<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1223217</id>
	<title>SpaceX Boosts Malaysian Satellite Into Orbit</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247576580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/" rel="nofollow">Soychemist</a> writes <i>"On the same day that yet another shuttle launch was postponed, <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/spacexlaunch/">SpaceX successfully carried a Malaysian satellite</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razaksat">RazakSAT</a>, into orbit. This is the second successful launch in a row for Elon Musk's space exploration startup. Later this year the company will launch its larger Falcon 9 rocket, which could be used to carry cargo to the International Space Station. RazakSAT was designed by ATSB and carries a high resolution camera. If it is intact, the satellite will take photographs of Earth that could be used to better manage natural resources."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soychemist writes " On the same day that yet another shuttle launch was postponed , SpaceX successfully carried a Malaysian satellite , RazakSAT , into orbit .
This is the second successful launch in a row for Elon Musk 's space exploration startup .
Later this year the company will launch its larger Falcon 9 rocket , which could be used to carry cargo to the International Space Station .
RazakSAT was designed by ATSB and carries a high resolution camera .
If it is intact , the satellite will take photographs of Earth that could be used to better manage natural resources .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soychemist writes "On the same day that yet another shuttle launch was postponed, SpaceX successfully carried a Malaysian satellite, RazakSAT, into orbit.
This is the second successful launch in a row for Elon Musk's space exploration startup.
Later this year the company will launch its larger Falcon 9 rocket, which could be used to carry cargo to the International Space Station.
RazakSAT was designed by ATSB and carries a high resolution camera.
If it is intact, the satellite will take photographs of Earth that could be used to better manage natural resources.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693873</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1247598120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont think they're really making fun of the shuttle here, its expressing frustration... and even then barely more than just expressing the facts.  Anyone who pays much attention knows that the Florida weather patterns are bad for launches this time of the year, and SpaceX will face the same problems whenever it gets around to launching the Falcon 9 from Florida.</p><p>As you say the Falcon 1 and the Shuttle are so different its hard to make comparisons.  Ones still a highly experimental new low-cost launcher for small satellites and the other is a legacy piece of hardware thats being pushed to its limits to meet international agreements and give us a strong base for the largest human community in space.</p><p>Giving SpaceX a hard time about its launch record isn't particularly fair either.  Rocket engineering is hard.  There's only so much you can test on the ground before you actually launch it, and its very hard to get something right the first time. Each launch had a different specific failure that was corrected and improved upon.  While they're 2 for 5 so far, the fact of the last two being two successful launches in a row gives me as much confidence as if they had only launched twice and were 2 for 2.</p><p>The fact that the Shuttle launched successfully the first time is a testament to the skill of those who designed it, and the technical skill of it should stand out even for those who disagree with the overall architecture.  Because its so much more expensive than somehting like a Falcon 1, you really can't afford to lose any, so you have to spend a lot more money getting it absolutely right the first time... though I can't say for sure, I'd guess that the cost of the failures for Falcon 1 would have been pretty comparable to the engineering cost to design it absolutely right the first time.</p><p>Even those of us who are very supportive of NewSpace development, the new entreprenurial groups such as SpaceX and Bigelow, don't dismiss the achievements and accomplishments of NASA.  We wouldn't be were we are without Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, SkyLab, the Shuttle and the ISS.  Personally, I even find the 'but we're still just hanging around in LEO' arguments off, because while it may not be as flashy, the hanging around in LEO is providing valuable science on what it takes to actually live in space. I'd even make the argument that Apollo was an abberation of Cold War politics and that just finally getting to the moon now is actually about on schedule (I think von Braun's original plan was to do it around 2000); if anything you might argue Apollo slowed us down because it was funded at an unsustainable level, but made everyone say we already went to the moon, Mars is the only next step, when in actuality there was a lot more less-sexy work that needed to be done.</p><p>The place where we disagree is the future of NASA... the idea of NASA developing their own unique launch vehicles instead of leveraging what commercial vehicles have done.  It would be like the military refusing both proposals for the new tanker planes because they don't like having their vehicles based on normal commercial ones.  Launching to orbit is done... it was pioneering government work in the 60s, but at this point its a matter of fine-tuning and efficiency, and NASA should be getting out of the launcher business.  There's well document profit potential in building launchers, and its counterproductive to have the government as a competitive member.  Where NASA should be working is on the frontiers... doing the life science work, developing the scientific probes, creating the spacecraft that take us from LEO to Mars and the asteroids.  But since the goals of congressmen deciding funding aren't necessarily exploration and development, but rather keeping jobs in their state, the space program isn't so much about how to do it best, but how to keep people employed in various districts best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont think they 're really making fun of the shuttle here , its expressing frustration... and even then barely more than just expressing the facts .
Anyone who pays much attention knows that the Florida weather patterns are bad for launches this time of the year , and SpaceX will face the same problems whenever it gets around to launching the Falcon 9 from Florida.As you say the Falcon 1 and the Shuttle are so different its hard to make comparisons .
Ones still a highly experimental new low-cost launcher for small satellites and the other is a legacy piece of hardware thats being pushed to its limits to meet international agreements and give us a strong base for the largest human community in space.Giving SpaceX a hard time about its launch record is n't particularly fair either .
Rocket engineering is hard .
There 's only so much you can test on the ground before you actually launch it , and its very hard to get something right the first time .
Each launch had a different specific failure that was corrected and improved upon .
While they 're 2 for 5 so far , the fact of the last two being two successful launches in a row gives me as much confidence as if they had only launched twice and were 2 for 2.The fact that the Shuttle launched successfully the first time is a testament to the skill of those who designed it , and the technical skill of it should stand out even for those who disagree with the overall architecture .
Because its so much more expensive than somehting like a Falcon 1 , you really ca n't afford to lose any , so you have to spend a lot more money getting it absolutely right the first time... though I ca n't say for sure , I 'd guess that the cost of the failures for Falcon 1 would have been pretty comparable to the engineering cost to design it absolutely right the first time.Even those of us who are very supportive of NewSpace development , the new entreprenurial groups such as SpaceX and Bigelow , do n't dismiss the achievements and accomplishments of NASA .
We would n't be were we are without Mercury , Gemini , Apollo , SkyLab , the Shuttle and the ISS .
Personally , I even find the 'but we 're still just hanging around in LEO ' arguments off , because while it may not be as flashy , the hanging around in LEO is providing valuable science on what it takes to actually live in space .
I 'd even make the argument that Apollo was an abberation of Cold War politics and that just finally getting to the moon now is actually about on schedule ( I think von Braun 's original plan was to do it around 2000 ) ; if anything you might argue Apollo slowed us down because it was funded at an unsustainable level , but made everyone say we already went to the moon , Mars is the only next step , when in actuality there was a lot more less-sexy work that needed to be done.The place where we disagree is the future of NASA... the idea of NASA developing their own unique launch vehicles instead of leveraging what commercial vehicles have done .
It would be like the military refusing both proposals for the new tanker planes because they do n't like having their vehicles based on normal commercial ones .
Launching to orbit is done... it was pioneering government work in the 60s , but at this point its a matter of fine-tuning and efficiency , and NASA should be getting out of the launcher business .
There 's well document profit potential in building launchers , and its counterproductive to have the government as a competitive member .
Where NASA should be working is on the frontiers... doing the life science work , developing the scientific probes , creating the spacecraft that take us from LEO to Mars and the asteroids .
But since the goals of congressmen deciding funding are n't necessarily exploration and development , but rather keeping jobs in their state , the space program is n't so much about how to do it best , but how to keep people employed in various districts best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont think they're really making fun of the shuttle here, its expressing frustration... and even then barely more than just expressing the facts.
Anyone who pays much attention knows that the Florida weather patterns are bad for launches this time of the year, and SpaceX will face the same problems whenever it gets around to launching the Falcon 9 from Florida.As you say the Falcon 1 and the Shuttle are so different its hard to make comparisons.
Ones still a highly experimental new low-cost launcher for small satellites and the other is a legacy piece of hardware thats being pushed to its limits to meet international agreements and give us a strong base for the largest human community in space.Giving SpaceX a hard time about its launch record isn't particularly fair either.
Rocket engineering is hard.
There's only so much you can test on the ground before you actually launch it, and its very hard to get something right the first time.
Each launch had a different specific failure that was corrected and improved upon.
While they're 2 for 5 so far, the fact of the last two being two successful launches in a row gives me as much confidence as if they had only launched twice and were 2 for 2.The fact that the Shuttle launched successfully the first time is a testament to the skill of those who designed it, and the technical skill of it should stand out even for those who disagree with the overall architecture.
Because its so much more expensive than somehting like a Falcon 1, you really can't afford to lose any, so you have to spend a lot more money getting it absolutely right the first time... though I can't say for sure, I'd guess that the cost of the failures for Falcon 1 would have been pretty comparable to the engineering cost to design it absolutely right the first time.Even those of us who are very supportive of NewSpace development, the new entreprenurial groups such as SpaceX and Bigelow, don't dismiss the achievements and accomplishments of NASA.
We wouldn't be were we are without Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, SkyLab, the Shuttle and the ISS.
Personally, I even find the 'but we're still just hanging around in LEO' arguments off, because while it may not be as flashy, the hanging around in LEO is providing valuable science on what it takes to actually live in space.
I'd even make the argument that Apollo was an abberation of Cold War politics and that just finally getting to the moon now is actually about on schedule (I think von Braun's original plan was to do it around 2000); if anything you might argue Apollo slowed us down because it was funded at an unsustainable level, but made everyone say we already went to the moon, Mars is the only next step, when in actuality there was a lot more less-sexy work that needed to be done.The place where we disagree is the future of NASA... the idea of NASA developing their own unique launch vehicles instead of leveraging what commercial vehicles have done.
It would be like the military refusing both proposals for the new tanker planes because they don't like having their vehicles based on normal commercial ones.
Launching to orbit is done... it was pioneering government work in the 60s, but at this point its a matter of fine-tuning and efficiency, and NASA should be getting out of the launcher business.
There's well document profit potential in building launchers, and its counterproductive to have the government as a competitive member.
Where NASA should be working is on the frontiers... doing the life science work, developing the scientific probes, creating the spacecraft that take us from LEO to Mars and the asteroids.
But since the goals of congressmen deciding funding aren't necessarily exploration and development, but rather keeping jobs in their state, the space program isn't so much about how to do it best, but how to keep people employed in various districts best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691207</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1247587080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, I know, its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.</p><p>I guess it doesn't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements.  Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares, they are insured (BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate)</p></div><p>You just answered your own question: If a rocket isn't safe enough to carry humans, it's not safe enough to carry a billion-dollar satellite without paying a large fraction of a billion dollars in insurance premiums.</p><p>'Human-rating' is mostly bogus: the primary difference between a satellite launcher and a 'human-rated' launcher is that there's no abort system on a satellite launcher so if you're going to lose the payload anyway you might as well just crash and burn. A human-launching system needs to ensure that it will fail nicely so the crew can escape... something with the shuttle, of course, has singularly failed to do.</p><p>Lastly, I believe the total development cost of the Space-X launcher is a small fraction of the cost of a single shuttle launch, so they expected a few failures in development.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I know , its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.I guess it does n't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements .
Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares , they are insured ( BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate ) You just answered your own question : If a rocket is n't safe enough to carry humans , it 's not safe enough to carry a billion-dollar satellite without paying a large fraction of a billion dollars in insurance premiums .
'Human-rating ' is mostly bogus : the primary difference between a satellite launcher and a 'human-rated ' launcher is that there 's no abort system on a satellite launcher so if you 're going to lose the payload anyway you might as well just crash and burn .
A human-launching system needs to ensure that it will fail nicely so the crew can escape... something with the shuttle , of course , has singularly failed to do.Lastly , I believe the total development cost of the Space-X launcher is a small fraction of the cost of a single shuttle launch , so they expected a few failures in development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I know, its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.I guess it doesn't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements.
Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares, they are insured (BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate)You just answered your own question: If a rocket isn't safe enough to carry humans, it's not safe enough to carry a billion-dollar satellite without paying a large fraction of a billion dollars in insurance premiums.
'Human-rating' is mostly bogus: the primary difference between a satellite launcher and a 'human-rated' launcher is that there's no abort system on a satellite launcher so if you're going to lose the payload anyway you might as well just crash and burn.
A human-launching system needs to ensure that it will fail nicely so the crew can escape... something with the shuttle, of course, has singularly failed to do.Lastly, I believe the total development cost of the Space-X launcher is a small fraction of the cost of a single shuttle launch, so they expected a few failures in development.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691619</id>
	<title>Re:Quick</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1247588940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that's <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/23/1131229" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">a good idea.</a> [slashdot.org] Aren't you glad you're the first to think of it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's a good idea .
[ slashdot.org ] Are n't you glad you 're the first to think of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's a good idea.
[slashdot.org] Aren't you glad you're the first to think of it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692253</id>
	<title>Re:Quick</title>
	<author>drgould</author>
	<datestamp>1247591580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let's start a commercial space station. First, connect a module to the ISS. Then, when those idiots plan to burn it down in 2016 via re-entry, disconnect it and start a new space station with that single module.</i></p><p>The biggest problem from a space development point of view is that the ISS's orbit has too high an inclination.</p><p>So it's useless as a waystation for flights to geosync orbit, the moon or mars, which is where all the interesting stuff is. Anything you attach to ISS is going to have the same problem.</p><p>What you want to do is throw some inflatable modules from <a href="http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/" title="bigelowaerospace.com" rel="nofollow">Bigelow Aerospace</a> [bigelowaerospace.com] into equitorial or near-equitorial orbit and assemble a private, commercial station.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's start a commercial space station .
First , connect a module to the ISS .
Then , when those idiots plan to burn it down in 2016 via re-entry , disconnect it and start a new space station with that single module.The biggest problem from a space development point of view is that the ISS 's orbit has too high an inclination.So it 's useless as a waystation for flights to geosync orbit , the moon or mars , which is where all the interesting stuff is .
Anything you attach to ISS is going to have the same problem.What you want to do is throw some inflatable modules from Bigelow Aerospace [ bigelowaerospace.com ] into equitorial or near-equitorial orbit and assemble a private , commercial station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's start a commercial space station.
First, connect a module to the ISS.
Then, when those idiots plan to burn it down in 2016 via re-entry, disconnect it and start a new space station with that single module.The biggest problem from a space development point of view is that the ISS's orbit has too high an inclination.So it's useless as a waystation for flights to geosync orbit, the moon or mars, which is where all the interesting stuff is.
Anything you attach to ISS is going to have the same problem.What you want to do is throw some inflatable modules from Bigelow Aerospace [bigelowaerospace.com] into equitorial or near-equitorial orbit and assemble a private, commercial station.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691475</id>
	<title>Next step: Project Orion</title>
	<author>sponglish</author>
	<datestamp>1247588340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we need is a bootstrap launch of Project Orion. Use the nuke propulsion to orbit the steel plates, shock absorbers and what-not needed to build a score of Orions in orbit. Then in short order we could have a fully equipped lunar base; a real space station in Earth orbit; and Orions heading out to Mars and the asteroid belt.</p><p>All it would take is one, or at the most two launches from Earth using the cleanest 20 kiloton bombs we can devise, and we could be on our way to building a generation ship to explore the nearest planet bearing stars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is a bootstrap launch of Project Orion .
Use the nuke propulsion to orbit the steel plates , shock absorbers and what-not needed to build a score of Orions in orbit .
Then in short order we could have a fully equipped lunar base ; a real space station in Earth orbit ; and Orions heading out to Mars and the asteroid belt.All it would take is one , or at the most two launches from Earth using the cleanest 20 kiloton bombs we can devise , and we could be on our way to building a generation ship to explore the nearest planet bearing stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is a bootstrap launch of Project Orion.
Use the nuke propulsion to orbit the steel plates, shock absorbers and what-not needed to build a score of Orions in orbit.
Then in short order we could have a fully equipped lunar base; a real space station in Earth orbit; and Orions heading out to Mars and the asteroid belt.All it would take is one, or at the most two launches from Earth using the cleanest 20 kiloton bombs we can devise, and we could be on our way to building a generation ship to explore the nearest planet bearing stars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692359</id>
	<title>'better manage'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya know, the best way to 'manage' natural resources is to <b>leave them the fuck alone.</b> Better yet, stop calling them 'resources' and start calling them our heritage or a term that reflects the irreplaceability and sacredness of everything we are currently destroying as fast as we can.</p><p>If this satellite helps us leave the Amazon and every other piece of threatened Nature alone, well great, but we already know who's destroying it (our lifestyle is funding it) and where (everywhere), why (greed), and how (corruption, lack of enforcement). In a nutshell the "First World", as usual, is the enabler.</p><p>For more information see <a href="http://amazonwatch.org/" title="amazonwatch.org">http://amazonwatch.org/</a> [amazonwatch.org]<br>Donate if you actually give a shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , the best way to 'manage ' natural resources is to leave them the fuck alone .
Better yet , stop calling them 'resources ' and start calling them our heritage or a term that reflects the irreplaceability and sacredness of everything we are currently destroying as fast as we can.If this satellite helps us leave the Amazon and every other piece of threatened Nature alone , well great , but we already know who 's destroying it ( our lifestyle is funding it ) and where ( everywhere ) , why ( greed ) , and how ( corruption , lack of enforcement ) .
In a nutshell the " First World " , as usual , is the enabler.For more information see http : //amazonwatch.org/ [ amazonwatch.org ] Donate if you actually give a shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, the best way to 'manage' natural resources is to leave them the fuck alone.
Better yet, stop calling them 'resources' and start calling them our heritage or a term that reflects the irreplaceability and sacredness of everything we are currently destroying as fast as we can.If this satellite helps us leave the Amazon and every other piece of threatened Nature alone, well great, but we already know who's destroying it (our lifestyle is funding it) and where (everywhere), why (greed), and how (corruption, lack of enforcement).
In a nutshell the "First World", as usual, is the enabler.For more information see http://amazonwatch.org/ [amazonwatch.org]Donate if you actually give a shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689795</id>
	<title>Nudists watch out!</title>
	<author>kaaposc</author>
	<datestamp>1247580780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it "carries a high resolution camera".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it " carries a high resolution camera " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it "carries a high resolution camera".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</id>
	<title>Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I know, its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.</p><p>I guess it doesn't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements.  Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares, they are insured (BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate).</p><p>Not to mention the shuttle is in a completely different payload class, and more importantly, it is used with hundreds of thousands of miles on the air frame.</p><p>From the bottom of the article "Now 0-for-3, SpaceX&#226;(TM)s Elon Musk Vows to Make Orbit".  While the shuttle has had its failures, its record is slightly better.</p><p>Yes, Soychemist, you are an ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I know , its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.I guess it does n't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements .
Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares , they are insured ( BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate ) .Not to mention the shuttle is in a completely different payload class , and more importantly , it is used with hundreds of thousands of miles on the air frame.From the bottom of the article " Now 0-for-3 , SpaceX   ( TM ) s Elon Musk Vows to Make Orbit " .
While the shuttle has had its failures , its record is slightly better.Yes , Soychemist , you are an ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I know, its good to make fun of NASA and its shuttle program.I guess it doesn't take long for the public to remember that the space shuttle carries humans and thus is subject to a completely different set of requirements.
Loose a Malaysian satellite - who cares, they are insured (BTW the insurance rate is of course based in part on the success/failure rate).Not to mention the shuttle is in a completely different payload class, and more importantly, it is used with hundreds of thousands of miles on the air frame.From the bottom of the article "Now 0-for-3, SpaceXâ(TM)s Elon Musk Vows to Make Orbit".
While the shuttle has had its failures, its record is slightly better.Yes, Soychemist, you are an ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692247</id>
	<title>Not only that...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247591580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but all those private space programs got a huge boost from the decades of NASA  doing experiments in the first place.<br>To the point where I think even nowaday, nobody would care to even think about investing in space exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but all those private space programs got a huge boost from the decades of NASA doing experiments in the first place.To the point where I think even nowaday , nobody would care to even think about investing in space exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but all those private space programs got a huge boost from the decades of NASA  doing experiments in the first place.To the point where I think even nowaday, nobody would care to even think about investing in space exploration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690499</id>
	<title>Green angle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...that could be used to better manage natural resources</i></p><p>Awww... a cute environment angle. All science stores have to have them now I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that could be used to better manage natural resourcesAwww... a cute environment angle .
All science stores have to have them now I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that could be used to better manage natural resourcesAwww... a cute environment angle.
All science stores have to have them now I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690775</id>
	<title>If you tire of the idiocy of /. space stories...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... head on over to nasaspaceflight.com forums.   On Slashdot, dozens of knuckle-dragging ignorant twats spout complete bullshit and get modded up by the handful of asskissers allowed to have mod points.</p><p>On NSF, actual industry insiders (sadly, none from SpaceX yet) actually post intelligent <b>informed</b> commentary, news, history and information.  Uninformed comments like, LOL SPACEX BETTAR THAN NASA LOL get exposed for the ignorant lazy idiocy that they are.</p><p>Slashdot's site is crap (THANKS FOR CRAPPY WEB2.0 BULLSHIT, MALDA)<br>Slashdot's "editors" are dumber than my old shoes<br>Slashdot's cumulative "wisdom" is pathetic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... head on over to nasaspaceflight.com forums .
On Slashdot , dozens of knuckle-dragging ignorant twats spout complete bullshit and get modded up by the handful of asskissers allowed to have mod points.On NSF , actual industry insiders ( sadly , none from SpaceX yet ) actually post intelligent informed commentary , news , history and information .
Uninformed comments like , LOL SPACEX BETTAR THAN NASA LOL get exposed for the ignorant lazy idiocy that they are.Slashdot 's site is crap ( THANKS FOR CRAPPY WEB2.0 BULLSHIT , MALDA ) Slashdot 's " editors " are dumber than my old shoesSlashdot 's cumulative " wisdom " is pathetic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... head on over to nasaspaceflight.com forums.
On Slashdot, dozens of knuckle-dragging ignorant twats spout complete bullshit and get modded up by the handful of asskissers allowed to have mod points.On NSF, actual industry insiders (sadly, none from SpaceX yet) actually post intelligent informed commentary, news, history and information.
Uninformed comments like, LOL SPACEX BETTAR THAN NASA LOL get exposed for the ignorant lazy idiocy that they are.Slashdot's site is crap (THANKS FOR CRAPPY WEB2.0 BULLSHIT, MALDA)Slashdot's "editors" are dumber than my old shoesSlashdot's cumulative "wisdom" is pathetic</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689793</id>
	<title>Well now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...don't we all feel like a bunch of dicks for making fun of this thing yesterday?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...do n't we all feel like a bunch of dicks for making fun of this thing yesterday ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...don't we all feel like a bunch of dicks for making fun of this thing yesterday?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690319</id>
	<title>The future of space business</title>
	<author>snot.dotted</author>
	<datestamp>1247583000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that video of the launch was awesome! There's still stuff that can make my jaw drop.
Its a testament to the technical
prowess of the USA and the engineers working at SpaceX, this really is the future.

On a side note, with more commerical players sucessfully entering the low earth orbit launch business, space junk pollution will come a real big problem in the next decade. Time to launch a space garbage truck!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that video of the launch was awesome !
There 's still stuff that can make my jaw drop .
Its a testament to the technical prowess of the USA and the engineers working at SpaceX , this really is the future .
On a side note , with more commerical players sucessfully entering the low earth orbit launch business , space junk pollution will come a real big problem in the next decade .
Time to launch a space garbage truck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that video of the launch was awesome!
There's still stuff that can make my jaw drop.
Its a testament to the technical
prowess of the USA and the engineers working at SpaceX, this really is the future.
On a side note, with more commerical players sucessfully entering the low earth orbit launch business, space junk pollution will come a real big problem in the next decade.
Time to launch a space garbage truck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28694115</id>
	<title>Re:'better manage'?</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1247599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Ya know, the best way to 'manage' natural resources is to leave them the fuck alone</i>
<br> <br>
Excellent idea. So, you're suggesting that all of the humans in the world are rounded up into spots on the planet that <i>do not have</i> natural resources (like, dirt, plants, or water - you know, resources), and have them stand perfectly still until they die. Of course, 6 billion rotting corpses will impact the local natural resources... hmmm. Maybe make some sort of oven or something to cook them all in, and the very last person who's daring to breath (and use up those natural oxygen resouces!) can make sure that the carbon sequestration is working right before killing himself, too. But, <i>man</i>... where to operate all of those disposal facilities? Whaddya <i>do</i> with billions of people?
<br> <br>
Yeah, that would be a bit dramatic, wouldn't it. I know... let's force sterilization on everyone that doesn't see things <i>exactly</i> your way, and then you can be free of any further ethical fussiness. Well, except that the ones you keep alive (who will <i>continue</i> to insist on doing things like drinking water, urinating, and eating stuff that <i>grows in the dirt</i>) may actually give birth to some kids that, again, won't see things your way. You'll have to decide how to dispose of them, too.
<br> <br>
Oh, and don't forget the ants. They are <i>forever</i> re-arranging the local natural resources. Piling up dirt over here, moving organic debris from one place to another, respirating... the nerve! And beavers. Don't forget the beavers. You're going to have to decide how you're going to certify specific beavers as being sufficiently thoughtful about what streams they back up, which local grasses and small mammals they drown, and which beautiful trees they knock down just so they can have a snack and build a new house - one that's <i>no doubt</i> a big, rodent version of an evil McMansion. The beavers that aren't towing the line? Kill 'em. Likewise with birds that pluck the wrong grasses out when making nests. Birds are notorious for not keeping Earth Mother Gaia first and foremost in their minds when they reproduce, poop on things, and eat seeds that <i>could</i> be making new plants. The bastards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , the best way to 'manage ' natural resources is to leave them the fuck alone Excellent idea .
So , you 're suggesting that all of the humans in the world are rounded up into spots on the planet that do not have natural resources ( like , dirt , plants , or water - you know , resources ) , and have them stand perfectly still until they die .
Of course , 6 billion rotting corpses will impact the local natural resources... hmmm. Maybe make some sort of oven or something to cook them all in , and the very last person who 's daring to breath ( and use up those natural oxygen resouces !
) can make sure that the carbon sequestration is working right before killing himself , too .
But , man... where to operate all of those disposal facilities ?
Whaddya do with billions of people ?
Yeah , that would be a bit dramatic , would n't it .
I know... let 's force sterilization on everyone that does n't see things exactly your way , and then you can be free of any further ethical fussiness .
Well , except that the ones you keep alive ( who will continue to insist on doing things like drinking water , urinating , and eating stuff that grows in the dirt ) may actually give birth to some kids that , again , wo n't see things your way .
You 'll have to decide how to dispose of them , too .
Oh , and do n't forget the ants .
They are forever re-arranging the local natural resources .
Piling up dirt over here , moving organic debris from one place to another , respirating... the nerve !
And beavers .
Do n't forget the beavers .
You 're going to have to decide how you 're going to certify specific beavers as being sufficiently thoughtful about what streams they back up , which local grasses and small mammals they drown , and which beautiful trees they knock down just so they can have a snack and build a new house - one that 's no doubt a big , rodent version of an evil McMansion .
The beavers that are n't towing the line ?
Kill 'em .
Likewise with birds that pluck the wrong grasses out when making nests .
Birds are notorious for not keeping Earth Mother Gaia first and foremost in their minds when they reproduce , poop on things , and eat seeds that could be making new plants .
The bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, the best way to 'manage' natural resources is to leave them the fuck alone
 
Excellent idea.
So, you're suggesting that all of the humans in the world are rounded up into spots on the planet that do not have natural resources (like, dirt, plants, or water - you know, resources), and have them stand perfectly still until they die.
Of course, 6 billion rotting corpses will impact the local natural resources... hmmm. Maybe make some sort of oven or something to cook them all in, and the very last person who's daring to breath (and use up those natural oxygen resouces!
) can make sure that the carbon sequestration is working right before killing himself, too.
But, man... where to operate all of those disposal facilities?
Whaddya do with billions of people?
Yeah, that would be a bit dramatic, wouldn't it.
I know... let's force sterilization on everyone that doesn't see things exactly your way, and then you can be free of any further ethical fussiness.
Well, except that the ones you keep alive (who will continue to insist on doing things like drinking water, urinating, and eating stuff that grows in the dirt) may actually give birth to some kids that, again, won't see things your way.
You'll have to decide how to dispose of them, too.
Oh, and don't forget the ants.
They are forever re-arranging the local natural resources.
Piling up dirt over here, moving organic debris from one place to another, respirating... the nerve!
And beavers.
Don't forget the beavers.
You're going to have to decide how you're going to certify specific beavers as being sufficiently thoughtful about what streams they back up, which local grasses and small mammals they drown, and which beautiful trees they knock down just so they can have a snack and build a new house - one that's no doubt a big, rodent version of an evil McMansion.
The beavers that aren't towing the line?
Kill 'em.
Likewise with birds that pluck the wrong grasses out when making nests.
Birds are notorious for not keeping Earth Mother Gaia first and foremost in their minds when they reproduce, poop on things, and eat seeds that could be making new plants.
The bastards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28696527</id>
	<title>"Yes"!</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1247566860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Milestones. "licks finger, chalks imaginary blackboard"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Way to go, SpaceX. Kudos to the team.</p><p>SB<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Milestones .
" licks finger , chalks imaginary blackboard "     Way to go , SpaceX .
Kudos to the team.SB  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Milestones.
"licks finger, chalks imaginary blackboard"
    Way to go, SpaceX.
Kudos to the team.SB
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28701861</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1247662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that the Shuttle as in existence now, bears no relationship to the shuttle that was envisioned.</p><p>The phrase <i>"Close enough for government work"</i> does not exist for no reason. And oh yeah, shuttles blow up real good too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that the Shuttle as in existence now , bears no relationship to the shuttle that was envisioned.The phrase " Close enough for government work " does not exist for no reason .
And oh yeah , shuttles blow up real good too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that the Shuttle as in existence now, bears no relationship to the shuttle that was envisioned.The phrase "Close enough for government work" does not exist for no reason.
And oh yeah, shuttles blow up real good too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28697205</id>
	<title>Do You Need To Be Stupid Around Here?</title>
	<author>reallocate</author>
	<datestamp>1247570160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; <i>On the same day that yet another shuttle launch was postponed...</i></p><p>So, the private sector can now control the weather?  Storms in Florida are keeping the Shuttle on the pad this week. If Elon Musk was launching a vehicle with people and it was storming at the launch site, he'd postpone, too. Go ask him what would happen to his fortune if he launched his first manned vehicle on a stormy day and lost the crew.</p><p>In terms of manned flight,  the private sector is 40 years behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; On the same day that yet another shuttle launch was postponed...So , the private sector can now control the weather ?
Storms in Florida are keeping the Shuttle on the pad this week .
If Elon Musk was launching a vehicle with people and it was storming at the launch site , he 'd postpone , too .
Go ask him what would happen to his fortune if he launched his first manned vehicle on a stormy day and lost the crew.In terms of manned flight , the private sector is 40 years behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; On the same day that yet another shuttle launch was postponed...So, the private sector can now control the weather?
Storms in Florida are keeping the Shuttle on the pad this week.
If Elon Musk was launching a vehicle with people and it was storming at the launch site, he'd postpone, too.
Go ask him what would happen to his fortune if he launched his first manned vehicle on a stormy day and lost the crew.In terms of manned flight,  the private sector is 40 years behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691045</id>
	<title>Show me the money :)</title>
	<author>johnnyR</author>
	<datestamp>1247586240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A huge step forward, SpaceX is showing it can be done privately, more will follow, when there is $$$$ to be made people will be there. Remember the old saying, if there was oil on the Moon the EXON flag would have been planted first!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge step forward , SpaceX is showing it can be done privately , more will follow , when there is $ $ $ $ to be made people will be there .
Remember the old saying , if there was oil on the Moon the EXON flag would have been planted first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A huge step forward, SpaceX is showing it can be done privately, more will follow, when there is $$$$ to be made people will be there.
Remember the old saying, if there was oil on the Moon the EXON flag would have been planted first!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692657</id>
	<title>Woah, they lost Scotty!?</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1247593260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Wired article:</p><p><i>Before that breakthrough, the company lost a Malaysian satellite deployment system along with the ashes of actor James Doohan, who played Scotty on Star Trek, and an inexpensive NASA satellite.</i></p><p>That's what I get for not reading <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/04/1259259" title="slashdot.org">every day</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Wired article : Before that breakthrough , the company lost a Malaysian satellite deployment system along with the ashes of actor James Doohan , who played Scotty on Star Trek , and an inexpensive NASA satellite.That 's what I get for not reading every day [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Wired article:Before that breakthrough, the company lost a Malaysian satellite deployment system along with the ashes of actor James Doohan, who played Scotty on Star Trek, and an inexpensive NASA satellite.That's what I get for not reading every day [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691117</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid</title>
	<author>Gunnut1124</author>
	<datestamp>1247586660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct me if i'm wrong, but don't the "human-rated" flights of the space shuttle have similar failure ratios to the "non-human rated"... I know that a lot more satellites have gone up than people, and I think Richard Feynman called NASA on this fallacy back during his research after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard\_Feynman#Challenger\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Challenger</a> [wikipedia.org]. <br> <br> NASA mitigates risk with about the same degree of effect in both human and non-human flights. The added engineering and checks are simply due to the antiquated and flawed design of the shuttle (I'm a fan of the shuttle, but it's a bad idea). If they used something like their satellite launch rockets to lift men, they could gain efficiency by not having to work in multiple directions at once... Seems logical to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if i 'm wrong , but do n't the " human-rated " flights of the space shuttle have similar failure ratios to the " non-human rated " ... I know that a lot more satellites have gone up than people , and I think Richard Feynman called NASA on this fallacy back during his research after Challenger [ wikipedia.org ] .
NASA mitigates risk with about the same degree of effect in both human and non-human flights .
The added engineering and checks are simply due to the antiquated and flawed design of the shuttle ( I 'm a fan of the shuttle , but it 's a bad idea ) .
If they used something like their satellite launch rockets to lift men , they could gain efficiency by not having to work in multiple directions at once... Seems logical to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if i'm wrong, but don't the "human-rated" flights of the space shuttle have similar failure ratios to the "non-human rated"... I know that a lot more satellites have gone up than people, and I think Richard Feynman called NASA on this fallacy back during his research after Challenger [wikipedia.org].
NASA mitigates risk with about the same degree of effect in both human and non-human flights.
The added engineering and checks are simply due to the antiquated and flawed design of the shuttle (I'm a fan of the shuttle, but it's a bad idea).
If they used something like their satellite launch rockets to lift men, they could gain efficiency by not having to work in multiple directions at once... Seems logical to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731</id>
	<title>Quick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's start a commercial space station. First, connect a module to the ISS. Then, when those idiots plan to burn it down in 2016 via re-entry, disconnect it and start a new space station with that single module.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's start a commercial space station .
First , connect a module to the ISS .
Then , when those idiots plan to burn it down in 2016 via re-entry , disconnect it and start a new space station with that single module .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's start a commercial space station.
First, connect a module to the ISS.
Then, when those idiots plan to burn it down in 2016 via re-entry, disconnect it and start a new space station with that single module.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689691</id>
	<title>sat launch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cool</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28700469</id>
	<title>reusability</title>
	<author>strack</author>
	<datestamp>1247596740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so are they gonna reuse the first stage? did they put a parachute on it this time, unlike last time?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so are they gon na reuse the first stage ?
did they put a parachute on it this time , unlike last time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so are they gonna reuse the first stage?
did they put a parachute on it this time, unlike last time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690871</id>
	<title>Re:Quick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better still, the day before they plan to de-orbit send a propulsion module to the ISS, hijack it and boost it to a higher orbit and then send a commando astronaut in to disconnect it from NASA communications systems and take the thing over for your own purposes.</p><p>Claim that you want to re-cycle it int he name of earth and blame greenpeace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better still , the day before they plan to de-orbit send a propulsion module to the ISS , hijack it and boost it to a higher orbit and then send a commando astronaut in to disconnect it from NASA communications systems and take the thing over for your own purposes.Claim that you want to re-cycle it int he name of earth and blame greenpeace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better still, the day before they plan to de-orbit send a propulsion module to the ISS, hijack it and boost it to a higher orbit and then send a commando astronaut in to disconnect it from NASA communications systems and take the thing over for your own purposes.Claim that you want to re-cycle it int he name of earth and blame greenpeace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690297</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid</title>
	<author>Waste55</author>
	<datestamp>1247582940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention that some people are even shelling out extra millions (about 68 million in this case) just to NOT use SpaceX.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.space.com/news/090713-busmon-spacex-customer.html" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.space.com/news/090713-busmon-spacex-customer.html</a> [space.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that some people are even shelling out extra millions ( about 68 million in this case ) just to NOT use SpaceX .
http : //www.space.com/news/090713-busmon-spacex-customer.html [ space.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that some people are even shelling out extra millions (about 68 million in this case) just to NOT use SpaceX.
http://www.space.com/news/090713-busmon-spacex-customer.html [space.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689725</id>
	<title>RazakSAT</title>
	<author>smitty\_one\_each</author>
	<datestamp>1247580480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>RazakSAT!<br>
Well, how 'bout that?<br>
Truly a moment to savor.<br>
In the lee of the Earth she's a hairy boar,<br>
But by light she's a <a href="http://rhps.teamone.de/part05.htm" title="teamone.de">hell of a shaver</a> [teamone.de].<br>
<b>Burma Shave</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>RazakSAT !
Well , how 'bout that ?
Truly a moment to savor .
In the lee of the Earth she 's a hairy boar , But by light she 's a hell of a shaver [ teamone.de ] .
Burma Shave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RazakSAT!
Well, how 'bout that?
Truly a moment to savor.
In the lee of the Earth she's a hairy boar,
But by light she's a hell of a shaver [teamone.de].
Burma Shave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689997</id>
	<title>US$30,000 toilet seats</title>
	<author>Ritz\_Just\_Ritz</author>
	<datestamp>1247581620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a blow to the domestic economy, American defense contractors have re-adjusted their bids.  In light of new competition, next generation shuttle toilet seats will now only cost US$20,000.  It's all Elon's fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a blow to the domestic economy , American defense contractors have re-adjusted their bids .
In light of new competition , next generation shuttle toilet seats will now only cost US $ 20,000 .
It 's all Elon 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a blow to the domestic economy, American defense contractors have re-adjusted their bids.
In light of new competition, next generation shuttle toilet seats will now only cost US$20,000.
It's all Elon's fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690337</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison to Space Shuttle invalid</title>
	<author>jeti</author>
	<datestamp>1247583120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Falcon 9, which shares most of its technology with the Falcon 1, is going to be rated for human transport. The goal for it is to service the ISS in combination with the Dragon space capsule. The cargo version of Dragon will be used for a few years before SpaceX introduces the manned system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Falcon 9 , which shares most of its technology with the Falcon 1 , is going to be rated for human transport .
The goal for it is to service the ISS in combination with the Dragon space capsule .
The cargo version of Dragon will be used for a few years before SpaceX introduces the manned system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Falcon 9, which shares most of its technology with the Falcon 1, is going to be rated for human transport.
The goal for it is to service the ISS in combination with the Dragon space capsule.
The cargo version of Dragon will be used for a few years before SpaceX introduces the manned system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689953</id>
	<title>Launch video</title>
	<author>jeti</author>
	<datestamp>1247581500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/spacexlaunch/" title="wired.com">Wired article</a> [wired.com] also embeds the complete launch video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wired article [ wired.com ] also embeds the complete launch video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wired article [wired.com] also embeds the complete launch video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693177</id>
	<title>Re:Quick</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1247595300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone tried it with Mir: <a href="http://www.orphansofapollo.com/" title="orphansofapollo.com">http://www.orphansofapollo.com/</a> [orphansofapollo.com].  Well, they used their commando money anyway to do it anyway, until the US government stopped them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone tried it with Mir : http : //www.orphansofapollo.com/ [ orphansofapollo.com ] .
Well , they used their commando money anyway to do it anyway , until the US government stopped them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone tried it with Mir: http://www.orphansofapollo.com/ [orphansofapollo.com].
Well, they used their commando money anyway to do it anyway, until the US government stopped them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689765</id>
	<title>Fourth post!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imma chargin' malaysia!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imma chargin ' malaysia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imma chargin' malaysia!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693569</id>
	<title>Re:'better manage'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously - have you ever posted on a topic that you know more than Jack Shit about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - have you ever posted on a topic that you know more than Jack Shit about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - have you ever posted on a topic that you know more than Jack Shit about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692359</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28694115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1223217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28701861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28701861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690871
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28690499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28692359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28694115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28693569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28689997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1223217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1223217.28691475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
