<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_1431231</id>
	<title>New Kind of Orbit Could Ease Mars Communications</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255705320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>japan\_dan writes <i>"An interesting way to enable Earth-Mars communication when the Sun occludes the direct radio line-of-sight: ESA proposes placing a pair of continuous-thrusting relay satellites, using a solar electric propulsion system &mdash; one in front and ahead of Mars, the other behind and below &mdash; with both <a href="http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Operations/SEM1OFYRA0G\_0.html">following non-Keplerian, so-called 'B-orbits'</a>. This means the direction of thrust is perpendicular to the satellites' direction of flight, allowing them to 'hover' with both Earth and Mars in view. Quoting from the Q&amp;A: 'We found that a pair of relay satellites would only have to switch on their thrusters for about 90 days out of every 2.13-year period, and this solution would only increase the one-way signal travel time by one minute, so it could be effective.'"</i> Here is the <a href="http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/12919/1/McKay\_R\_Macdonald\_M\_McInnes\_CR\_\%26\_Biggs\_JD\_-\_strathprints\_-\_Non-Keplerian\_orbits\_using\_low\_thrust\_high\_ISP\_propulsion\_systems\_27\_Aug\_09.pdf">paper describing non-Keplerian orbits</a> (PDF).</htmltext>
<tokenext>japan \ _dan writes " An interesting way to enable Earth-Mars communication when the Sun occludes the direct radio line-of-sight : ESA proposes placing a pair of continuous-thrusting relay satellites , using a solar electric propulsion system    one in front and ahead of Mars , the other behind and below    with both following non-Keplerian , so-called 'B-orbits' .
This means the direction of thrust is perpendicular to the satellites ' direction of flight , allowing them to 'hover ' with both Earth and Mars in view .
Quoting from the Q&amp;A : 'We found that a pair of relay satellites would only have to switch on their thrusters for about 90 days out of every 2.13-year period , and this solution would only increase the one-way signal travel time by one minute , so it could be effective .
' " Here is the paper describing non-Keplerian orbits ( PDF ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>japan\_dan writes "An interesting way to enable Earth-Mars communication when the Sun occludes the direct radio line-of-sight: ESA proposes placing a pair of continuous-thrusting relay satellites, using a solar electric propulsion system — one in front and ahead of Mars, the other behind and below — with both following non-Keplerian, so-called 'B-orbits'.
This means the direction of thrust is perpendicular to the satellites' direction of flight, allowing them to 'hover' with both Earth and Mars in view.
Quoting from the Q&amp;A: 'We found that a pair of relay satellites would only have to switch on their thrusters for about 90 days out of every 2.13-year period, and this solution would only increase the one-way signal travel time by one minute, so it could be effective.
'" Here is the paper describing non-Keplerian orbits (PDF).</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769183</id>
	<title>Re:lets wake up here</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1255710660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah nothing that NASA has done has affected your life in the positive. Lets just wait for private enterprise to go there.<br>
The only reason private enterprise is able to *think about* real space travel is because they are using the ~40 years of NASA knowledge and research.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm" title="howstuffworks.com">http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm</a> [howstuffworks.com] <br>
Ok so this is really basic, but also aerogel, and a laundry list of other things.<br>
<br>
Being on Mars is really cool, and we have learned a lot about it. But as for usefulness it tells us maybe mining Mars wouldn't be that profitable (but did we know that before). But all the stuff they used to get to Mars, that shit trickels down FAST. I mean I personally believe that SSDs on the rovers are wat put them into the main stream. They lasted in a super harsh enviroment orders of magnitude longer than they were supposed to. So keep thinking all NASA produces is cool photos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah nothing that NASA has done has affected your life in the positive .
Lets just wait for private enterprise to go there .
The only reason private enterprise is able to * think about * real space travel is because they are using the ~ 40 years of NASA knowledge and research .
http : //science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm [ howstuffworks.com ] Ok so this is really basic , but also aerogel , and a laundry list of other things .
Being on Mars is really cool , and we have learned a lot about it .
But as for usefulness it tells us maybe mining Mars would n't be that profitable ( but did we know that before ) .
But all the stuff they used to get to Mars , that shit trickels down FAST .
I mean I personally believe that SSDs on the rovers are wat put them into the main stream .
They lasted in a super harsh enviroment orders of magnitude longer than they were supposed to .
So keep thinking all NASA produces is cool photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah nothing that NASA has done has affected your life in the positive.
Lets just wait for private enterprise to go there.
The only reason private enterprise is able to *think about* real space travel is because they are using the ~40 years of NASA knowledge and research.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm [howstuffworks.com] 
Ok so this is really basic, but also aerogel, and a laundry list of other things.
Being on Mars is really cool, and we have learned a lot about it.
But as for usefulness it tells us maybe mining Mars wouldn't be that profitable (but did we know that before).
But all the stuff they used to get to Mars, that shit trickels down FAST.
I mean I personally believe that SSDs on the rovers are wat put them into the main stream.
They lasted in a super harsh enviroment orders of magnitude longer than they were supposed to.
So keep thinking all NASA produces is cool photos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769061</id>
	<title>Eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand "behind and below".  WTF is "in front and ahead"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand " behind and below " .
WTF is " in front and ahead " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand "behind and below".
WTF is "in front and ahead"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769467</id>
	<title>Illudium Phosdex shortage!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255712040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I have sent for you, Dodgers, because we are  facing a crisis. The world supply of Illudium Phosdex, the shaving cream atom, is alarmingly low. Now we have reason to believe that the only remaining source is on Planet X, somewhere in this area."</p><p>"And you want me to find Planet X, eh?"</p><p>"Can you do it, Dodgers?</p><p>"Indubitubly, sir, because there's no one knows his way around outer space like... <i>Duck Dodgers, in the twenty-fourth and a half<br>century!</i>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have sent for you , Dodgers , because we are facing a crisis .
The world supply of Illudium Phosdex , the shaving cream atom , is alarmingly low .
Now we have reason to believe that the only remaining source is on Planet X , somewhere in this area .
" " And you want me to find Planet X , eh ?
" " Can you do it , Dodgers ?
" Indubitubly , sir , because there 's no one knows his way around outer space like... Duck Dodgers , in the twenty-fourth and a halfcentury !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have sent for you, Dodgers, because we are  facing a crisis.
The world supply of Illudium Phosdex, the shaving cream atom, is alarmingly low.
Now we have reason to believe that the only remaining source is on Planet X, somewhere in this area.
""And you want me to find Planet X, eh?
""Can you do it, Dodgers?
"Indubitubly, sir, because there's no one knows his way around outer space like... Duck Dodgers, in the twenty-fourth and a halfcentury!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770889</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1255719180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?</p></div></blockquote><p>
The receiver/transmitter on these satellites and space probes are very small.  Generally they transmit using only a few watts, and we rely on huge antennas like in the ubiquitous dishes in the Deep Space Network to gather enough of that minuscule signal to distinguish it from background noise.  Going the other way, we use the same huge antennas to blast commands to these spacecraft at anywhere between 5-500 kW.  By the time the signal reaches the spacecraft, it has dissipated substantially, but its original broadcast power was high enough that the spacecraft's relatively small antenna can still collect enough of it to distinguish the signal.
<br> <br>
Putting a repeater spacecraft at the L4 or L5 points would place them a substantial distance from Mars.  Consequently the repeater would need a very large antenna and large amounts of power (though not as big/much as earth-based antennas) in order to relay signals to/from a spacecraft on Mars.  The idea presented in the paper is more akin to what we do right now with the two Mars Rovers and several of our Mars orbiters.  The Rovers themselves have weak antennas and can't communicate directly with Earth except at low data rates.  Instead, they transmit their data to the orbiters (same antenna can achieve higher bandwidth since the distance is much less), which then relay it to Earth using their much larger and more powerful antenna.
<br> <br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon\%E2\%80\%93Hartley\_theorem" title="wikipedia.org">Introduction to channel capacity</a> [wikipedia.org] for those who may be wondering what the relationship is between data transmission speed and signal to noise ratio.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... to park such a device at L4 or L5 , where you would n't require * ANY * fuel to keep it in position ?
The receiver/transmitter on these satellites and space probes are very small .
Generally they transmit using only a few watts , and we rely on huge antennas like in the ubiquitous dishes in the Deep Space Network to gather enough of that minuscule signal to distinguish it from background noise .
Going the other way , we use the same huge antennas to blast commands to these spacecraft at anywhere between 5-500 kW .
By the time the signal reaches the spacecraft , it has dissipated substantially , but its original broadcast power was high enough that the spacecraft 's relatively small antenna can still collect enough of it to distinguish the signal .
Putting a repeater spacecraft at the L4 or L5 points would place them a substantial distance from Mars .
Consequently the repeater would need a very large antenna and large amounts of power ( though not as big/much as earth-based antennas ) in order to relay signals to/from a spacecraft on Mars .
The idea presented in the paper is more akin to what we do right now with the two Mars Rovers and several of our Mars orbiters .
The Rovers themselves have weak antennas and ca n't communicate directly with Earth except at low data rates .
Instead , they transmit their data to the orbiters ( same antenna can achieve higher bandwidth since the distance is much less ) , which then relay it to Earth using their much larger and more powerful antenna .
( Introduction to channel capacity [ wikipedia.org ] for those who may be wondering what the relationship is between data transmission speed and signal to noise ratio .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?
The receiver/transmitter on these satellites and space probes are very small.
Generally they transmit using only a few watts, and we rely on huge antennas like in the ubiquitous dishes in the Deep Space Network to gather enough of that minuscule signal to distinguish it from background noise.
Going the other way, we use the same huge antennas to blast commands to these spacecraft at anywhere between 5-500 kW.
By the time the signal reaches the spacecraft, it has dissipated substantially, but its original broadcast power was high enough that the spacecraft's relatively small antenna can still collect enough of it to distinguish the signal.
Putting a repeater spacecraft at the L4 or L5 points would place them a substantial distance from Mars.
Consequently the repeater would need a very large antenna and large amounts of power (though not as big/much as earth-based antennas) in order to relay signals to/from a spacecraft on Mars.
The idea presented in the paper is more akin to what we do right now with the two Mars Rovers and several of our Mars orbiters.
The Rovers themselves have weak antennas and can't communicate directly with Earth except at low data rates.
Instead, they transmit their data to the orbiters (same antenna can achieve higher bandwidth since the distance is much less), which then relay it to Earth using their much larger and more powerful antenna.
(Introduction to channel capacity [wikipedia.org] for those who may be wondering what the relationship is between data transmission speed and signal to noise ratio.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770289</id>
	<title>What about a Stationary Position about the Sun?</title>
	<author>KJSwartz</author>
	<datestamp>1255716060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First: What is the purpose of 24 hour communications?  If you need SOS messaging, signal recovery, or a simple heartbeat, use the sun as the point-of-reference.<br>Second: A fleet of solar communications satellites could provide a solar GPS system.<br>Third: These satellites could use Solar Propulsion and "hover" at a fixed distance from adjacent satellites.  Solar sails could serve as a foundation for power generation (focused beam) and for data reception.</p><p>Downsides: the sun is a noisy place for communications, as well as a dirty place to park objects with large surface areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First : What is the purpose of 24 hour communications ?
If you need SOS messaging , signal recovery , or a simple heartbeat , use the sun as the point-of-reference.Second : A fleet of solar communications satellites could provide a solar GPS system.Third : These satellites could use Solar Propulsion and " hover " at a fixed distance from adjacent satellites .
Solar sails could serve as a foundation for power generation ( focused beam ) and for data reception.Downsides : the sun is a noisy place for communications , as well as a dirty place to park objects with large surface areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First: What is the purpose of 24 hour communications?
If you need SOS messaging, signal recovery, or a simple heartbeat, use the sun as the point-of-reference.Second: A fleet of solar communications satellites could provide a solar GPS system.Third: These satellites could use Solar Propulsion and "hover" at a fixed distance from adjacent satellites.
Solar sails could serve as a foundation for power generation (focused beam) and for data reception.Downsides: the sun is a noisy place for communications, as well as a dirty place to park objects with large surface areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769443</id>
	<title>ANKOS...</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1255711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A New Kind Of Science...er...Orbit.  I wonder if Wolfram will try to take credit for this, too.  Maybe there's an automata to describe it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A New Kind Of Science...er...Orbit .
I wonder if Wolfram will try to take credit for this , too .
Maybe there 's an automata to describe it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A New Kind Of Science...er...Orbit.
I wonder if Wolfram will try to take credit for this, too.
Maybe there's an automata to describe it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29775429</id>
	<title>Re:Cita tion need ed</title>
	<author>BoothbyTCD</author>
	<datestamp>1255710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the linked paper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the linked paper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the linked paper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769613</id>
	<title>Why not above?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255712820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why won't anyone just put a relay above the sun?<br>Put one below it too, and one orbiting the horizontal plane and you pretty much have 360 degree coverage of the solar system, outside of being on the shadow side of planets.</p><p>Surely there is a stable point somewhere above the sun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why wo n't anyone just put a relay above the sun ? Put one below it too , and one orbiting the horizontal plane and you pretty much have 360 degree coverage of the solar system , outside of being on the shadow side of planets.Surely there is a stable point somewhere above the sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why won't anyone just put a relay above the sun?Put one below it too, and one orbiting the horizontal plane and you pretty much have 360 degree coverage of the solar system, outside of being on the shadow side of planets.Surely there is a stable point somewhere above the sun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987</id>
	<title>Cita tion need ed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI: there is no article on Wikipedia to describe a non-Keplerian orbit.</p><p>Even 2 simple diagrams describing the 2 orbits types would help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI : there is no article on Wikipedia to describe a non-Keplerian orbit.Even 2 simple diagrams describing the 2 orbits types would help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI: there is no article on Wikipedia to describe a non-Keplerian orbit.Even 2 simple diagrams describing the 2 orbits types would help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769961</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt Vilos Cohaagen would agree...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt Vilos Cohaagen would agree.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt Vilos Cohaagen would agree...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770447</id>
	<title>Re:That's good news</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1255716960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as we don't go bombing their planet to look for water.... that's BAD for relations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as we do n't go bombing their planet to look for water.... that 's BAD for relations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as we don't go bombing their planet to look for water.... that's BAD for relations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769451</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1255711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Peer to peer downloads of heavy metal music would push the satellite out of the Lagrange point. Another reason why its BAD to fileshare<br><br>~Your friendly RIAA rep</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peer to peer downloads of heavy metal music would push the satellite out of the Lagrange point .
Another reason why its BAD to fileshare ~ Your friendly RIAA rep</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peer to peer downloads of heavy metal music would push the satellite out of the Lagrange point.
Another reason why its BAD to fileshare~Your friendly RIAA rep</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769013</id>
	<title>Slow News Friday?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please post more arcane papers.  For examples, I highly<br>recommend <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">arXiv.org</a> [arxiv.org]:</p><p>from the home page: Open access to 565,038 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics.</p><p>Yours In Yaznogorsk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please post more arcane papers .
For examples , I highlyrecommend arXiv.org [ arxiv.org ] : from the home page : Open access to 565,038 e-prints in Physics , Mathematics , Computer Science , Quantitative Biology , Quantitative Finance and Statistics.Yours In Yaznogorsk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please post more arcane papers.
For examples, I highlyrecommend arXiv.org [arxiv.org]:from the home page: Open access to 565,038 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics.Yours In Yaznogorsk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29772765</id>
	<title>Re:Occult vs Occlude</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255686180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't ask "word geeks", do like "word geeks", open up a fucking dictionary.

</p><p>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occult</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't ask " word geeks " , do like " word geeks " , open up a fucking dictionary .
http : //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occult</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't ask "word geeks", do like "word geeks", open up a fucking dictionary.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occult</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769289</id>
	<title>Re:lets wake up here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255711260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You speak sense, but if you come to slashdot and piss on the sci-fi nerds' fantasies of colonizing the universe within the next hundred years, you're doomed to be buried in flames.  Mostly what you'll see is people terribly excited about frontier-style colonization efforts or admitting that our current space efforts make little sense but justifying them because it's good practice for our engineers.  It's too early for colonization (we're not even close) and the "good practice" justification is just nonsense, but for some reason those are the most popular arguments.</p><p>AC so that only one of us goes down in flames =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You speak sense , but if you come to slashdot and piss on the sci-fi nerds ' fantasies of colonizing the universe within the next hundred years , you 're doomed to be buried in flames .
Mostly what you 'll see is people terribly excited about frontier-style colonization efforts or admitting that our current space efforts make little sense but justifying them because it 's good practice for our engineers .
It 's too early for colonization ( we 're not even close ) and the " good practice " justification is just nonsense , but for some reason those are the most popular arguments.AC so that only one of us goes down in flames = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You speak sense, but if you come to slashdot and piss on the sci-fi nerds' fantasies of colonizing the universe within the next hundred years, you're doomed to be buried in flames.
Mostly what you'll see is people terribly excited about frontier-style colonization efforts or admitting that our current space efforts make little sense but justifying them because it's good practice for our engineers.
It's too early for colonization (we're not even close) and the "good practice" justification is just nonsense, but for some reason those are the most popular arguments.AC so that only one of us goes down in flames =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29775249</id>
	<title>good use of orbital mechanics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255707420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not quite sure of what you call this, perhaps orbital mechanics or gravity surfing. Whatever you call it, it has the potential to affect space travel by reducing the amount of energy needed to accomplish a task. Clever use of the Interplanetary Transport Network, LaGrange points, and gravity assists/ gravitational slingshots means that a small amount of force applied with the right vector at the right time and place can accomplish what might take much more energy in other places in time and space.</p><p>The technology that humans have so far developed is good at measurement and computation, but not so good at transforming and storing large amounts of power. If humans utilize our strengths in information technology to calculate clever courses through various gravitational fields. See my posts at http://realisticinterstellartravel.blogspot.com</p><p>By the way,I kept on logging in and then when I'd go to post, find that slashdot had logged me out. This happens quite frequently. More broken-ness at slashdot, alas, again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not quite sure of what you call this , perhaps orbital mechanics or gravity surfing .
Whatever you call it , it has the potential to affect space travel by reducing the amount of energy needed to accomplish a task .
Clever use of the Interplanetary Transport Network , LaGrange points , and gravity assists/ gravitational slingshots means that a small amount of force applied with the right vector at the right time and place can accomplish what might take much more energy in other places in time and space.The technology that humans have so far developed is good at measurement and computation , but not so good at transforming and storing large amounts of power .
If humans utilize our strengths in information technology to calculate clever courses through various gravitational fields .
See my posts at http : //realisticinterstellartravel.blogspot.comBy the way,I kept on logging in and then when I 'd go to post , find that slashdot had logged me out .
This happens quite frequently .
More broken-ness at slashdot , alas , again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not quite sure of what you call this, perhaps orbital mechanics or gravity surfing.
Whatever you call it, it has the potential to affect space travel by reducing the amount of energy needed to accomplish a task.
Clever use of the Interplanetary Transport Network, LaGrange points, and gravity assists/ gravitational slingshots means that a small amount of force applied with the right vector at the right time and place can accomplish what might take much more energy in other places in time and space.The technology that humans have so far developed is good at measurement and computation, but not so good at transforming and storing large amounts of power.
If humans utilize our strengths in information technology to calculate clever courses through various gravitational fields.
See my posts at http://realisticinterstellartravel.blogspot.comBy the way,I kept on logging in and then when I'd go to post, find that slashdot had logged me out.
This happens quite frequently.
More broken-ness at slashdot, alas, again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29771803</id>
	<title>Continuous or 90 days / 2.13 years?</title>
	<author>Kaell Meynn</author>
	<datestamp>1255724100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>continuous-thrusting</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>We found that a pair of relay satellites would only have to switch on their thrusters for about 90 days out of every 2.13-year period</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm confused.  Isn't 90days/(2.13years*days/year)  1?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>continuous-thrustingWe found that a pair of relay satellites would only have to switch on their thrusters for about 90 days out of every 2.13-year period I 'm confused .
Is n't 90days/ ( 2.13years * days/year ) 1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>continuous-thrustingWe found that a pair of relay satellites would only have to switch on their thrusters for about 90 days out of every 2.13-year period
I'm confused.
Isn't 90days/(2.13years*days/year)  1?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29775303</id>
	<title>Venus Equilateral</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1255708200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a job for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus\_Equilateral" title="wikipedia.org">Venus Equilateral</a> [wikipedia.org]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a job for Venus Equilateral [ wikipedia.org ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a job for Venus Equilateral [wikipedia.org]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770723</id>
	<title>Re:lets wake up here</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1255718280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since there's barely anything useful on the Moon given the cost of getting it, and there's even LESS useful on Mars</p></div><p>Since you know the exact chemical composition of the entirety of the moon and Mars, would you mind sharing with the rest of us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since there 's barely anything useful on the Moon given the cost of getting it , and there 's even LESS useful on MarsSince you know the exact chemical composition of the entirety of the moon and Mars , would you mind sharing with the rest of us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since there's barely anything useful on the Moon given the cost of getting it, and there's even LESS useful on MarsSince you know the exact chemical composition of the entirety of the moon and Mars, would you mind sharing with the rest of us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769077</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1255710120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know about L4 and L5 so looked it up:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian\_point" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian\_point</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I think any satellite requires some fuel for thrusters to correct the orbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know about L4 and L5 so looked it up : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian \ _point [ wikipedia.org ] I think any satellite requires some fuel for thrusters to correct the orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know about L4 and L5 so looked it up:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian\_point [wikipedia.org]I think any satellite requires some fuel for thrusters to correct the orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770367</id>
	<title>Use Solar Propulsion instead of propellants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255716600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we're THAT CLOSE to the sun, it would be interesting to see how big a solar sail would need to be for a 364.245 day parking orbit.  Use the dark side of Mercury as Network Control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're THAT CLOSE to the sun , it would be interesting to see how big a solar sail would need to be for a 364.245 day parking orbit .
Use the dark side of Mercury as Network Control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're THAT CLOSE to the sun, it would be interesting to see how big a solar sail would need to be for a 364.245 day parking orbit.
Use the dark side of Mercury as Network Control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769049</id>
	<title>Orbital resonance, anyone?</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1255709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would've thought their may be an orbital resonance solution that wouldn't require any thrusters at all. But that may require an orbital resonance between Earth and Mars, a situation that clearly doesn't exist. <p>

Still, there may be something exotic that could be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would 've thought their may be an orbital resonance solution that would n't require any thrusters at all .
But that may require an orbital resonance between Earth and Mars , a situation that clearly does n't exist .
Still , there may be something exotic that could be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would've thought their may be an orbital resonance solution that wouldn't require any thrusters at all.
But that may require an orbital resonance between Earth and Mars, a situation that clearly doesn't exist.
Still, there may be something exotic that could be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297</id>
	<title>Bandwidth</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1255711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is slightly tangential, but worth noting I think:</p><p>This will be handy when we can't afford to lose contact with Mars for even a few days, but there's a bigger problem lurking in inter-planetary communications: bandwidth.  We don't really have enough Deep Space Network dishes (particularly, the large 70-m ones) to talk to all of our missions as much as we should.  We're sacrificing data collection on billion-dollar missions on a daily basis on the grounds that we don't have enough bandwidth to get it back.  When we put people or even just more missions on Mars, that'll only get worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is slightly tangential , but worth noting I think : This will be handy when we ca n't afford to lose contact with Mars for even a few days , but there 's a bigger problem lurking in inter-planetary communications : bandwidth .
We do n't really have enough Deep Space Network dishes ( particularly , the large 70-m ones ) to talk to all of our missions as much as we should .
We 're sacrificing data collection on billion-dollar missions on a daily basis on the grounds that we do n't have enough bandwidth to get it back .
When we put people or even just more missions on Mars , that 'll only get worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is slightly tangential, but worth noting I think:This will be handy when we can't afford to lose contact with Mars for even a few days, but there's a bigger problem lurking in inter-planetary communications: bandwidth.
We don't really have enough Deep Space Network dishes (particularly, the large 70-m ones) to talk to all of our missions as much as we should.
We're sacrificing data collection on billion-dollar missions on a daily basis on the grounds that we don't have enough bandwidth to get it back.
When we put people or even just more missions on Mars, that'll only get worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769575</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1255712580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Planck and Herschel circulate around L2 of Earth-Moon. It needs little (but still) fuel to correct the orbit.</p><p>L4/L5 are better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's where the Trojans are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) (L4/L5 attract matter).</p><p>But as TorKlingberg points out below, the sun will move between Mars-L4/L5 or L4/L5-Earth.<br>I assume you planned to use L4/L5 of Sun/Mars. TFA suggests moving out of the ecliptic plane, circulating around Mars. Maybe some oscillation/periodicity can be exploited?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Planck and Herschel circulate around L2 of Earth-Moon .
It needs little ( but still ) fuel to correct the orbit.L4/L5 are better ... that 's where the Trojans are ; - ) ( L4/L5 attract matter ) .But as TorKlingberg points out below , the sun will move between Mars-L4/L5 or L4/L5-Earth.I assume you planned to use L4/L5 of Sun/Mars .
TFA suggests moving out of the ecliptic plane , circulating around Mars .
Maybe some oscillation/periodicity can be exploited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Planck and Herschel circulate around L2 of Earth-Moon.
It needs little (but still) fuel to correct the orbit.L4/L5 are better ... that's where the Trojans are ;-) (L4/L5 attract matter).But as TorKlingberg points out below, the sun will move between Mars-L4/L5 or L4/L5-Earth.I assume you planned to use L4/L5 of Sun/Mars.
TFA suggests moving out of the ecliptic plane, circulating around Mars.
Maybe some oscillation/periodicity can be exploited?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1255709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... to park such a device at L4 or L5 , where you would n't require * ANY * fuel to keep it in position ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769341</id>
	<title>B Orbit? Borbit? Borat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255711500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article has animations and pictures of everything but the actual type of orbit the paper talks about.</p><p>Is it so difficult to actually include such a thing, so that we can imagine it?</p><p>Note: I'm not reading the paper, that's too much effort. I'd rather get my information fed to me on a plate. Although I will take the time to write this still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article has animations and pictures of everything but the actual type of orbit the paper talks about.Is it so difficult to actually include such a thing , so that we can imagine it ? Note : I 'm not reading the paper , that 's too much effort .
I 'd rather get my information fed to me on a plate .
Although I will take the time to write this still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article has animations and pictures of everything but the actual type of orbit the paper talks about.Is it so difficult to actually include such a thing, so that we can imagine it?Note: I'm not reading the paper, that's too much effort.
I'd rather get my information fed to me on a plate.
Although I will take the time to write this still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929</id>
	<title>lets wake up here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since there's barely anything useful on the Moon given the cost of getting it, and there's even LESS useful on Mars (again, considering the cost of getting it), is it time to scale back the already neutered-to-the-point-of-a-joke NASA program, and let either private enterprise (?) explore space, or forget it?   If you can steal an asteroid, park it at a Lagrange point, then mine it for some super expensive unobtanium thats fine, but do we really need to keep spending money playing robots on the surface of Mars ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since there 's barely anything useful on the Moon given the cost of getting it , and there 's even LESS useful on Mars ( again , considering the cost of getting it ) , is it time to scale back the already neutered-to-the-point-of-a-joke NASA program , and let either private enterprise ( ?
) explore space , or forget it ?
If you can steal an asteroid , park it at a Lagrange point , then mine it for some super expensive unobtanium thats fine , but do we really need to keep spending money playing robots on the surface of Mars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since there's barely anything useful on the Moon given the cost of getting it, and there's even LESS useful on Mars (again, considering the cost of getting it), is it time to scale back the already neutered-to-the-point-of-a-joke NASA program, and let either private enterprise (?
) explore space, or forget it?
If you can steal an asteroid, park it at a Lagrange point, then mine it for some super expensive unobtanium thats fine, but do we really need to keep spending money playing robots on the surface of Mars ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770841</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255718880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two words: Lunar dishes.<p>
Put the comm dishes on the Moon someplace.  I'd recommend a set of 3, equally spaced around the equator of the Moon, thus, it'll always have 1 dish at least looking in the right direction.</p><p>
Second thought, a heavy comm laser setup, also Moon-based.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : Lunar dishes .
Put the comm dishes on the Moon someplace .
I 'd recommend a set of 3 , equally spaced around the equator of the Moon , thus , it 'll always have 1 dish at least looking in the right direction .
Second thought , a heavy comm laser setup , also Moon-based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words: Lunar dishes.
Put the comm dishes on the Moon someplace.
I'd recommend a set of 3, equally spaced around the equator of the Moon, thus, it'll always have 1 dish at least looking in the right direction.
Second thought, a heavy comm laser setup, also Moon-based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769771</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1255713600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and that's the whole point - when the planet is blocked, the Lagrange points would be visible to use for a relay.
<br> <br>
Look up 1940's science fiction about the Venus Equilateral Relay Station by George O. Smith     <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus\_Equilateral" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus\_Equilateral</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and that 's the whole point - when the planet is blocked , the Lagrange points would be visible to use for a relay .
Look up 1940 's science fiction about the Venus Equilateral Relay Station by George O. Smith http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus \ _Equilateral [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and that's the whole point - when the planet is blocked, the Lagrange points would be visible to use for a relay.
Look up 1940's science fiction about the Venus Equilateral Relay Station by George O. Smith     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus\_Equilateral [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769385</id>
	<title>How about....</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1255711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...we let go of the harakiri you're supposed to commit if you ever go out of cell phone range? I mean, surely we can outfit an expedition that doesn't need 24/7 babysitting from mission control, It's not like Columbus had queen Isabella call him up every night to ask "Are you there yet? Food supply ok? Your blood sugar values are low, you should eat more."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...we let go of the harakiri you 're supposed to commit if you ever go out of cell phone range ?
I mean , surely we can outfit an expedition that does n't need 24/7 babysitting from mission control , It 's not like Columbus had queen Isabella call him up every night to ask " Are you there yet ?
Food supply ok ?
Your blood sugar values are low , you should eat more .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we let go of the harakiri you're supposed to commit if you ever go out of cell phone range?
I mean, surely we can outfit an expedition that doesn't need 24/7 babysitting from mission control, It's not like Columbus had queen Isabella call him up every night to ask "Are you there yet?
Food supply ok?
Your blood sugar values are low, you should eat more.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769331</id>
	<title>Immature</title>
	<author>ZinnHelden</author>
	<datestamp>1255711500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I tried to read the summary but I didn't make it past 'continually-thrusting'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I tried to read the summary but I did n't make it past 'continually-thrusting' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I tried to read the summary but I didn't make it past 'continually-thrusting'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29772691</id>
	<title>See \_Venus Equilateral\_ by George O. Smith.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1255685700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wouldn't it make more sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?</i></p><p>I'll second that.</p><p>Jupiter might perturb the Mars L4 &amp; L5 points too much.  But the Earth's points should do just fine.  They'd also have somewhat more solar power available and would be closer, fuel-wise, for installation, which should help as well.</p><p>George O. Smith proposed essentially this solution in the \_Venus Equilateral\_ series, between 1942 and 1945.  He sited his relay at Venus L4 to relay among Earth/Moon and hypothetical settlements on Venus and Mars.</p><p>It's a scream to read these days, with a giant manned communications/research station in Venus orbit, using advanced vacuum tube technology and machinery scheduling messages by automatically splicing hyper-fast-moving punched paper tape.  But the basic problem (sun gets in the way sometimes) / solution (relay at an L4/5 point to bounce messages around it) is still sound and the engineering thinking and team organization was well portrayed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it make more sense ... to park such a device at L4 or L5 , where you would n't require * ANY * fuel to keep it in position ? I 'll second that.Jupiter might perturb the Mars L4 &amp; L5 points too much .
But the Earth 's points should do just fine .
They 'd also have somewhat more solar power available and would be closer , fuel-wise , for installation , which should help as well.George O. Smith proposed essentially this solution in the \ _Venus Equilateral \ _ series , between 1942 and 1945 .
He sited his relay at Venus L4 to relay among Earth/Moon and hypothetical settlements on Venus and Mars.It 's a scream to read these days , with a giant manned communications/research station in Venus orbit , using advanced vacuum tube technology and machinery scheduling messages by automatically splicing hyper-fast-moving punched paper tape .
But the basic problem ( sun gets in the way sometimes ) / solution ( relay at an L4/5 point to bounce messages around it ) is still sound and the engineering thinking and team organization was well portrayed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it make more sense ... to park such a device at L4 or L5, where you wouldn't require *ANY* fuel to keep it in position?I'll second that.Jupiter might perturb the Mars L4 &amp; L5 points too much.
But the Earth's points should do just fine.
They'd also have somewhat more solar power available and would be closer, fuel-wise, for installation, which should help as well.George O. Smith proposed essentially this solution in the \_Venus Equilateral\_ series, between 1942 and 1945.
He sited his relay at Venus L4 to relay among Earth/Moon and hypothetical settlements on Venus and Mars.It's a scream to read these days, with a giant manned communications/research station in Venus orbit, using advanced vacuum tube technology and machinery scheduling messages by automatically splicing hyper-fast-moving punched paper tape.
But the basic problem (sun gets in the way sometimes) / solution (relay at an L4/5 point to bounce messages around it) is still sound and the engineering thinking and team organization was well portrayed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769239</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The interviewee mentions that both LaGrange point orbits, as well as a few other options, are also being considered. Reading the interview, which is part of the article, can sometimes reveal useful information like this.
<br> <br>
Also, to be pedantic, you would still need some fuel on a LaGrange spacecraft for station-keeping purposes. Though this amount would be minimal, you can't justifiably claim that you wouldn't need *ANY* fuel.
<br> <br>
Cheers Mate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The interviewee mentions that both LaGrange point orbits , as well as a few other options , are also being considered .
Reading the interview , which is part of the article , can sometimes reveal useful information like this .
Also , to be pedantic , you would still need some fuel on a LaGrange spacecraft for station-keeping purposes .
Though this amount would be minimal , you ca n't justifiably claim that you would n't need * ANY * fuel .
Cheers Mate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interviewee mentions that both LaGrange point orbits, as well as a few other options, are also being considered.
Reading the interview, which is part of the article, can sometimes reveal useful information like this.
Also, to be pedantic, you would still need some fuel on a LaGrange spacecraft for station-keeping purposes.
Though this amount would be minimal, you can't justifiably claim that you wouldn't need *ANY* fuel.
Cheers Mate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769725</id>
	<title>Re:Eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255713360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's kdawson speak for "in front and above" I believe, but I can't be certain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's kdawson speak for " in front and above " I believe , but I ca n't be certain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's kdawson speak for "in front and above" I believe, but I can't be certain</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769403</id>
	<title>Re:lets wake up here</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255711740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you doing at a nerd site? Money is the LAST thing a nerd is thinking of when (s)he thinks of space. Space is for technological and scientific advancement. Sue, there will be money made in the future, but private enterprise operates on the next fiscal quarter.</p><p>NASA is doing ot because (duh) THERE'S NO MONEY IN SPACE EXPLORATION and money is the only reason for private enterprise to even exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you doing at a nerd site ?
Money is the LAST thing a nerd is thinking of when ( s ) he thinks of space .
Space is for technological and scientific advancement .
Sue , there will be money made in the future , but private enterprise operates on the next fiscal quarter.NASA is doing ot because ( duh ) THERE 'S NO MONEY IN SPACE EXPLORATION and money is the only reason for private enterprise to even exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you doing at a nerd site?
Money is the LAST thing a nerd is thinking of when (s)he thinks of space.
Space is for technological and scientific advancement.
Sue, there will be money made in the future, but private enterprise operates on the next fiscal quarter.NASA is doing ot because (duh) THERE'S NO MONEY IN SPACE EXPLORATION and money is the only reason for private enterprise to even exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29773153</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1255688520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory something that is placed in an L4 or L5 point stays there forever.  In reality perturbations from the various objects in the Solar System shake up thing a little, so some manoeuvers are needed to keep things stable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory something that is placed in an L4 or L5 point stays there forever .
In reality perturbations from the various objects in the Solar System shake up thing a little , so some manoeuvers are needed to keep things stable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory something that is placed in an L4 or L5 point stays there forever.
In reality perturbations from the various objects in the Solar System shake up thing a little, so some manoeuvers are needed to keep things stable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29771465</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1255722000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That goes to a complaint I heard recently. Namely, that the US government eagerly spends billions to develop and launch these missions, and grudgingly spends millions to maintain them. It makes sense, if you realize that the primary purpose of these missions is to funnel money to the NASA supply chain, not to do space science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That goes to a complaint I heard recently .
Namely , that the US government eagerly spends billions to develop and launch these missions , and grudgingly spends millions to maintain them .
It makes sense , if you realize that the primary purpose of these missions is to funnel money to the NASA supply chain , not to do space science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That goes to a complaint I heard recently.
Namely, that the US government eagerly spends billions to develop and launch these missions, and grudgingly spends millions to maintain them.
It makes sense, if you realize that the primary purpose of these missions is to funnel money to the NASA supply chain, not to do space science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769819</id>
	<title>Re:Cita tion need ed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255713840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well? What are you waiting for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well ?
What are you waiting for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well?
What are you waiting for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770303</id>
	<title>Re:For those who don't RTFA</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255716120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These are not exactly "new" either, the Russkies have been using them for decades. Only recently has the western world begun to develop them, so it's new only in that sense.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>


Not quite.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERT-1" title="wikipedia.org"> SERT </a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are not exactly " new " either , the Russkies have been using them for decades .
Only recently has the western world begun to develop them , so it 's new only in that sense .
Not quite .
SERT [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are not exactly "new" either, the Russkies have been using them for decades.
Only recently has the western world begun to develop them, so it's new only in that sense.
Not quite.
SERT  [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770059</id>
	<title>ping</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1255715040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what the ping times are like?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the ping times are like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the ping times are like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769135</id>
	<title>Re:lets wake up here</title>
	<author>fractalVisionz</author>
	<datestamp>1255710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and let either private enterprise (?) explore space</p></div></blockquote><p>
I agree, even 6 year-olds are doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and let either private enterprise ( ?
) explore space I agree , even 6 year-olds are doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and let either private enterprise (?
) explore space
I agree, even 6 year-olds are doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770767</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>BenSchuarmer</author>
	<datestamp>1255718460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the issue is better coverage on Mars.</p><p>As I read it, the spacecraft would be positioned so that they each cover half Mars with no overlap or gaps.</p><p>If the spacecraft were at the Legrange points, then the near/day side of Mars would have a large area that could see both spacecraft and far/night side of Mars would have a large area couldn't see either of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue is better coverage on Mars.As I read it , the spacecraft would be positioned so that they each cover half Mars with no overlap or gaps.If the spacecraft were at the Legrange points , then the near/day side of Mars would have a large area that could see both spacecraft and far/night side of Mars would have a large area could n't see either of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue is better coverage on Mars.As I read it, the spacecraft would be positioned so that they each cover half Mars with no overlap or gaps.If the spacecraft were at the Legrange points, then the near/day side of Mars would have a large area that could see both spacecraft and far/night side of Mars would have a large area couldn't see either of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29772531</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1255684860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just off the top of my head, how about this:<br>a set of say, four to six, relay satellites placed at the forward and trailing Lagrange points on Venus's solar orbit and the other two placed in Earth's solar Lagrange points.<br> <br>Line of site is closer to straight line and as others have pointed out it would give us pretty much unrestricted communication to any point in the solar system.  There may be some tech issues with this but wouldn't this or a some variant work better than having relay sat.s in powered orbits where they would burn up their fuel quickly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just off the top of my head , how about this : a set of say , four to six , relay satellites placed at the forward and trailing Lagrange points on Venus 's solar orbit and the other two placed in Earth 's solar Lagrange points .
Line of site is closer to straight line and as others have pointed out it would give us pretty much unrestricted communication to any point in the solar system .
There may be some tech issues with this but would n't this or a some variant work better than having relay sat.s in powered orbits where they would burn up their fuel quickly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just off the top of my head, how about this:a set of say, four to six, relay satellites placed at the forward and trailing Lagrange points on Venus's solar orbit and the other two placed in Earth's solar Lagrange points.
Line of site is closer to straight line and as others have pointed out it would give us pretty much unrestricted communication to any point in the solar system.
There may be some tech issues with this but wouldn't this or a some variant work better than having relay sat.s in powered orbits where they would burn up their fuel quickly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770319</id>
	<title>Re:Cita tion need ed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255716240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To my critics:</p><p>If knew the difference between the 2 orbit types I would have posted it here (with my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. account) and on Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To my critics : If knew the difference between the 2 orbit types I would have posted it here ( with my / .
account ) and on Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To my critics:If knew the difference between the 2 orbit types I would have posted it here (with my /.
account) and on Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29771329</id>
	<title>What about Quantum states?</title>
	<author>QJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1255721340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've read, using quantum techniques to communicate wouldn't be faster than light, but surely that would solve any line of sight issues?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've read , using quantum techniques to communicate would n't be faster than light , but surely that would solve any line of sight issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've read, using quantum techniques to communicate wouldn't be faster than light, but surely that would solve any line of sight issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769569</id>
	<title>Occult vs Occlude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255712580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly off-topic, but I have a question for the word-geeks out there. Now, I know that technically "Occults", used the way it is in this context, is technically correct (in fact, as far as I can tell, this is the *original* meaning of the word, and the other meanings have developed off of the original meaning, later). However, given that most people probably associate the word "Occult" with mysticism, mightn't it have been better to describing the Sun blocking communication by using the word Occlude, instead of Occult?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly off-topic , but I have a question for the word-geeks out there .
Now , I know that technically " Occults " , used the way it is in this context , is technically correct ( in fact , as far as I can tell , this is the * original * meaning of the word , and the other meanings have developed off of the original meaning , later ) .
However , given that most people probably associate the word " Occult " with mysticism , might n't it have been better to describing the Sun blocking communication by using the word Occlude , instead of Occult ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly off-topic, but I have a question for the word-geeks out there.
Now, I know that technically "Occults", used the way it is in this context, is technically correct (in fact, as far as I can tell, this is the *original* meaning of the word, and the other meanings have developed off of the original meaning, later).
However, given that most people probably associate the word "Occult" with mysticism, mightn't it have been better to describing the Sun blocking communication by using the word Occlude, instead of Occult?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29773483</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255690680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the Lagrange points is that EVERYBODY wants to use them, for exactly these reasons. If we solved all such problems by just sticking something at a Lagrange point, then these points would be filled with everybody's junk and rendered essentially worthless for ANYTHING. If we can find reasonable alternative solutions, we should take those in preference to Lagrange points, which should be treated as scarce resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the Lagrange points is that EVERYBODY wants to use them , for exactly these reasons .
If we solved all such problems by just sticking something at a Lagrange point , then these points would be filled with everybody 's junk and rendered essentially worthless for ANYTHING .
If we can find reasonable alternative solutions , we should take those in preference to Lagrange points , which should be treated as scarce resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the Lagrange points is that EVERYBODY wants to use them, for exactly these reasons.
If we solved all such problems by just sticking something at a Lagrange point, then these points would be filled with everybody's junk and rendered essentially worthless for ANYTHING.
If we can find reasonable alternative solutions, we should take those in preference to Lagrange points, which should be treated as scarce resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768977</id>
	<title>Who needs full-time communications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255709580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Houston&gt; We haven't talked for a day, what's up?<br>Mars rover&gt; Hey, I moved one meter!<br>Houston&gt; No shit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Houston &gt; We have n't talked for a day , what 's up ? Mars rover &gt; Hey , I moved one meter ! Houston &gt; No shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Houston&gt; We haven't talked for a day, what's up?Mars rover&gt; Hey, I moved one meter!Houston&gt; No shit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770595</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth</title>
	<author>NEDHead</author>
	<datestamp>1255717620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wireless is always less bandwidth than wired/fiber solutions.  A direct, multistrand cable is called for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wireless is always less bandwidth than wired/fiber solutions .
A direct , multistrand cable is called for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wireless is always less bandwidth than wired/fiber solutions.
A direct, multistrand cable is called for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769807</id>
	<title>Re:Cita tion need ed</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1255713780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go write it then.  You've got the journal article to work off of, which should be all the citations you need, since I think this is the definitive work on the subject right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go write it then .
You 've got the journal article to work off of , which should be all the citations you need , since I think this is the definitive work on the subject right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go write it then.
You've got the journal article to work off of, which should be all the citations you need, since I think this is the definitive work on the subject right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29776647</id>
	<title>Why not simple Mercury-like orbits</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1255783020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not put two satellites 120 degrees in front of and behind Mercury?<br>
-one of them is always visible to both Mars and Earth<br>
-they are Kepler orbits requiring no thrust<br>
-the gravitation pull of Mercury at 120 degress is on average 0.0000000556 that of the Sun.  =SunMass/MercuryMass/sqrt(2-2cos120)<br>
 <br>
Maybe the answer is below<br>
-to get to Mercury-like orbit requires 4.6 times more energy than to get to Mars-like orbit from the Earth. (MercuryMass/MercuryRadius-EarthMass/EarthRadius)/(MarsMass/MarsRadius-EarthMass/EarthRadius)<br>
-adds maximum of about 40 seconds to signal path.(simple pythagorus)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not put two satellites 120 degrees in front of and behind Mercury ?
-one of them is always visible to both Mars and Earth -they are Kepler orbits requiring no thrust -the gravitation pull of Mercury at 120 degress is on average 0.0000000556 that of the Sun .
= SunMass/MercuryMass/sqrt ( 2-2cos120 ) Maybe the answer is below -to get to Mercury-like orbit requires 4.6 times more energy than to get to Mars-like orbit from the Earth .
( MercuryMass/MercuryRadius-EarthMass/EarthRadius ) / ( MarsMass/MarsRadius-EarthMass/EarthRadius ) -adds maximum of about 40 seconds to signal path .
( simple pythagorus )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not put two satellites 120 degrees in front of and behind Mercury?
-one of them is always visible to both Mars and Earth
-they are Kepler orbits requiring no thrust
-the gravitation pull of Mercury at 120 degress is on average 0.0000000556 that of the Sun.
=SunMass/MercuryMass/sqrt(2-2cos120)
 
Maybe the answer is below
-to get to Mercury-like orbit requires 4.6 times more energy than to get to Mars-like orbit from the Earth.
(MercuryMass/MercuryRadius-EarthMass/EarthRadius)/(MarsMass/MarsRadius-EarthMass/EarthRadius)
-adds maximum of about 40 seconds to signal path.
(simple pythagorus)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769545</id>
	<title>For those who don't RTFA</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1255712400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To clarify - this sort of "orbital" motion (not really "orbital" since it actively powered) is hardly a new idea. What is relatively new is the fact that you have engines that permit you do do it without prohibitive fuel consumption. It's different from a hovering rocket-propelled lander (like the DC-X) only in scale. The key feature, not clear in the article, is that you are intentionally thrusting along the local vertical, in the direction of gravity, to modify its effects. That was possible and everybody knew about it since, well, Newton figured out gravity. What we haven't been able to do is to maintain it for more than the briefest periods due to excess fuel consumption.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The new part here is the Hall Current thruster, which is ~factor of 10 more efficient than traditional engines. The specific impulse of these is around 1800 seconds (lb-sec of impulse per lbm of fuel- hey I didn't invent the units, I just use them...) compared to maybe 180 for a hydrazine monopropellant thruster. These are not exactly "new" either, the Russkies have been using them for decades. Only recently has the western world begun to develop them, so it's new only in that sense. So the solution they are looking at is now looking reasonably practical, although no doubt still significantly limited by the fuel consumption.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To clarify - this sort of " orbital " motion ( not really " orbital " since it actively powered ) is hardly a new idea .
What is relatively new is the fact that you have engines that permit you do do it without prohibitive fuel consumption .
It 's different from a hovering rocket-propelled lander ( like the DC-X ) only in scale .
The key feature , not clear in the article , is that you are intentionally thrusting along the local vertical , in the direction of gravity , to modify its effects .
That was possible and everybody knew about it since , well , Newton figured out gravity .
What we have n't been able to do is to maintain it for more than the briefest periods due to excess fuel consumption .
        The new part here is the Hall Current thruster , which is ~ factor of 10 more efficient than traditional engines .
The specific impulse of these is around 1800 seconds ( lb-sec of impulse per lbm of fuel- hey I did n't invent the units , I just use them... ) compared to maybe 180 for a hydrazine monopropellant thruster .
These are not exactly " new " either , the Russkies have been using them for decades .
Only recently has the western world begun to develop them , so it 's new only in that sense .
So the solution they are looking at is now looking reasonably practical , although no doubt still significantly limited by the fuel consumption .
        Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To clarify - this sort of "orbital" motion (not really "orbital" since it actively powered) is hardly a new idea.
What is relatively new is the fact that you have engines that permit you do do it without prohibitive fuel consumption.
It's different from a hovering rocket-propelled lander (like the DC-X) only in scale.
The key feature, not clear in the article, is that you are intentionally thrusting along the local vertical, in the direction of gravity, to modify its effects.
That was possible and everybody knew about it since, well, Newton figured out gravity.
What we haven't been able to do is to maintain it for more than the briefest periods due to excess fuel consumption.
        The new part here is the Hall Current thruster, which is ~factor of 10 more efficient than traditional engines.
The specific impulse of these is around 1800 seconds (lb-sec of impulse per lbm of fuel- hey I didn't invent the units, I just use them...) compared to maybe 180 for a hydrazine monopropellant thruster.
These are not exactly "new" either, the Russkies have been using them for decades.
Only recently has the western world begun to develop them, so it's new only in that sense.
So the solution they are looking at is now looking reasonably practical, although no doubt still significantly limited by the fuel consumption.
        Brett</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887</id>
	<title>That's good news</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1255709100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's good news for the diplomatic Human / Martian relations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's good news for the diplomatic Human / Martian relations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's good news for the diplomatic Human / Martian relations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29780923</id>
	<title>Re:Cita tion need ed</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1255784340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By <i>non-Keplerian</i>, they just mean a powered orbit. An orbit that needs the satellite to fire thrusters from time to time to keep on track. Maybe to shift from gravitational trough to gravitational trough, or maybe to keep the orbit from decaying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By non-Keplerian , they just mean a powered orbit .
An orbit that needs the satellite to fire thrusters from time to time to keep on track .
Maybe to shift from gravitational trough to gravitational trough , or maybe to keep the orbit from decaying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By non-Keplerian, they just mean a powered orbit.
An orbit that needs the satellite to fire thrusters from time to time to keep on track.
Maybe to shift from gravitational trough to gravitational trough, or maybe to keep the orbit from decaying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29774213</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The B orbit is closer, so shorter ping times (RTT).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The B orbit is closer , so shorter ping times ( RTT ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The B orbit is closer, so shorter ping times (RTT).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769007</id>
	<title>Re:That's good news</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1255709760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the fuck would that be? Now we don't have to wait a few months to cool down before sending off an asinine reply to whatever stupid shit the Martians throw at us next. Now we can insult them with only a 11 minutes of lag. That can in no way be good for diplomatic relations.</p><p>You're a dumbass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the fuck would that be ?
Now we do n't have to wait a few months to cool down before sending off an asinine reply to whatever stupid shit the Martians throw at us next .
Now we can insult them with only a 11 minutes of lag .
That can in no way be good for diplomatic relations.You 're a dumbass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the fuck would that be?
Now we don't have to wait a few months to cool down before sending off an asinine reply to whatever stupid shit the Martians throw at us next.
Now we can insult them with only a 11 minutes of lag.
That can in no way be good for diplomatic relations.You're a dumbass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770497</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255717260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Wouldn't the Lagrange points also be occulted by the sun</i>
<p>
Witch ever way you slice there'd be no spell when both Earth and the satellites were blocked by the Sun so it's a wizard idea.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the Lagrange points also be occulted by the sun Witch ever way you slice there 'd be no spell when both Earth and the satellites were blocked by the Sun so it 's a wizard idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the Lagrange points also be occulted by the sun

Witch ever way you slice there'd be no spell when both Earth and the satellites were blocked by the Sun so it's a wizard idea.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769697</id>
	<title>Re:Eh?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1255713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, prolly should have been "in front and above".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , prolly should have been " in front and above " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, prolly should have been "in front and above".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769059</id>
	<title>Re:That's good news</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1255709940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laugh, but just the fact that we're collectively trying to work out the problems of interplanetary communication <i>now</i> that we'll certainly have in the future (if we don't destroy ourselves) made my day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laugh , but just the fact that we 're collectively trying to work out the problems of interplanetary communication now that we 'll certainly have in the future ( if we do n't destroy ourselves ) made my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laugh, but just the fact that we're collectively trying to work out the problems of interplanetary communication now that we'll certainly have in the future (if we don't destroy ourselves) made my day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769103</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it make more sense....</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1255710180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't the Lagrange points also be occulted by the sun, though not at the same time as the planet? Also the distance would be a lot longer, as Nadaka said above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the Lagrange points also be occulted by the sun , though not at the same time as the planet ?
Also the distance would be a lot longer , as Nadaka said above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the Lagrange points also be occulted by the sun, though not at the same time as the planet?
Also the distance would be a lot longer, as Nadaka said above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769313</id>
	<title>so... the most important question</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1255711440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what kind of latency are you getting?</p><p>can you play a fps with mars crew?</p><p>can a mars rover host a MMORPG?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what kind of latency are you getting ? can you play a fps with mars crew ? can a mars rover host a MMORPG ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what kind of latency are you getting?can you play a fps with mars crew?can a mars rover host a MMORPG?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770977</id>
	<title>Re:lets wake up here</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1255719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a nerd who absolutely thinks about money to be made in the space industry, I have to disagree.  Right now, space is about exploration and science, but the money to be made when someone figures out how to mine an asteroid is enormous.  And the amount of money that can be made if you put an automated multipurpose factory on the asteroid is even more (if nothing else, you can produce more mining equipement and speed up the process).  It'll only take a single successful mission of that type to bootstrap us into space in a way that isn't possible without it.</p><p>That's what people don't understand when commercial groups talk about monetizing space.  You hear things about solar power plants in orbit and everybody immediately jumps into how the launch costs make it impracticle.  The idea isn't to launch the solar panels up, it's to build them in situ from material mined from NEOs.  We can't do that yet, but the company that has the orbital solar concepts proven out when we can stands to make billions.  If we can mine rocket fuel, air, and water from an NEO in addition to metals and trace elements... the possibilities for science, business, and colonization are very exciting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a nerd who absolutely thinks about money to be made in the space industry , I have to disagree .
Right now , space is about exploration and science , but the money to be made when someone figures out how to mine an asteroid is enormous .
And the amount of money that can be made if you put an automated multipurpose factory on the asteroid is even more ( if nothing else , you can produce more mining equipement and speed up the process ) .
It 'll only take a single successful mission of that type to bootstrap us into space in a way that is n't possible without it.That 's what people do n't understand when commercial groups talk about monetizing space .
You hear things about solar power plants in orbit and everybody immediately jumps into how the launch costs make it impracticle .
The idea is n't to launch the solar panels up , it 's to build them in situ from material mined from NEOs .
We ca n't do that yet , but the company that has the orbital solar concepts proven out when we can stands to make billions .
If we can mine rocket fuel , air , and water from an NEO in addition to metals and trace elements... the possibilities for science , business , and colonization are very exciting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a nerd who absolutely thinks about money to be made in the space industry, I have to disagree.
Right now, space is about exploration and science, but the money to be made when someone figures out how to mine an asteroid is enormous.
And the amount of money that can be made if you put an automated multipurpose factory on the asteroid is even more (if nothing else, you can produce more mining equipement and speed up the process).
It'll only take a single successful mission of that type to bootstrap us into space in a way that isn't possible without it.That's what people don't understand when commercial groups talk about monetizing space.
You hear things about solar power plants in orbit and everybody immediately jumps into how the launch costs make it impracticle.
The idea isn't to launch the solar panels up, it's to build them in situ from material mined from NEOs.
We can't do that yet, but the company that has the orbital solar concepts proven out when we can stands to make billions.
If we can mine rocket fuel, air, and water from an NEO in addition to metals and trace elements... the possibilities for science, business, and colonization are very exciting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769403</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29780923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29772691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29775429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29774213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29773483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29771465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29773153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29776647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1431231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29772765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29771803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29776647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29771465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29772765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29780923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29775429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29768961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29773153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29774213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29773483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29770767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29772691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1431231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1431231.29769385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
