testing of the combined first and second stage will commence July 14th .
From the manufacturer 's site : http : //www.adastrarocket.com/Release \ % 20020709.pdf [ adastrarocket.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was a full power test of the superconducting magnet and first stage only.
The first stage is a 30kW ionization stage.
The 170kW RF second stage has not yet been tested.
Testing of the combined first and second stage will commence July 14th.
From the manufacturer's site:  http://www.adastrarocket.com/Release\%20020709.pdf [adastrarocket.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596993</id>
	<title>Any idea what the thrust level is?</title>
	<author>Thagg</author>
	<datestamp>1246906260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it a newton?  More?</p><p>Apparently the power level was only sustained for a second or so...it's going to have to run for a month or so to be useful, but this is probably a good start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it a newton ?
More ? Apparently the power level was only sustained for a second or so...it 's going to have to run for a month or so to be useful , but this is probably a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it a newton?
More?Apparently the power level was only sustained for a second or so...it's going to have to run for a month or so to be useful, but this is probably a good start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597015</id>
	<title>170 kW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how many pounds of thrust is that? And how much does the thing weigh?<br> <br>
TFA is light on details, it reads like a press release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how many pounds of thrust is that ?
And how much does the thing weigh ?
TFA is light on details , it reads like a press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many pounds of thrust is that?
And how much does the thing weigh?
TFA is light on details, it reads like a press release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597117</id>
	<title>200 kW</title>
	<author>slashkitty</author>
	<datestamp>1246906800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's like the power of my car.. 268 hp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like the power of my car.. 268 hp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like the power of my car.. 268 hp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599047</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not get out of hand about Mars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246872180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not thinking it through. Yes, there's an optimal travel window when Earth and Mars pass each other in orbit once every couple of years. But if you have "better thrusters", you can cut the travel time within that window. A constant-thrust plasma rocket could give you a two-month travel time once every two years, rather than the seven-month travel time every two years that we have now. Or a six-month round trip centered on the conjunction instead of a three year round trip because you have to wait for the next one. This would certainly make a manned expedition more feasible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not thinking it through .
Yes , there 's an optimal travel window when Earth and Mars pass each other in orbit once every couple of years .
But if you have " better thrusters " , you can cut the travel time within that window .
A constant-thrust plasma rocket could give you a two-month travel time once every two years , rather than the seven-month travel time every two years that we have now .
Or a six-month round trip centered on the conjunction instead of a three year round trip because you have to wait for the next one .
This would certainly make a manned expedition more feasible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not thinking it through.
Yes, there's an optimal travel window when Earth and Mars pass each other in orbit once every couple of years.
But if you have "better thrusters", you can cut the travel time within that window.
A constant-thrust plasma rocket could give you a two-month travel time once every two years, rather than the seven-month travel time every two years that we have now.
Or a six-month round trip centered on the conjunction instead of a three year round trip because you have to wait for the next one.
This would certainly make a manned expedition more feasible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523</id>
	<title>Let's not get out of hand about Mars</title>
	<author>mathimus1863</author>
	<datestamp>1246908420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a comment before people get out of hand talking about how quickly we can go to Mars with better thrusters... anyone who's taken a class on Orbital mechanics should know that you can't just decide to go to Mars whenever you like.  Part of the problem with trips to Mars is the distance, but also the <b>timing</b>.  It would be extremely difficult to do an orbital transfer from Earth to Mars while they are on opposite sides of the sun.  It would add months, if not years, to your trip, and the fuel requirements certainly wouldn't be aided by it.  Unfortunately, because the an Earth-year and Mars-year are so close (like 1 mars-year is 1.8 earth years...?) it takes a while for the orbits to sync up again once they get out of sync (isn't this known as beat frequency in the audio world?).
<br> <br>
Now don't quote me on this b/c it's been a while since I took orbital mechanics... but I seem to remember the "optimal" window for an Earth-to-Mars transfer opening up once every 2.5 years, it would take 8 months to travel there, 90-98\% of your ship's mass would have to be fuel, and then you'd have to wait 1.5 more years for the "optimal" Mars-to-Earth orbital transfer window.  In other words, doing a round-trip flight to Mars is no trivial matter.
<br> <br>
Even with a more efficient fuel, perhaps you can stretch those windows, but you're not going to find an astronaut who is willing to leave now for a 1.5-year-commute to Mars, instead of waiting a year and doing an 8-month-commute.  Even if those times are shrunk by a factor of 2 with a more efficient fuel, it's always going to be a huge operation.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a comment before people get out of hand talking about how quickly we can go to Mars with better thrusters... anyone who 's taken a class on Orbital mechanics should know that you ca n't just decide to go to Mars whenever you like .
Part of the problem with trips to Mars is the distance , but also the timing .
It would be extremely difficult to do an orbital transfer from Earth to Mars while they are on opposite sides of the sun .
It would add months , if not years , to your trip , and the fuel requirements certainly would n't be aided by it .
Unfortunately , because the an Earth-year and Mars-year are so close ( like 1 mars-year is 1.8 earth years... ?
) it takes a while for the orbits to sync up again once they get out of sync ( is n't this known as beat frequency in the audio world ? ) .
Now do n't quote me on this b/c it 's been a while since I took orbital mechanics... but I seem to remember the " optimal " window for an Earth-to-Mars transfer opening up once every 2.5 years , it would take 8 months to travel there , 90-98 \ % of your ship 's mass would have to be fuel , and then you 'd have to wait 1.5 more years for the " optimal " Mars-to-Earth orbital transfer window .
In other words , doing a round-trip flight to Mars is no trivial matter .
Even with a more efficient fuel , perhaps you can stretch those windows , but you 're not going to find an astronaut who is willing to leave now for a 1.5-year-commute to Mars , instead of waiting a year and doing an 8-month-commute .
Even if those times are shrunk by a factor of 2 with a more efficient fuel , it 's always going to be a huge operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a comment before people get out of hand talking about how quickly we can go to Mars with better thrusters... anyone who's taken a class on Orbital mechanics should know that you can't just decide to go to Mars whenever you like.
Part of the problem with trips to Mars is the distance, but also the timing.
It would be extremely difficult to do an orbital transfer from Earth to Mars while they are on opposite sides of the sun.
It would add months, if not years, to your trip, and the fuel requirements certainly wouldn't be aided by it.
Unfortunately, because the an Earth-year and Mars-year are so close (like 1 mars-year is 1.8 earth years...?
) it takes a while for the orbits to sync up again once they get out of sync (isn't this known as beat frequency in the audio world?).
Now don't quote me on this b/c it's been a while since I took orbital mechanics... but I seem to remember the "optimal" window for an Earth-to-Mars transfer opening up once every 2.5 years, it would take 8 months to travel there, 90-98\% of your ship's mass would have to be fuel, and then you'd have to wait 1.5 more years for the "optimal" Mars-to-Earth orbital transfer window.
In other words, doing a round-trip flight to Mars is no trivial matter.
Even with a more efficient fuel, perhaps you can stretch those windows, but you're not going to find an astronaut who is willing to leave now for a 1.5-year-commute to Mars, instead of waiting a year and doing an 8-month-commute.
Even if those times are shrunk by a factor of 2 with a more efficient fuel, it's always going to be a huge operation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599351</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246873380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both are, to some extent. You (and Wikipedia) are correct in that VASIMR engines can change between high-power and high-efficiency (think of it like changing gears in your car; you're much more fuel-efficient cruising in top gear, but can accelerate much harder in low gear). Indeed, that's a fundamental characteristic of the engine, and explains the first two letters of the acronym (VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket). However, the OP is also correct in that VASIMIR engines are extremely efficient in general. Part of this is due to their variability - as with a car, the efficient way to use a rocket is to increase its specific impulse (gear ratio/fuel efficiency) as its speed increases (currently no other rocket engine that I know of can do this). On the other hand, look at the high-end of that specific impulse - it's several times what our best Ion drives produce, while also putting out substantially more thrust. Theoretically, VASIMR engines are strictly superior (in terms of thrust and SIP, at least) to ion engines.</p><p>Of course, even at maximum thrust, current VASIMR drive designs produce *maybe* enough thrust to lift about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 kilos (call it 1 lb) into space from the surface. Since the engine itself masses far more than that, you'll still need something with <b>really</b> high thrust to get it into space in the first place. Based on that, chemical engines will probably be around for a while, unless we can whip up a space elevator while we're at it. Theoretically you could run more power through a VASIMR and get more thrust, but I suspect the practical limit on doing so is far less than would be required for liftoff (if you could even get it to operate in an atmosphere). Even without that, though, it would be an incredible boon to intrasystem travel, or for station-keeping engines on satellites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are , to some extent .
You ( and Wikipedia ) are correct in that VASIMR engines can change between high-power and high-efficiency ( think of it like changing gears in your car ; you 're much more fuel-efficient cruising in top gear , but can accelerate much harder in low gear ) .
Indeed , that 's a fundamental characteristic of the engine , and explains the first two letters of the acronym ( VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket ) .
However , the OP is also correct in that VASIMIR engines are extremely efficient in general .
Part of this is due to their variability - as with a car , the efficient way to use a rocket is to increase its specific impulse ( gear ratio/fuel efficiency ) as its speed increases ( currently no other rocket engine that I know of can do this ) .
On the other hand , look at the high-end of that specific impulse - it 's several times what our best Ion drives produce , while also putting out substantially more thrust .
Theoretically , VASIMR engines are strictly superior ( in terms of thrust and SIP , at least ) to ion engines.Of course , even at maximum thrust , current VASIMR drive designs produce * maybe * enough thrust to lift about .5 kilos ( call it 1 lb ) into space from the surface .
Since the engine itself masses far more than that , you 'll still need something with really high thrust to get it into space in the first place .
Based on that , chemical engines will probably be around for a while , unless we can whip up a space elevator while we 're at it .
Theoretically you could run more power through a VASIMR and get more thrust , but I suspect the practical limit on doing so is far less than would be required for liftoff ( if you could even get it to operate in an atmosphere ) .
Even without that , though , it would be an incredible boon to intrasystem travel , or for station-keeping engines on satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are, to some extent.
You (and Wikipedia) are correct in that VASIMR engines can change between high-power and high-efficiency (think of it like changing gears in your car; you're much more fuel-efficient cruising in top gear, but can accelerate much harder in low gear).
Indeed, that's a fundamental characteristic of the engine, and explains the first two letters of the acronym (VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket).
However, the OP is also correct in that VASIMIR engines are extremely efficient in general.
Part of this is due to their variability - as with a car, the efficient way to use a rocket is to increase its specific impulse (gear ratio/fuel efficiency) as its speed increases (currently no other rocket engine that I know of can do this).
On the other hand, look at the high-end of that specific impulse - it's several times what our best Ion drives produce, while also putting out substantially more thrust.
Theoretically, VASIMR engines are strictly superior (in terms of thrust and SIP, at least) to ion engines.Of course, even at maximum thrust, current VASIMR drive designs produce *maybe* enough thrust to lift about .5 kilos (call it 1 lb) into space from the surface.
Since the engine itself masses far more than that, you'll still need something with really high thrust to get it into space in the first place.
Based on that, chemical engines will probably be around for a while, unless we can whip up a space elevator while we're at it.
Theoretically you could run more power through a VASIMR and get more thrust, but I suspect the practical limit on doing so is far less than would be required for liftoff (if you could even get it to operate in an atmosphere).
Even without that, though, it would be an incredible boon to intrasystem travel, or for station-keeping engines on satellites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596893</id>
	<title>Total power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The second stage is designed to inject up to 170 kW of additional power into the plasma for a total of 200 kW, the engine&#226;(TM)s total rated power.</i></p><p>I don't really know anything about wattage or electricity or science, but that doesn't sound like much power to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The second stage is designed to inject up to 170 kW of additional power into the plasma for a total of 200 kW , the engine   ( TM ) s total rated power.I do n't really know anything about wattage or electricity or science , but that does n't sound like much power to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second stage is designed to inject up to 170 kW of additional power into the plasma for a total of 200 kW, the engineâ(TM)s total rated power.I don't really know anything about wattage or electricity or science, but that doesn't sound like much power to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597325</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>Hubbell</author>
	<datestamp>1246907760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_Thermal\_Rocket" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Nuclear Thermal Rockets</a> [wikipedia.org] have already been tested and shown to be incredibly powerful/efficient with designs from the 60s and 70s, so what is the breakthrough here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear Thermal Rockets [ wikipedia.org ] have already been tested and shown to be incredibly powerful/efficient with designs from the 60s and 70s , so what is the breakthrough here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear Thermal Rockets [wikipedia.org] have already been tested and shown to be incredibly powerful/efficient with designs from the 60s and 70s, so what is the breakthrough here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597497</id>
	<title>What we need</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are human pod-biospheres for the ungrateful comatose &amp; paralyzed individuals that do nothing but lay there all day. Pod 'em and ship 'em to space. Use brain-interface devices to control machines to do common tasks, such as drilling for water on mars, or plantings trees near the equator.</p><p>What? Once they get strong enough they'll be herding us like sheep, from planet to planet, sometimes maliciously and sometimes to a planet not quite terraformed... but you get my drift. We can have all the rocket technology in the Universe, but until we shed this soft skin for the glimmering metals and plastics of machinery -- even if we have to 'nuclefy' our entire human body -- we're not getting anywhere off this planet in enough droves to save our collected humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are human pod-biospheres for the ungrateful comatose &amp; paralyzed individuals that do nothing but lay there all day .
Pod 'em and ship 'em to space .
Use brain-interface devices to control machines to do common tasks , such as drilling for water on mars , or plantings trees near the equator.What ?
Once they get strong enough they 'll be herding us like sheep , from planet to planet , sometimes maliciously and sometimes to a planet not quite terraformed... but you get my drift .
We can have all the rocket technology in the Universe , but until we shed this soft skin for the glimmering metals and plastics of machinery -- even if we have to 'nuclefy ' our entire human body -- we 're not getting anywhere off this planet in enough droves to save our collected humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are human pod-biospheres for the ungrateful comatose &amp; paralyzed individuals that do nothing but lay there all day.
Pod 'em and ship 'em to space.
Use brain-interface devices to control machines to do common tasks, such as drilling for water on mars, or plantings trees near the equator.What?
Once they get strong enough they'll be herding us like sheep, from planet to planet, sometimes maliciously and sometimes to a planet not quite terraformed... but you get my drift.
We can have all the rocket technology in the Universe, but until we shed this soft skin for the glimmering metals and plastics of machinery -- even if we have to 'nuclefy' our entire human body -- we're not getting anywhere off this planet in enough droves to save our collected humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599453</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246873680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd still have to haul around a LOT of fuel; they can't sustain thrust for anywhere near the time that a VASIMR could. This is not to say they aren't fantastic, and they CAN produce enough thrust for takeoff from earth (something no rocket using an ionized reaction mass - like a VASIMR - is ever likely to accomplish). Once you're in space, though, a VASIMR is more efficient, lasts longer, and (in the long run) allows much faster travel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd still have to haul around a LOT of fuel ; they ca n't sustain thrust for anywhere near the time that a VASIMR could .
This is not to say they are n't fantastic , and they CAN produce enough thrust for takeoff from earth ( something no rocket using an ionized reaction mass - like a VASIMR - is ever likely to accomplish ) .
Once you 're in space , though , a VASIMR is more efficient , lasts longer , and ( in the long run ) allows much faster travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd still have to haul around a LOT of fuel; they can't sustain thrust for anywhere near the time that a VASIMR could.
This is not to say they aren't fantastic, and they CAN produce enough thrust for takeoff from earth (something no rocket using an ionized reaction mass - like a VASIMR - is ever likely to accomplish).
Once you're in space, though, a VASIMR is more efficient, lasts longer, and (in the long run) allows much faster travel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600637</id>
	<title>Re:170 kW?</title>
	<author>electrostatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246879380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The expected thrust is 5 newtons for 200 kW of power..." (posted above)<br> <br>
An apple weighs about a Newton, which is 0.225 pounds. So 5 newtons is a bit more than a pound of thrust.<br>
200 KW is about 268 horsepower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The expected thrust is 5 newtons for 200 kW of power... " ( posted above ) An apple weighs about a Newton , which is 0.225 pounds .
So 5 newtons is a bit more than a pound of thrust .
200 KW is about 268 horsepower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The expected thrust is 5 newtons for 200 kW of power..." (posted above) 
An apple weighs about a Newton, which is 0.225 pounds.
So 5 newtons is a bit more than a pound of thrust.
200 KW is about 268 horsepower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597615</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1246908780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too much to remember<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. why not just use your slashdot user name ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too much to remember .. why not just use your slashdot user name ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too much to remember .. why not just use your slashdot user name ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597965</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not get out of hand about Mars</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1246910340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're mixing about a zillion different orbits into one recollection.</p><p>If you've got enough fuel, just turn and burn man... simple.  Of course that takes a heck of a lot of fuel, like your idea of 98\% mass fraction of fuel.</p><p>A Hohmann TO is the simplest imaginable transfer to design and is pretty quick too.  Draw an ellipse that touches both orbits...</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann\_transfer\_orbit" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann\_transfer\_orbit</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>A Bi-elliptic is way slow, but if you're making a major/huge change to your orbital parameters it takes less fuel.  Enter a giant orbit way the heck out there, then on the return pass enter your new orbit.  Handy for inclination changes too.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic\_transfer" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic\_transfer</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>And if you literally have decades of spare time there is the famous "ITN" which takes practically no fuel and takes practically forever, which works by wandering around the various eddies of the Lagrange points or something very vaguely like that.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary\_Transport\_Network" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary\_Transport\_Network</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>As for your claim of 98\% mass fraction, check out the math on</p><p><a href="http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Smars2.htm" title="iki.rssi.ru">http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Smars2.htm</a> [iki.rssi.ru]</p><p>"showing we need add just 2.966 km/s, a shade short of 3 km/s or 10\% of the orbital velocity."</p><p>and then when you get there you need another 2.5 km/s to match mars orbit, although you can play various gravitational slingshot games to help that out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're mixing about a zillion different orbits into one recollection.If you 've got enough fuel , just turn and burn man... simple. Of course that takes a heck of a lot of fuel , like your idea of 98 \ % mass fraction of fuel.A Hohmann TO is the simplest imaginable transfer to design and is pretty quick too .
Draw an ellipse that touches both orbits...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann \ _transfer \ _orbit [ wikipedia.org ] A Bi-elliptic is way slow , but if you 're making a major/huge change to your orbital parameters it takes less fuel .
Enter a giant orbit way the heck out there , then on the return pass enter your new orbit .
Handy for inclination changes too.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic \ _transfer [ wikipedia.org ] And if you literally have decades of spare time there is the famous " ITN " which takes practically no fuel and takes practically forever , which works by wandering around the various eddies of the Lagrange points or something very vaguely like that.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary \ _Transport \ _Network [ wikipedia.org ] As for your claim of 98 \ % mass fraction , check out the math onhttp : //www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Smars2.htm [ iki.rssi.ru ] " showing we need add just 2.966 km/s , a shade short of 3 km/s or 10 \ % of the orbital velocity .
" and then when you get there you need another 2.5 km/s to match mars orbit , although you can play various gravitational slingshot games to help that out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're mixing about a zillion different orbits into one recollection.If you've got enough fuel, just turn and burn man... simple.  Of course that takes a heck of a lot of fuel, like your idea of 98\% mass fraction of fuel.A Hohmann TO is the simplest imaginable transfer to design and is pretty quick too.
Draw an ellipse that touches both orbits...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann\_transfer\_orbit [wikipedia.org]A Bi-elliptic is way slow, but if you're making a major/huge change to your orbital parameters it takes less fuel.
Enter a giant orbit way the heck out there, then on the return pass enter your new orbit.
Handy for inclination changes too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic\_transfer [wikipedia.org]And if you literally have decades of spare time there is the famous "ITN" which takes practically no fuel and takes practically forever, which works by wandering around the various eddies of the Lagrange points or something very vaguely like that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary\_Transport\_Network [wikipedia.org]As for your claim of 98\% mass fraction, check out the math onhttp://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Smars2.htm [iki.rssi.ru]"showing we need add just 2.966 km/s, a shade short of 3 km/s or 10\% of the orbital velocity.
"and then when you get there you need another 2.5 km/s to match mars orbit, although you can play various gravitational slingshot games to help that out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599943</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1246875840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Meanwhile, the thrust of Ion engines ranges from 90-3,000 mN while the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.</p></div></blockquote><p>~5000 mN sounds nice, but it doesn't sound so significant when we use proper SI - 5 Newtons thrust, rather than 5000 milli-Newtons.
</p><p>In order to get to the moon in a day at 5N, we'd need a vehicle that massed about 25 kg.  Or, perhaps, a 200 MW power plant that massed considerably less than 5 tons - good luck with that.
</p><p>Realisitcally, VASIMR won't substitute for much of anything but an ion drive.  And the only real advantage it has there is that it scales better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , the thrust of Ion engines ranges from 90-3,000 mN while the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~ 5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power. ~ 5000 mN sounds nice , but it does n't sound so significant when we use proper SI - 5 Newtons thrust , rather than 5000 milli-Newtons .
In order to get to the moon in a day at 5N , we 'd need a vehicle that massed about 25 kg .
Or , perhaps , a 200 MW power plant that massed considerably less than 5 tons - good luck with that .
Realisitcally , VASIMR wo n't substitute for much of anything but an ion drive .
And the only real advantage it has there is that it scales better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, the thrust of Ion engines ranges from 90-3,000 mN while the thrust of VASMIR is expected to be ~5000 mN of thrust when tested at 200 kW of power.~5000 mN sounds nice, but it doesn't sound so significant when we use proper SI - 5 Newtons thrust, rather than 5000 milli-Newtons.
In order to get to the moon in a day at 5N, we'd need a vehicle that massed about 25 kg.
Or, perhaps, a 200 MW power plant that massed considerably less than 5 tons - good luck with that.
Realisitcally, VASIMR won't substitute for much of anything but an ion drive.
And the only real advantage it has there is that it scales better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604679</id>
	<title>VX-200?</title>
	<author>MobileC</author>
	<datestamp>1246997280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Otherwise known in Australia as the "Holden Commodore".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise known in Australia as the " Holden Commodore " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise known in Australia as the "Holden Commodore".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599011</id>
	<title>Bleeh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me when we can see a video of it working in all glory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me when we can see a video of it working in all glory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me when we can see a video of it working in all glory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28603863</id>
	<title>Not an infinite thrust engine ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody noticed that this rocket sill needs a supply of propellant ?</p><p>It's some sort of gas or else but it will run out of propellant at some point.....</p><p>So, there is no way the vessel will keep accelerating until the nuclear power plant runs out of fuel...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. It will accelerate until it runs out of some sort physical propellant expelled as mass at the back of the ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody noticed that this rocket sill needs a supply of propellant ? It 's some sort of gas or else but it will run out of propellant at some point.....So , there is no way the vessel will keep accelerating until the nuclear power plant runs out of fuel... .. It will accelerate until it runs out of some sort physical propellant expelled as mass at the back of the ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody noticed that this rocket sill needs a supply of propellant ?It's some sort of gas or else but it will run out of propellant at some point.....So, there is no way the vessel will keep accelerating until the nuclear power plant runs out of fuel... .. It will accelerate until it runs out of some sort physical propellant expelled as mass at the back of the ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599651</id>
	<title>Weaponization</title>
	<author>captainqtp</author>
	<datestamp>1246874460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I keep thinking of Plasma rifles in X-COM. Does this experiment mean we'll be seeing some sort of plasma weapon any time soon? Are there already plasma weapons out there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep thinking of Plasma rifles in X-COM .
Does this experiment mean we 'll be seeing some sort of plasma weapon any time soon ?
Are there already plasma weapons out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep thinking of Plasma rifles in X-COM.
Does this experiment mean we'll be seeing some sort of plasma weapon any time soon?
Are there already plasma weapons out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598065</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>JumperCables233</author>
	<datestamp>1246910760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to say that I reject your theory that ion engines are low-thrust, since I happen to know for a fact that a single-man spacecraft with a Twin Ion Engine is capable of 1,200 km/hr and an acceleration of 4,100 G. Please refer to: <a href="http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ln\_starfighter" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ln\_starfighter</a> [wikia.com] Thank you for your time. Let's keep things grounded in reality, people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say that I reject your theory that ion engines are low-thrust , since I happen to know for a fact that a single-man spacecraft with a Twin Ion Engine is capable of 1,200 km/hr and an acceleration of 4,100 G. Please refer to : http : //starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ln \ _starfighter [ wikia.com ] Thank you for your time .
Let 's keep things grounded in reality , people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say that I reject your theory that ion engines are low-thrust, since I happen to know for a fact that a single-man spacecraft with a Twin Ion Engine is capable of 1,200 km/hr and an acceleration of 4,100 G. Please refer to: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ln\_starfighter [wikia.com] Thank you for your time.
Let's keep things grounded in reality, people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597797</id>
	<title>Re:Power to Power the VASMIR?</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1246909440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuel cell as in H2+O2-&gt;H2O ? I guess that would be even less efficient than plain a plain old chemical rocket engine. Think nuclear. Perhaps solar power could be of some use provided that the craft were not to venture past Mars or the asteroid belt, although this would require either a much smaller variant of the engine of some duty cycle would have to be employed, or both. (The older and smaller versions of this engine are less energy-efficient, though, and it may be actually challenging to maintain high efficiency even for a newly-constructed smaller version, these things happen in engineering all the time - bigger machine, less losses.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuel cell as in H2 + O2- &gt; H2O ?
I guess that would be even less efficient than plain a plain old chemical rocket engine .
Think nuclear .
Perhaps solar power could be of some use provided that the craft were not to venture past Mars or the asteroid belt , although this would require either a much smaller variant of the engine of some duty cycle would have to be employed , or both .
( The older and smaller versions of this engine are less energy-efficient , though , and it may be actually challenging to maintain high efficiency even for a newly-constructed smaller version , these things happen in engineering all the time - bigger machine , less losses .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuel cell as in H2+O2-&gt;H2O ?
I guess that would be even less efficient than plain a plain old chemical rocket engine.
Think nuclear.
Perhaps solar power could be of some use provided that the craft were not to venture past Mars or the asteroid belt, although this would require either a much smaller variant of the engine of some duty cycle would have to be employed, or both.
(The older and smaller versions of this engine are less energy-efficient, though, and it may be actually challenging to maintain high efficiency even for a newly-constructed smaller version, these things happen in engineering all the time - bigger machine, less losses.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597375</id>
	<title>Re:170 kW?</title>
	<author>ShadowXOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1246907940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The trust is 5mN = 5 N = 1.1 Pounds-force<br>

Here are some references:<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR\_Engine" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR\_Engine</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<br>
The weight (weight? may be you refer to inertial mass...)...doesnt matter...<br>
because the thing is going to be used in space...so, the aceleration that it gains thru time wll be cumulative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The trust is 5mN = 5 N = 1.1 Pounds-force Here are some references : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR \ _Engine [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton [ wikipedia.org ] The weight ( weight ?
may be you refer to inertial mass... ) ...doesnt matter.. . because the thing is going to be used in space...so , the aceleration that it gains thru time wll be cumulative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trust is 5mN = 5 N = 1.1 Pounds-force

Here are some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR\_Engine [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton [wikipedia.org] 

The weight (weight?
may be you refer to inertial mass...)...doesnt matter...
because the thing is going to be used in space...so, the aceleration that it gains thru time wll be cumulative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596953</id>
	<title>Power to Power the VASMIR?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is required to power the VASMIR engine? Simple fuel Cell or we talkin nukes here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is required to power the VASMIR engine ?
Simple fuel Cell or we talkin nukes here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is required to power the VASMIR engine?
Simple fuel Cell or we talkin nukes here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598389</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246912140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could name it after your game console, perhaps calling it the Wii Wii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could name it after your game console , perhaps calling it the Wii Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could name it after your game console, perhaps calling it the Wii Wii.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597817</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1246909500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but you couldn't feasibly build a chemical rocket with enough fuel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "</p><p>In fact, you can't do it all.   There is a theoretical maximum amount of chemical energy/mass<br>you can achieve.  Even when you are able to use this energy at 100\% efficiency, the amount of energy required<br>to move the fuel itself reaches a point at which its payload can go no faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... but you could n't feasibly build a chemical rocket with enough fuel ... " In fact , you ca n't do it all .
There is a theoretical maximum amount of chemical energy/massyou can achieve .
Even when you are able to use this energy at 100 \ % efficiency , the amount of energy requiredto move the fuel itself reaches a point at which its payload can go no faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... but you couldn't feasibly build a chemical rocket with enough fuel ... "In fact, you can't do it all.
There is a theoretical maximum amount of chemical energy/massyou can achieve.
Even when you are able to use this energy at 100\% efficiency, the amount of energy requiredto move the fuel itself reaches a point at which its payload can go no faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597379</id>
	<title>Checklist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246907940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Superconducting: check<br>
Plasma: check<br>
Rocket: check<br>
Linux:</p><p>Three for four isn't bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Superconducting : check Plasma : check Rocket : check Linux : Three for four is n't bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Superconducting: check
Plasma: check
Rocket: check
Linux:Three for four isn't bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28606775</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1246975860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From WolframAlpha:<p>
1200 Kw = 1632 ps (metric Horse power)</p><p>

This doesn't sound like a hell of a lot until you realize that it would be on continuously through the flight providing constant acceleration, thereby reaching speeds that could not be attained with a chemical rocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From WolframAlpha : 1200 Kw = 1632 ps ( metric Horse power ) This does n't sound like a hell of a lot until you realize that it would be on continuously through the flight providing constant acceleration , thereby reaching speeds that could not be attained with a chemical rocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From WolframAlpha:
1200 Kw = 1632 ps (metric Horse power)

This doesn't sound like a hell of a lot until you realize that it would be on continuously through the flight providing constant acceleration, thereby reaching speeds that could not be attained with a chemical rocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28602069</id>
	<title>Re:What terrible timing.</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1246886940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does that mean that after a few years, despite all the searching, it still won't be actually verified?<br> <br>

I have a friend like that, no matter all the tall stories he shares, no-one has actually spoken to a girl who has actually let him get it out. Poor guy. It's that bad, we have actually started passing a hat around at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean that after a few years , despite all the searching , it still wo n't be actually verified ?
I have a friend like that , no matter all the tall stories he shares , no-one has actually spoken to a girl who has actually let him get it out .
Poor guy .
It 's that bad , we have actually started passing a hat around at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean that after a few years, despite all the searching, it still won't be actually verified?
I have a friend like that, no matter all the tall stories he shares, no-one has actually spoken to a girl who has actually let him get it out.
Poor guy.
It's that bad, we have actually started passing a hat around at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604341</id>
	<title>power sources - hither and yon</title>
	<author>drwho</author>
	<datestamp>1246906200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter too much how efficient a power source is, as long as the fuel is plentiful. For instance, if you have a REAL LOT of petrochemicals it doesn't really matter how much you have to use to get to mars, etc. BUT more important is how DENSE the energy source is...i.e, how much more of the fuel does it take to move the fuel that is going to be used later on. This gets to be a BIG PROBLEM with chemical fuels, as even at their best they are not very DENSE. Of course, efficiency helps. But say, for a moment, that you have a nice large nuclear power plant on earth...you could probably use all that heat to either directly or indirectly (though electricity) create some high-density chemical fuels...but there's a limit to how much power a chemical fuel can provide. We need NUCLEAR FUEL, be it fission or fusion, or even better ANTIMATTER fuel. While some people claim that nuclear fuel is too dangerous to use on earth, I disagree. But I do think that antimatter is too dangerous to be used anywhere in the vicinity of important and/or massive objects (can't have the earth or space station pummeled by shrapnel in the case of an antimatter explosion, can we? And remember, there's no air friction to slow this shrapnel down). So, the best advice is to use fission, or hopefully fusion once technology gives up on the silly Tokamak idea, to leave earth's gravity well and move far enough out of the plane to be safe, and then use antimatter to the long haul. What, you say antimatter is too expensive? That's only because you've picked the wrong places to manufacture it. Production using solar power in CLOSE SOLAR ORBIT, in a thousand factories, should make antimatter cheap enough. You just have to go fetch it from close-solar orbits, which can be robotically done using the antimatter as fuel itself! The factories themselves can be replicaed using easily available materials from the moon or asteroids, and then replicated in close solar orbit using the vast energy resouces of the sun.</p><p>So to sum up, the problem isn't the amount of energy required, but the location of that energy. Move our energy conversion devices closer to the source, and we'll have plnety of consumable energy, even if it has to go through several intermediate storage mechanisms to become safe and easily accessible.</p><p>And yes, I've said this in other places, over time. I just hope that I get through to someone who is charged with long-term planning for space exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter too much how efficient a power source is , as long as the fuel is plentiful .
For instance , if you have a REAL LOT of petrochemicals it does n't really matter how much you have to use to get to mars , etc .
BUT more important is how DENSE the energy source is...i.e , how much more of the fuel does it take to move the fuel that is going to be used later on .
This gets to be a BIG PROBLEM with chemical fuels , as even at their best they are not very DENSE .
Of course , efficiency helps .
But say , for a moment , that you have a nice large nuclear power plant on earth...you could probably use all that heat to either directly or indirectly ( though electricity ) create some high-density chemical fuels...but there 's a limit to how much power a chemical fuel can provide .
We need NUCLEAR FUEL , be it fission or fusion , or even better ANTIMATTER fuel .
While some people claim that nuclear fuel is too dangerous to use on earth , I disagree .
But I do think that antimatter is too dangerous to be used anywhere in the vicinity of important and/or massive objects ( ca n't have the earth or space station pummeled by shrapnel in the case of an antimatter explosion , can we ?
And remember , there 's no air friction to slow this shrapnel down ) .
So , the best advice is to use fission , or hopefully fusion once technology gives up on the silly Tokamak idea , to leave earth 's gravity well and move far enough out of the plane to be safe , and then use antimatter to the long haul .
What , you say antimatter is too expensive ?
That 's only because you 've picked the wrong places to manufacture it .
Production using solar power in CLOSE SOLAR ORBIT , in a thousand factories , should make antimatter cheap enough .
You just have to go fetch it from close-solar orbits , which can be robotically done using the antimatter as fuel itself !
The factories themselves can be replicaed using easily available materials from the moon or asteroids , and then replicated in close solar orbit using the vast energy resouces of the sun.So to sum up , the problem is n't the amount of energy required , but the location of that energy .
Move our energy conversion devices closer to the source , and we 'll have plnety of consumable energy , even if it has to go through several intermediate storage mechanisms to become safe and easily accessible.And yes , I 've said this in other places , over time .
I just hope that I get through to someone who is charged with long-term planning for space exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter too much how efficient a power source is, as long as the fuel is plentiful.
For instance, if you have a REAL LOT of petrochemicals it doesn't really matter how much you have to use to get to mars, etc.
BUT more important is how DENSE the energy source is...i.e, how much more of the fuel does it take to move the fuel that is going to be used later on.
This gets to be a BIG PROBLEM with chemical fuels, as even at their best they are not very DENSE.
Of course, efficiency helps.
But say, for a moment, that you have a nice large nuclear power plant on earth...you could probably use all that heat to either directly or indirectly (though electricity) create some high-density chemical fuels...but there's a limit to how much power a chemical fuel can provide.
We need NUCLEAR FUEL, be it fission or fusion, or even better ANTIMATTER fuel.
While some people claim that nuclear fuel is too dangerous to use on earth, I disagree.
But I do think that antimatter is too dangerous to be used anywhere in the vicinity of important and/or massive objects (can't have the earth or space station pummeled by shrapnel in the case of an antimatter explosion, can we?
And remember, there's no air friction to slow this shrapnel down).
So, the best advice is to use fission, or hopefully fusion once technology gives up on the silly Tokamak idea, to leave earth's gravity well and move far enough out of the plane to be safe, and then use antimatter to the long haul.
What, you say antimatter is too expensive?
That's only because you've picked the wrong places to manufacture it.
Production using solar power in CLOSE SOLAR ORBIT, in a thousand factories, should make antimatter cheap enough.
You just have to go fetch it from close-solar orbits, which can be robotically done using the antimatter as fuel itself!
The factories themselves can be replicaed using easily available materials from the moon or asteroids, and then replicated in close solar orbit using the vast energy resouces of the sun.So to sum up, the problem isn't the amount of energy required, but the location of that energy.
Move our energy conversion devices closer to the source, and we'll have plnety of consumable energy, even if it has to go through several intermediate storage mechanisms to become safe and easily accessible.And yes, I've said this in other places, over time.
I just hope that I get through to someone who is charged with long-term planning for space exploration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600573</id>
	<title>Re:Yiddish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should outsource the naming of new technology to South Park creators.</p><p>Can't wait for the disturbing message from one government to another,</p><p>"Your DICKs are threatening our airspace!"</p><p>Yes, I am a simple man, with simple pleasures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should outsource the naming of new technology to South Park creators.Ca n't wait for the disturbing message from one government to another , " Your DICKs are threatening our airspace !
" Yes , I am a simple man , with simple pleasures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should outsource the naming of new technology to South Park creators.Can't wait for the disturbing message from one government to another,"Your DICKs are threatening our airspace!
"Yes, I am a simple man, with simple pleasures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597509</id>
	<title>Shake-n-bake</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1246908420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Now that's a proper name: shake-n-bake.
</p><p>
Dude 1: What's this?<br>
Dude 2: VX-200.<br>
Dude 1: Ok, what actually is it?<br>
Dude 2: Superconducting plasma rocket engine.<br>
Dude 1: Yeah, fuck you, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that 's a proper name : shake-n-bake .
Dude 1 : What 's this ?
Dude 2 : VX-200 .
Dude 1 : Ok , what actually is it ?
Dude 2 : Superconducting plasma rocket engine .
Dude 1 : Yeah , fuck you , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Now that's a proper name: shake-n-bake.
Dude 1: What's this?
Dude 2: VX-200.
Dude 1: Ok, what actually is it?
Dude 2: Superconducting plasma rocket engine.
Dude 1: Yeah, fuck you, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597935</id>
	<title>Re:High Thrust, High Specific Impulse (Isp)</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1246910100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post says that VASIMR combines high-thrust with high-specific-impulse.</p><p>But the wikipedia article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR\_Engine" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR\_Engine</a> [wikipedia.org] says instead that VASIMR operates in either high-thrust low-specific impulse mode, or in low-thrust high-specific-impulse mode.</p><p>Have I understood this correctly? Which is right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post says that VASIMR combines high-thrust with high-specific-impulse.But the wikipedia article http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR \ _Engine [ wikipedia.org ] says instead that VASIMR operates in either high-thrust low-specific impulse mode , or in low-thrust high-specific-impulse mode.Have I understood this correctly ?
Which is right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post says that VASIMR combines high-thrust with high-specific-impulse.But the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR\_Engine [wikipedia.org] says instead that VASIMR operates in either high-thrust low-specific impulse mode, or in low-thrust high-specific-impulse mode.Have I understood this correctly?
Which is right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28602069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28606775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28601157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28612167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1556208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28606775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28612167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28601157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28602069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28603863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28604705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28600219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28596893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1556208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28599047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28597965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1556208.28598351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
