<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_22_2025232</id>
	<title>Astronaut Group Endorses Commercial Spaceflight</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256200320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FleaPlus writes <i>"Buzz Aldrin and twelve other astronauts have published a joint <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574475091646686368.html">endorsement of commercial human spaceflight</a>, stating that 'while it's completely appropriate for NASA to continue developing systems and the new technologies necessary to take crews farther out into our solar system, [the astronauts] believe that the <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1354">commercial sector</a> is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation.' They are confident that commercial systems (which NASA already relies on for launching multibillion-dollar science payloads) can provide a level of safety equal to the Russian Soyuz and higher than the Space Shuttle, while strengthening US economic competitiveness. They also support the expected endorsement of the White House's <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air\_space/4333599.html">Augustine Commission</a> regarding NASA's use of commercial spaceflight &mdash; the Commission's final report will be <a href="http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=491:augustine-committee-to-hold-press-conference-and-release-final-report-oct-22-2009&amp;catid=67:news&amp;Itemid=27">released</a> today."</i> And here's <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf">the Augustine report itself</a> (PDF).</htmltext>
<tokenext>FleaPlus writes " Buzz Aldrin and twelve other astronauts have published a joint endorsement of commercial human spaceflight , stating that 'while it 's completely appropriate for NASA to continue developing systems and the new technologies necessary to take crews farther out into our solar system , [ the astronauts ] believe that the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation .
' They are confident that commercial systems ( which NASA already relies on for launching multibillion-dollar science payloads ) can provide a level of safety equal to the Russian Soyuz and higher than the Space Shuttle , while strengthening US economic competitiveness .
They also support the expected endorsement of the White House 's Augustine Commission regarding NASA 's use of commercial spaceflight    the Commission 's final report will be released today .
" And here 's the Augustine report itself ( PDF ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FleaPlus writes "Buzz Aldrin and twelve other astronauts have published a joint endorsement of commercial human spaceflight, stating that 'while it's completely appropriate for NASA to continue developing systems and the new technologies necessary to take crews farther out into our solar system, [the astronauts] believe that the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation.
' They are confident that commercial systems (which NASA already relies on for launching multibillion-dollar science payloads) can provide a level of safety equal to the Russian Soyuz and higher than the Space Shuttle, while strengthening US economic competitiveness.
They also support the expected endorsement of the White House's Augustine Commission regarding NASA's use of commercial spaceflight — the Commission's final report will be released today.
" And here's the Augustine report itself (PDF).</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840479</id>
	<title>Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1256207820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amusing since the report does explicitly discuss safety.  Particularly it focuses on two topics: it considers astronaut safety as sine qua non, and says that its impossible to predict 'infant mortality' safety of any launch vehicle.</p><p>The first means that they simply refuse any plan that can't be done with a strong expectation of safety.</p><p>The second means that its impossible to analyze the initial safety of a paper rocket, and personally I'd love to see the Senator try.  You can analyze safety from a PRA perspective (analyzing likelihood of failed components), as opposed to unexpected failure modes, but the report points out that PRA failures have never brought down a manned spacecraft.  Unexpected failure modes are just that, unexpected, and as such can't be analyzed properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amusing since the report does explicitly discuss safety .
Particularly it focuses on two topics : it considers astronaut safety as sine qua non , and says that its impossible to predict 'infant mortality ' safety of any launch vehicle.The first means that they simply refuse any plan that ca n't be done with a strong expectation of safety.The second means that its impossible to analyze the initial safety of a paper rocket , and personally I 'd love to see the Senator try .
You can analyze safety from a PRA perspective ( analyzing likelihood of failed components ) , as opposed to unexpected failure modes , but the report points out that PRA failures have never brought down a manned spacecraft .
Unexpected failure modes are just that , unexpected , and as such ca n't be analyzed properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amusing since the report does explicitly discuss safety.
Particularly it focuses on two topics: it considers astronaut safety as sine qua non, and says that its impossible to predict 'infant mortality' safety of any launch vehicle.The first means that they simply refuse any plan that can't be done with a strong expectation of safety.The second means that its impossible to analyze the initial safety of a paper rocket, and personally I'd love to see the Senator try.
You can analyze safety from a PRA perspective (analyzing likelihood of failed components), as opposed to unexpected failure modes, but the report points out that PRA failures have never brought down a manned spacecraft.
Unexpected failure modes are just that, unexpected, and as such can't be analyzed properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29846371</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256314560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole federal government is spending something like $70 a day per taxpayer this year. Doesn't sound like much does it? $70 is a small amount too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole federal government is spending something like $ 70 a day per taxpayer this year .
Does n't sound like much does it ?
$ 70 is a small amount too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole federal government is spending something like $70 a day per taxpayer this year.
Doesn't sound like much does it?
$70 is a small amount too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843541</id>
	<title>Re:Space debris concern...</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1256288820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Look at the bright side. If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it. A kind of space janitor if you will.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And since space is basically a public area - that is, not owned by anyone - guess who's going to be paying that company? Monopoly rates with no requirements for results, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the bright side .
If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it .
A kind of space janitor if you will .
And since space is basically a public area - that is , not owned by anyone - guess who 's going to be paying that company ?
Monopoly rates with no requirements for results , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the bright side.
If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it.
A kind of space janitor if you will.
And since space is basically a public area - that is, not owned by anyone - guess who's going to be paying that company?
Monopoly rates with no requirements for results, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840469</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps Buzz cares for a different reason?</title>
	<author>Z1NG</author>
	<datestamp>1256207820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Man, Buzz Aldrin will punch you in the face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , Buzz Aldrin will punch you in the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Man, Buzz Aldrin will punch you in the face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29845813</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>kmac06</author>
	<datestamp>1256311560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing it's from the fact that the space program is not the majority of NASA's budget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing it 's from the fact that the space program is not the majority of NASA 's budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing it's from the fact that the space program is not the majority of NASA's budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973</id>
	<title>It's Been a Bad Week For NASA</title>
	<author>ausoleil</author>
	<datestamp>1256205060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will not go over well in Huntsville. <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news\_space\_thewritestuff/2009/10/shelby-lashes-out-at-white-house-space-committee.html" title="orlandosentinel.com">In fact, it already hasn't.  </a> [orlandosentinel.com]</p><p><i>"Republican Senator Richard Shelby launched a preemptive strike on President Barack Obama's blue ribbon space panel ther day before its due to release its final report, calling the committee's findings "worthless." Shelby, a staunch defender of NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center In Huntsville, Alabama, said in a Senate floor speech that the committee failed to consider safety when it ranked various rocket options for the White House to consider. "Without an honest and thorough examination of the safety and reliability aspects of the various designs and options for manned space flight, the findings of this report are worthless," said Shelby." </i></p><p>Senator Shelby, obviously a noted rocket expert, contradicts former Shuttle astronauts Sally Ride and Leroy Chiao.  Undoubtedly he astronaut safety at every step of the process with little regard to politics while they as former astronauts were completely unconcerned with it.</p><p>Speaking of unconcerned, apparently President Obama is exactly that in regards to NASA.  New <a href="http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/10/nasa\_administrator\_charles\_bol.html" title="al.com">NASA Administrator Charles Bolden hopes to meet with Obama before end of year on agency future.</a> [al.com]</p><p>On top of all of that, it seems that Altair, the lunar lander from the Constellation project <a href="http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/bolden-directs-msfc-special-team-to-evaluate-hlv-alternatives/" title="nasaspaceflight.com">has been defunded.</a> [nasaspaceflight.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will not go over well in Huntsville .
In fact , it already has n't .
[ orlandosentinel.com ] " Republican Senator Richard Shelby launched a preemptive strike on President Barack Obama 's blue ribbon space panel ther day before its due to release its final report , calling the committee 's findings " worthless .
" Shelby , a staunch defender of NASA 's Marshal Space Flight Center In Huntsville , Alabama , said in a Senate floor speech that the committee failed to consider safety when it ranked various rocket options for the White House to consider .
" Without an honest and thorough examination of the safety and reliability aspects of the various designs and options for manned space flight , the findings of this report are worthless , " said Shelby .
" Senator Shelby , obviously a noted rocket expert , contradicts former Shuttle astronauts Sally Ride and Leroy Chiao .
Undoubtedly he astronaut safety at every step of the process with little regard to politics while they as former astronauts were completely unconcerned with it.Speaking of unconcerned , apparently President Obama is exactly that in regards to NASA .
New NASA Administrator Charles Bolden hopes to meet with Obama before end of year on agency future .
[ al.com ] On top of all of that , it seems that Altair , the lunar lander from the Constellation project has been defunded .
[ nasaspaceflight.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will not go over well in Huntsville.
In fact, it already hasn't.
[orlandosentinel.com]"Republican Senator Richard Shelby launched a preemptive strike on President Barack Obama's blue ribbon space panel ther day before its due to release its final report, calling the committee's findings "worthless.
" Shelby, a staunch defender of NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center In Huntsville, Alabama, said in a Senate floor speech that the committee failed to consider safety when it ranked various rocket options for the White House to consider.
"Without an honest and thorough examination of the safety and reliability aspects of the various designs and options for manned space flight, the findings of this report are worthless," said Shelby.
" Senator Shelby, obviously a noted rocket expert, contradicts former Shuttle astronauts Sally Ride and Leroy Chiao.
Undoubtedly he astronaut safety at every step of the process with little regard to politics while they as former astronauts were completely unconcerned with it.Speaking of unconcerned, apparently President Obama is exactly that in regards to NASA.
New NASA Administrator Charles Bolden hopes to meet with Obama before end of year on agency future.
[al.com]On top of all of that, it seems that Altair, the lunar lander from the Constellation project has been defunded.
[nasaspaceflight.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29853061</id>
	<title>Re:Space debris concern...</title>
	<author>bdabautcb</author>
	<datestamp>1256302980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space Debris was not created by humans exiting the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions, meteors, and other natural phenomena have launched 'space debris' for eons.

Really, private industry has a larger business incentive to avoid creating space garbage than government institutions. While the government/bureaucracy has to deal with the political price of not running into exta-planetary shit, private space companies will spend money learning to avoid said shit because they have a bottom line.

Will there be an Exxon-Mobile of private space exploration? Yes.
Will the 'public', government run space programs make the technological advancements to ship oil across the north atlantic, or launch profitable payloads to low orbit without incident? No.

Private industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, will probably do it more efficiently than public industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, add on growing bureaucracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space Debris was not created by humans exiting the atmosphere .
Volcanic eruptions , meteors , and other natural phenomena have launched 'space debris ' for eons .
Really , private industry has a larger business incentive to avoid creating space garbage than government institutions .
While the government/bureaucracy has to deal with the political price of not running into exta-planetary shit , private space companies will spend money learning to avoid said shit because they have a bottom line .
Will there be an Exxon-Mobile of private space exploration ?
Yes . Will the 'public ' , government run space programs make the technological advancements to ship oil across the north atlantic , or launch profitable payloads to low orbit without incident ?
No . Private industry , with all of its ethical and social sufferings , will probably do it more efficiently than public industry , with all of its ethical and social sufferings , add on growing bureaucracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space Debris was not created by humans exiting the atmosphere.
Volcanic eruptions, meteors, and other natural phenomena have launched 'space debris' for eons.
Really, private industry has a larger business incentive to avoid creating space garbage than government institutions.
While the government/bureaucracy has to deal with the political price of not running into exta-planetary shit, private space companies will spend money learning to avoid said shit because they have a bottom line.
Will there be an Exxon-Mobile of private space exploration?
Yes.
Will the 'public', government run space programs make the technological advancements to ship oil across the north atlantic, or launch profitable payloads to low orbit without incident?
No.

Private industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, will probably do it more efficiently than public industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, add on growing bureaucracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833</id>
	<title>The Augustine report ?</title>
	<author>Cochonou</author>
	<datestamp>1256204340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ? It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ?
It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ?
It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839847</id>
	<title>ob</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1256204400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation"</p><p>Well it's not rocket science, is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation " Well it 's not rocket science , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation"Well it's not rocket science, is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841521</id>
	<title>Re:Space debris concern...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256214720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are private companies are as concerned about minimizing space debris as NASA and the FKA?</p></div></blockquote><p>The US is obligated by treaty to minimize space debris, so yes - private industry has been concerned about launch debris and has been for years, lest they not get a launch permit.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The more space flights we have, the greater of a problem it becomes.</p></div></blockquote><p>You do know that less than half of the launches in the US annually are government launches, and less than half of those are NASA launches?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are private companies are as concerned about minimizing space debris as NASA and the FKA ? The US is obligated by treaty to minimize space debris , so yes - private industry has been concerned about launch debris and has been for years , lest they not get a launch permit .
    The more space flights we have , the greater of a problem it becomes.You do know that less than half of the launches in the US annually are government launches , and less than half of those are NASA launches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are private companies are as concerned about minimizing space debris as NASA and the FKA?The US is obligated by treaty to minimize space debris, so yes - private industry has been concerned about launch debris and has been for years, lest they not get a launch permit.
  
  The more space flights we have, the greater of a problem it becomes.You do know that less than half of the launches in the US annually are government launches, and less than half of those are NASA launches?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29844971</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256306400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I horribly mangled my last reply so I'm posting it again.<p><div class="quote"><p>That's the handwaving-and-smokescreen theory. The reality is that economies of scale in manufacturing don't begin to provide significant advantage until you're talking dozens of launches a year. Costs still really don't drop much until you tackle the problem of the standing army required to integrate, checkout, and launch the vehicle - multiple smaller launches can actually cost more in total than one big launch.</p></div><p>Economies of scale from launch frequency start taking effect at one launch. Even if you can't figure out how to reduce the "standing army" in size or cost, you can still spread that cost over more launches.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That would be a point in favor of multiple smaller chunks - if space hardware could be bought off the shelf like the load of roof trusses I saw dumped all over the median in an accident the other day. But it can't, and won't be for the foreseeable future. This means that losing a portion of the payload is no different than losing the whole payload, either one is game over.</p></div><p>Nonsense. What's magically different about space hardware that you can't build multiple copies of the same thing and use multiple launches and redundancy in your hardware (and crew) not only to drive down the launch cost of your missions, but also to decrease the risk of loss of mission from launch failure? You can do this even for hardware that's not "off the shelf". I might add that it wouldn't hurt for NASA to encourage the development of some off the shelf hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I horribly mangled my last reply so I 'm posting it again.That 's the handwaving-and-smokescreen theory .
The reality is that economies of scale in manufacturing do n't begin to provide significant advantage until you 're talking dozens of launches a year .
Costs still really do n't drop much until you tackle the problem of the standing army required to integrate , checkout , and launch the vehicle - multiple smaller launches can actually cost more in total than one big launch.Economies of scale from launch frequency start taking effect at one launch .
Even if you ca n't figure out how to reduce the " standing army " in size or cost , you can still spread that cost over more launches.That would be a point in favor of multiple smaller chunks - if space hardware could be bought off the shelf like the load of roof trusses I saw dumped all over the median in an accident the other day .
But it ca n't , and wo n't be for the foreseeable future .
This means that losing a portion of the payload is no different than losing the whole payload , either one is game over.Nonsense .
What 's magically different about space hardware that you ca n't build multiple copies of the same thing and use multiple launches and redundancy in your hardware ( and crew ) not only to drive down the launch cost of your missions , but also to decrease the risk of loss of mission from launch failure ?
You can do this even for hardware that 's not " off the shelf " .
I might add that it would n't hurt for NASA to encourage the development of some off the shelf hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I horribly mangled my last reply so I'm posting it again.That's the handwaving-and-smokescreen theory.
The reality is that economies of scale in manufacturing don't begin to provide significant advantage until you're talking dozens of launches a year.
Costs still really don't drop much until you tackle the problem of the standing army required to integrate, checkout, and launch the vehicle - multiple smaller launches can actually cost more in total than one big launch.Economies of scale from launch frequency start taking effect at one launch.
Even if you can't figure out how to reduce the "standing army" in size or cost, you can still spread that cost over more launches.That would be a point in favor of multiple smaller chunks - if space hardware could be bought off the shelf like the load of roof trusses I saw dumped all over the median in an accident the other day.
But it can't, and won't be for the foreseeable future.
This means that losing a portion of the payload is no different than losing the whole payload, either one is game over.Nonsense.
What's magically different about space hardware that you can't build multiple copies of the same thing and use multiple launches and redundancy in your hardware (and crew) not only to drive down the launch cost of your missions, but also to decrease the risk of loss of mission from launch failure?
You can do this even for hardware that's not "off the shelf".
I might add that it wouldn't hurt for NASA to encourage the development of some off the shelf hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29851933</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256293800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thanks for the link !</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the link !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the link !
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842327</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Nethead</author>
	<datestamp>1256225160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They took our jobs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They took our jobs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They took our jobs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841773</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256217060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pilots endorse commercial flights, surgeons endorse non-scientific surgeries, taxi drivers endorse commercial transportation by car.<br>What's the big deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pilots endorse commercial flights , surgeons endorse non-scientific surgeries , taxi drivers endorse commercial transportation by car.What 's the big deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pilots endorse commercial flights, surgeons endorse non-scientific surgeries, taxi drivers endorse commercial transportation by car.What's the big deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841587</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>Truth is life</author>
	<datestamp>1256215320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the Executive Summary when that came out, and will read the full report, which actually looks pretty interesting from my brief skims, when I have time, and just wanted to chime in that the overall direction looks really good. The Moon-First/extended shuttle/station or a (hypothetical) Flexible Path/extended shuttle/station would be pretty much ideal from my standpoint, giving NASA something interesting to do but minimizing the flight gap. Of course, there's a long history at NASA of having 'good-looking' reports that just collected dust, and Norman Augustine and Sally Ride sure know about that, but hopefully this will get a good reception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the Executive Summary when that came out , and will read the full report , which actually looks pretty interesting from my brief skims , when I have time , and just wanted to chime in that the overall direction looks really good .
The Moon-First/extended shuttle/station or a ( hypothetical ) Flexible Path/extended shuttle/station would be pretty much ideal from my standpoint , giving NASA something interesting to do but minimizing the flight gap .
Of course , there 's a long history at NASA of having 'good-looking ' reports that just collected dust , and Norman Augustine and Sally Ride sure know about that , but hopefully this will get a good reception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the Executive Summary when that came out, and will read the full report, which actually looks pretty interesting from my brief skims, when I have time, and just wanted to chime in that the overall direction looks really good.
The Moon-First/extended shuttle/station or a (hypothetical) Flexible Path/extended shuttle/station would be pretty much ideal from my standpoint, giving NASA something interesting to do but minimizing the flight gap.
Of course, there's a long history at NASA of having 'good-looking' reports that just collected dust, and Norman Augustine and Sally Ride sure know about that, but hopefully this will get a good reception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843951</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1256295900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Would be nice to actually have advancements in our culture so that the rest of the world doesnt mock us quite as often as they do!</i> <p>That is a poor rationale for spending huge amounts of money.  PS I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but avoiding mockery by foreigners is not exactly a priority of the American people.  Substitute "French" or any other nationality and find how stupid that sounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would be nice to actually have advancements in our culture so that the rest of the world doesnt mock us quite as often as they do !
That is a poor rationale for spending huge amounts of money .
PS I do n't know what fantasy world you live in , but avoiding mockery by foreigners is not exactly a priority of the American people .
Substitute " French " or any other nationality and find how stupid that sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would be nice to actually have advancements in our culture so that the rest of the world doesnt mock us quite as often as they do!
That is a poor rationale for spending huge amounts of money.
PS I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but avoiding mockery by foreigners is not exactly a priority of the American people.
Substitute "French" or any other nationality and find how stupid that sounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675</id>
	<title>Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1256208840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason the link for the Augustine Report seems to be going to a download for Windows 7 (Huh?!?), so here's the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf" title="nasa.gov">actual link</a> [nasa.gov] (<a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=32647" title="spaceref.com">mirror</a> [spaceref.com]).</p><p>Here's the main report findings from the PDF:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Summary of Principal Findings</b></p><p>The Committee summarizes its principal findings below. Additional findings are included in the body of the report.</p><p><b>The right mission and the right size:</b> NASA's budget should match its mission and goals. Further, NASA should be given the ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly, while maintaining facilities deemed to be of national importance.</p><p><b>International partnerships:</b> The U.S. can lead a bold new international effort in the human exploration of space. If international partners are actively engaged, including on the "critical path" to success, there could be substantial benefits to foreign relations and more overall resources could become available to the human spaceflight program.</p><p><b>Short-term Space Shuttle planning:</b> The remaining Shuttle manifest should be flown in a safe and prudent manner without undue schedule pressure. This manifest will likely extend operation into the second quarter of FY 2011. It is important to budget for this likelihood.</p><p><b>The human-spaceflight gap:</b> Under current conditions, the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will stretch to at least seven years. The Committee did not identify any credible approach employing new capabilities that could shorten the gap to less than six years. The only way to significantly close the gap is to extend the life of the Shuttle Program.</p><p><b>Extending the International Space Station:</b> The return on investment to both the United States and our international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of the life of the ISS. A decision not to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.</p><p><b>Heavy lift:</b> A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration. It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities. The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of launchers; Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, life-cycle costs, maturity, operational complexity and the "way of doing business" within the program and NASA.</p><p><b>Commercial launch of crew to low-Earth orbit:</b> Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and life-cycle costs than government could achieve. A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.</p><p><b>Technology development for exploration and commercial space:</b> Investment in a well-designed and adequately funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration. Exploration strategies can proceed more readily and economically if the requisite technology has been developed in advance. This investment will also benefit robotic exploration, the U.S. commercial space industry, the academic community and other U.S. government users.</p><p><b>Pathways to Mars:</b> Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system; but it is not the best first destination. Visiting the "Moon First" and following the "Flexible Path" are both viable exploration strategies. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars, we could extend our presence in free space and gain experience working on the lunar surface.</p><p><b>Options for the human spaceflight program:</b> The Committee developed five alternatives for the Human Spaceflight Program. It found:<br>* Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline.<br>* Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget, increasing annual expenditures by approximately $3 billion in real purchasing power above the FY 2010 guidance.<br>* Funding at the increased level would allow either an exploration program to explore the Moon First or one that follows the Flexible Path. Either could produce significant results in a reasonable timeframe.</p></div><p>Also, a description of the destination options:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Future Destinations for Exploration</b></p><p>What is the strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?<br>Humans could embark on many paths to explore the inner solar system, most particularly the following:</p><p>* Mars First, with a Mars landing, perhaps after a brief test of equipment and procedures on the Moon.<br>* Moon First, with lunar surface exploration focused on developing the capability to explore Mars.<br>* A Flexible Path to inner solar system locations, such as lunar orbit, Lagrange points, near-Earth objects and the moons of Mars, followed by exploration of the lunar surface and/or Martian surface.</p><p>A human landing followed by an extended human presence on Mars stands prominently above all other opportunities for exploration. Mars is unquestionably the most scientifically interesting destination in the inner solar system, with a planetary history much like Earth's. It possesses resources that can be used for life support and propellants. If humans are ever to live for long periods on another planetary surface, it is likely to be on Mars. But Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources. The Committee finds that Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system, but it is not the best first destination.</p><p><b>What about the Moon first, then Mars?</b> By first exploring the Moon, we could develop the operational skills and technology for landing on, launching from and working on a planetary surface. In the process, we could acquire an understanding of human adaptation to another world that would one day allow us to go to Mars. There are two main strategies for exploring the Moon. Both begin with a few short sorties to various sites to scout the region and validate lunar landing and ascent systems. In one strategy, the next step would be to build a lunar base. Over many missions, a small colony of habitats would be assembled, and explorers would begin to live there for many months, conducting scientific studies and prospecting for resources to use as fuel. In the other strategy, sorties would continue to different sites, spending weeks and then months at each one. More equipment would have to be brought to the lunar surface on each trip, but more diverse sites would be explored and in greater detail.</p><p><b>There is a third possible path for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, which the Committee calls the Flexible Path</b>. On this path, humans would visit sites never visited before and extend our knowledge of how to operate in space-- while traveling greater and greater distances from Earth. Successive missions would visit lunar orbit; the Lagrange points (special points in space that are important sites for scientific observations and the future space transportation infrastructure); and near-Earth objects (asteroids and spent comets that cross the Earth's path); and orbit around Mars. Most interestingly, humans could rendezvous with a moon of Mars, then coordinate with or control robots on the Martian surface, taking advantage of the relatively short communication times. At least initially, astronauts would not travel into the deep gravity wells of the lunar and Martian surface, deferring the cost of developing human landing and surface systems.</p><p>The Flexible Path represents a different type of exploration strategy. We would learn how to live and work in space, to visit small bodies, and to work with robotic probes on the planetary surface. It would provide the public and other stakeholders with a series of interesting "firsts" to keep them engaged and supportive. Most important, because the path is flexible, it would allow for many different options as exploration progresses, including a return to the Moon's surface or a continuation directly to the surface of Mars.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason the link for the Augustine Report seems to be going to a download for Windows 7 ( Huh ? ! ?
) , so here 's the actual link [ nasa.gov ] ( mirror [ spaceref.com ] ) .Here 's the main report findings from the PDF : Summary of Principal FindingsThe Committee summarizes its principal findings below .
Additional findings are included in the body of the report.The right mission and the right size : NASA 's budget should match its mission and goals .
Further , NASA should be given the ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly , while maintaining facilities deemed to be of national importance.International partnerships : The U.S. can lead a bold new international effort in the human exploration of space .
If international partners are actively engaged , including on the " critical path " to success , there could be substantial benefits to foreign relations and more overall resources could become available to the human spaceflight program.Short-term Space Shuttle planning : The remaining Shuttle manifest should be flown in a safe and prudent manner without undue schedule pressure .
This manifest will likely extend operation into the second quarter of FY 2011 .
It is important to budget for this likelihood.The human-spaceflight gap : Under current conditions , the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will stretch to at least seven years .
The Committee did not identify any credible approach employing new capabilities that could shorten the gap to less than six years .
The only way to significantly close the gap is to extend the life of the Shuttle Program.Extending the International Space Station : The return on investment to both the United States and our international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of the life of the ISS .
A decision not to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.Heavy lift : A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit , combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth , is beneficial to exploration .
It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities .
The Committee reviewed : the Ares family of launchers ; Shuttle-derived vehicles ; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family .
Each approach has advantages and disadvantages , trading capability , life-cycle costs , maturity , operational complexity and the " way of doing business " within the program and NASA.Commercial launch of crew to low-Earth orbit : Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach .
While this presents some risk , it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and life-cycle costs than government could achieve .
A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies .
This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles , including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.Technology development for exploration and commercial space : Investment in a well-designed and adequately funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration .
Exploration strategies can proceed more readily and economically if the requisite technology has been developed in advance .
This investment will also benefit robotic exploration , the U.S. commercial space industry , the academic community and other U.S. government users.Pathways to Mars : Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system ; but it is not the best first destination .
Visiting the " Moon First " and following the " Flexible Path " are both viable exploration strategies .
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive ; before traveling to Mars , we could extend our presence in free space and gain experience working on the lunar surface.Options for the human spaceflight program : The Committee developed five alternatives for the Human Spaceflight Program .
It found : * Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline .
* Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget , increasing annual expenditures by approximately $ 3 billion in real purchasing power above the FY 2010 guidance .
* Funding at the increased level would allow either an exploration program to explore the Moon First or one that follows the Flexible Path .
Either could produce significant results in a reasonable timeframe.Also , a description of the destination options : Future Destinations for ExplorationWhat is the strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit ? Humans could embark on many paths to explore the inner solar system , most particularly the following : * Mars First , with a Mars landing , perhaps after a brief test of equipment and procedures on the Moon .
* Moon First , with lunar surface exploration focused on developing the capability to explore Mars .
* A Flexible Path to inner solar system locations , such as lunar orbit , Lagrange points , near-Earth objects and the moons of Mars , followed by exploration of the lunar surface and/or Martian surface.A human landing followed by an extended human presence on Mars stands prominently above all other opportunities for exploration .
Mars is unquestionably the most scientifically interesting destination in the inner solar system , with a planetary history much like Earth 's .
It possesses resources that can be used for life support and propellants .
If humans are ever to live for long periods on another planetary surface , it is likely to be on Mars .
But Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources .
The Committee finds that Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system , but it is not the best first destination.What about the Moon first , then Mars ?
By first exploring the Moon , we could develop the operational skills and technology for landing on , launching from and working on a planetary surface .
In the process , we could acquire an understanding of human adaptation to another world that would one day allow us to go to Mars .
There are two main strategies for exploring the Moon .
Both begin with a few short sorties to various sites to scout the region and validate lunar landing and ascent systems .
In one strategy , the next step would be to build a lunar base .
Over many missions , a small colony of habitats would be assembled , and explorers would begin to live there for many months , conducting scientific studies and prospecting for resources to use as fuel .
In the other strategy , sorties would continue to different sites , spending weeks and then months at each one .
More equipment would have to be brought to the lunar surface on each trip , but more diverse sites would be explored and in greater detail.There is a third possible path for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit , which the Committee calls the Flexible Path .
On this path , humans would visit sites never visited before and extend our knowledge of how to operate in space-- while traveling greater and greater distances from Earth .
Successive missions would visit lunar orbit ; the Lagrange points ( special points in space that are important sites for scientific observations and the future space transportation infrastructure ) ; and near-Earth objects ( asteroids and spent comets that cross the Earth 's path ) ; and orbit around Mars .
Most interestingly , humans could rendezvous with a moon of Mars , then coordinate with or control robots on the Martian surface , taking advantage of the relatively short communication times .
At least initially , astronauts would not travel into the deep gravity wells of the lunar and Martian surface , deferring the cost of developing human landing and surface systems.The Flexible Path represents a different type of exploration strategy .
We would learn how to live and work in space , to visit small bodies , and to work with robotic probes on the planetary surface .
It would provide the public and other stakeholders with a series of interesting " firsts " to keep them engaged and supportive .
Most important , because the path is flexible , it would allow for many different options as exploration progresses , including a return to the Moon 's surface or a continuation directly to the surface of Mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason the link for the Augustine Report seems to be going to a download for Windows 7 (Huh?!?
), so here's the actual link [nasa.gov] (mirror [spaceref.com]).Here's the main report findings from the PDF: Summary of Principal FindingsThe Committee summarizes its principal findings below.
Additional findings are included in the body of the report.The right mission and the right size: NASA's budget should match its mission and goals.
Further, NASA should be given the ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly, while maintaining facilities deemed to be of national importance.International partnerships: The U.S. can lead a bold new international effort in the human exploration of space.
If international partners are actively engaged, including on the "critical path" to success, there could be substantial benefits to foreign relations and more overall resources could become available to the human spaceflight program.Short-term Space Shuttle planning: The remaining Shuttle manifest should be flown in a safe and prudent manner without undue schedule pressure.
This manifest will likely extend operation into the second quarter of FY 2011.
It is important to budget for this likelihood.The human-spaceflight gap: Under current conditions, the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will stretch to at least seven years.
The Committee did not identify any credible approach employing new capabilities that could shorten the gap to less than six years.
The only way to significantly close the gap is to extend the life of the Shuttle Program.Extending the International Space Station: The return on investment to both the United States and our international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of the life of the ISS.
A decision not to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.Heavy lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration.
It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities.
The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of launchers; Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family.
Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, life-cycle costs, maturity, operational complexity and the "way of doing business" within the program and NASA.Commercial launch of crew to low-Earth orbit: Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach.
While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and life-cycle costs than government could achieve.
A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies.
This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.Technology development for exploration and commercial space: Investment in a well-designed and adequately funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration.
Exploration strategies can proceed more readily and economically if the requisite technology has been developed in advance.
This investment will also benefit robotic exploration, the U.S. commercial space industry, the academic community and other U.S. government users.Pathways to Mars: Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system; but it is not the best first destination.
Visiting the "Moon First" and following the "Flexible Path" are both viable exploration strategies.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars, we could extend our presence in free space and gain experience working on the lunar surface.Options for the human spaceflight program: The Committee developed five alternatives for the Human Spaceflight Program.
It found:* Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline.
* Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget, increasing annual expenditures by approximately $3 billion in real purchasing power above the FY 2010 guidance.
* Funding at the increased level would allow either an exploration program to explore the Moon First or one that follows the Flexible Path.
Either could produce significant results in a reasonable timeframe.Also, a description of the destination options: Future Destinations for ExplorationWhat is the strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?Humans could embark on many paths to explore the inner solar system, most particularly the following:* Mars First, with a Mars landing, perhaps after a brief test of equipment and procedures on the Moon.
* Moon First, with lunar surface exploration focused on developing the capability to explore Mars.
* A Flexible Path to inner solar system locations, such as lunar orbit, Lagrange points, near-Earth objects and the moons of Mars, followed by exploration of the lunar surface and/or Martian surface.A human landing followed by an extended human presence on Mars stands prominently above all other opportunities for exploration.
Mars is unquestionably the most scientifically interesting destination in the inner solar system, with a planetary history much like Earth's.
It possesses resources that can be used for life support and propellants.
If humans are ever to live for long periods on another planetary surface, it is likely to be on Mars.
But Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources.
The Committee finds that Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system, but it is not the best first destination.What about the Moon first, then Mars?
By first exploring the Moon, we could develop the operational skills and technology for landing on, launching from and working on a planetary surface.
In the process, we could acquire an understanding of human adaptation to another world that would one day allow us to go to Mars.
There are two main strategies for exploring the Moon.
Both begin with a few short sorties to various sites to scout the region and validate lunar landing and ascent systems.
In one strategy, the next step would be to build a lunar base.
Over many missions, a small colony of habitats would be assembled, and explorers would begin to live there for many months, conducting scientific studies and prospecting for resources to use as fuel.
In the other strategy, sorties would continue to different sites, spending weeks and then months at each one.
More equipment would have to be brought to the lunar surface on each trip, but more diverse sites would be explored and in greater detail.There is a third possible path for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, which the Committee calls the Flexible Path.
On this path, humans would visit sites never visited before and extend our knowledge of how to operate in space-- while traveling greater and greater distances from Earth.
Successive missions would visit lunar orbit; the Lagrange points (special points in space that are important sites for scientific observations and the future space transportation infrastructure); and near-Earth objects (asteroids and spent comets that cross the Earth's path); and orbit around Mars.
Most interestingly, humans could rendezvous with a moon of Mars, then coordinate with or control robots on the Martian surface, taking advantage of the relatively short communication times.
At least initially, astronauts would not travel into the deep gravity wells of the lunar and Martian surface, deferring the cost of developing human landing and surface systems.The Flexible Path represents a different type of exploration strategy.
We would learn how to live and work in space, to visit small bodies, and to work with robotic probes on the planetary surface.
It would provide the public and other stakeholders with a series of interesting "firsts" to keep them engaged and supportive.
Most important, because the path is flexible, it would allow for many different options as exploration progresses, including a return to the Moon's surface or a continuation directly to the surface of Mars.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29845095</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1256307240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm pretty sure the Apollo people thought all this out and they came up with a pretty good solution that is known to work. I wager they figured it was best to launch everything at once where possible.</i></p><p>This was done for reasons that no longer apply.  The goal was "get to the Moon", not "build a sustainable space program for the human exploration of the solar system".  That was the dream (of the engineers) but not the goal (of the politicians.)</p><p>The two models considered by Apollo were "Earth rendezvous" and "Lunar rendezvous".  In the first model, multiple launches were used to assemble a large lunar spacecraft in Earth orbit, a true space ship, not just a coracle like the CM/LM combination.  That ship would go to the Moon, land, take off and return to Earth orbit.</p><p>Lunar rendezvous was what was selected (over von Braun's objections):  a one-shot mission that would go directly to the Moon, detach a small lunar lander that would return to lunar orbit.  There is no doubt this produced the lowest cost and shortest time-line for reaching the Moon for the first time.  But it is equally pretty likely that we'd be a decade or two ahead in our exploration of space if we'd gone with Earth rendezvous, and at relatively trivial cost (if by "relatively" you mean "relative to what the US spends daily on killing people to ineffectually pursue poorly-thought-out foreign policy goals".)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure the Apollo people thought all this out and they came up with a pretty good solution that is known to work .
I wager they figured it was best to launch everything at once where possible.This was done for reasons that no longer apply .
The goal was " get to the Moon " , not " build a sustainable space program for the human exploration of the solar system " .
That was the dream ( of the engineers ) but not the goal ( of the politicians .
) The two models considered by Apollo were " Earth rendezvous " and " Lunar rendezvous " .
In the first model , multiple launches were used to assemble a large lunar spacecraft in Earth orbit , a true space ship , not just a coracle like the CM/LM combination .
That ship would go to the Moon , land , take off and return to Earth orbit.Lunar rendezvous was what was selected ( over von Braun 's objections ) : a one-shot mission that would go directly to the Moon , detach a small lunar lander that would return to lunar orbit .
There is no doubt this produced the lowest cost and shortest time-line for reaching the Moon for the first time .
But it is equally pretty likely that we 'd be a decade or two ahead in our exploration of space if we 'd gone with Earth rendezvous , and at relatively trivial cost ( if by " relatively " you mean " relative to what the US spends daily on killing people to ineffectually pursue poorly-thought-out foreign policy goals " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure the Apollo people thought all this out and they came up with a pretty good solution that is known to work.
I wager they figured it was best to launch everything at once where possible.This was done for reasons that no longer apply.
The goal was "get to the Moon", not "build a sustainable space program for the human exploration of the solar system".
That was the dream (of the engineers) but not the goal (of the politicians.
)The two models considered by Apollo were "Earth rendezvous" and "Lunar rendezvous".
In the first model, multiple launches were used to assemble a large lunar spacecraft in Earth orbit, a true space ship, not just a coracle like the CM/LM combination.
That ship would go to the Moon, land, take off and return to Earth orbit.Lunar rendezvous was what was selected (over von Braun's objections):  a one-shot mission that would go directly to the Moon, detach a small lunar lander that would return to lunar orbit.
There is no doubt this produced the lowest cost and shortest time-line for reaching the Moon for the first time.
But it is equally pretty likely that we'd be a decade or two ahead in our exploration of space if we'd gone with Earth rendezvous, and at relatively trivial cost (if by "relatively" you mean "relative to what the US spends daily on killing people to ineffectually pursue poorly-thought-out foreign policy goals".
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841351</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1256213580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Government: "But... but it's only around 30 cents/day... what-"</p></div><p>Hey man, 30 cents is like their entire week's income.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government : " But... but it 's only around 30 cents/day... what- " Hey man , 30 cents is like their entire week 's income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government: "But... but it's only around 30 cents/day... what-"Hey man, 30 cents is like their entire week's income.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840461</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1256207760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>I love the way they conflate "the space program" with "human space flight".<br><br>Outsourcing launches of humans to low earth orbit to the private commercial sector sounds like a fine idea, even though they've never done it before.<br><br>Even better would be outsourcing the task of deciding if any particular task in LEO is best served by launching a human, because maybe there is a good reason they've never done it before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the way they conflate " the space program " with " human space flight " .Outsourcing launches of humans to low earth orbit to the private commercial sector sounds like a fine idea , even though they 've never done it before.Even better would be outsourcing the task of deciding if any particular task in LEO is best served by launching a human , because maybe there is a good reason they 've never done it before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the way they conflate "the space program" with "human space flight".Outsourcing launches of humans to low earth orbit to the private commercial sector sounds like a fine idea, even though they've never done it before.Even better would be outsourcing the task of deciding if any particular task in LEO is best served by launching a human, because maybe there is a good reason they've never done it before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841215</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256212500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The historical record would seem to bear that out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The historical record would seem to bear that out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The historical record would seem to bear that out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843809</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1256293320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it, unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go,</p></div><p>For launchers, that'd be kind of the point. Say you got 10 launchers, 8 for the original parts and 2 in reserve - you'd have pretty good reliability for a 25\% increase in cost or less on that. For the modules, let us first for the launch success rate assume that you're building two of any module for QA purposes anyway, not very unlikely. Let us assume a 95\% success rate, not too unlikely given the shuttle trackrecord. the odds of all 10 launches going well on first try is 59.87\%. The odds of one failure + successful relaunch is 28.36\% and two failures on different modules 6.72\% for a grand total of 94.95\% success probability.</p><p>As for the modules, yes they're mostly unique but it's not like we hammer them out by hand anymore. Most of the parts are built to very exact electronic specifications, they go through all sorts of tolerances testing, stress testing, radiation testing and so I really can't imagine them being that costly to produce exact replicas. Yes, sometimes they use highly experimental materials in these things but say for example the Mars rovers is mostly an aluminum structure with scientific equipemnt. Lithium-ion batteries are in every laptop. It's not really the materials driving up most costs.</p><p>Where I'm guessing the big blocker is would be the modularization itself. If you build it as one "thing", you can just weld it or glue it or whatever they do together and you can do that with tons of external equipment and QA here on earth or use larger parts and don't have a assembly point at all. Also all the cables and wires and tubes that ought to go from one module to another, it all gets much harder. One thing is research robots that we can slowly send off on a space trajectory, minimal acceleration also means minimal stress. Building something like a Mars expedition craft that will assemble in orbit and reliably not have structural failure when you turn on the engines to get going is a different matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it , unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go,For launchers , that 'd be kind of the point .
Say you got 10 launchers , 8 for the original parts and 2 in reserve - you 'd have pretty good reliability for a 25 \ % increase in cost or less on that .
For the modules , let us first for the launch success rate assume that you 're building two of any module for QA purposes anyway , not very unlikely .
Let us assume a 95 \ % success rate , not too unlikely given the shuttle trackrecord .
the odds of all 10 launches going well on first try is 59.87 \ % .
The odds of one failure + successful relaunch is 28.36 \ % and two failures on different modules 6.72 \ % for a grand total of 94.95 \ % success probability.As for the modules , yes they 're mostly unique but it 's not like we hammer them out by hand anymore .
Most of the parts are built to very exact electronic specifications , they go through all sorts of tolerances testing , stress testing , radiation testing and so I really ca n't imagine them being that costly to produce exact replicas .
Yes , sometimes they use highly experimental materials in these things but say for example the Mars rovers is mostly an aluminum structure with scientific equipemnt .
Lithium-ion batteries are in every laptop .
It 's not really the materials driving up most costs.Where I 'm guessing the big blocker is would be the modularization itself .
If you build it as one " thing " , you can just weld it or glue it or whatever they do together and you can do that with tons of external equipment and QA here on earth or use larger parts and do n't have a assembly point at all .
Also all the cables and wires and tubes that ought to go from one module to another , it all gets much harder .
One thing is research robots that we can slowly send off on a space trajectory , minimal acceleration also means minimal stress .
Building something like a Mars expedition craft that will assemble in orbit and reliably not have structural failure when you turn on the engines to get going is a different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it, unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go,For launchers, that'd be kind of the point.
Say you got 10 launchers, 8 for the original parts and 2 in reserve - you'd have pretty good reliability for a 25\% increase in cost or less on that.
For the modules, let us first for the launch success rate assume that you're building two of any module for QA purposes anyway, not very unlikely.
Let us assume a 95\% success rate, not too unlikely given the shuttle trackrecord.
the odds of all 10 launches going well on first try is 59.87\%.
The odds of one failure + successful relaunch is 28.36\% and two failures on different modules 6.72\% for a grand total of 94.95\% success probability.As for the modules, yes they're mostly unique but it's not like we hammer them out by hand anymore.
Most of the parts are built to very exact electronic specifications, they go through all sorts of tolerances testing, stress testing, radiation testing and so I really can't imagine them being that costly to produce exact replicas.
Yes, sometimes they use highly experimental materials in these things but say for example the Mars rovers is mostly an aluminum structure with scientific equipemnt.
Lithium-ion batteries are in every laptop.
It's not really the materials driving up most costs.Where I'm guessing the big blocker is would be the modularization itself.
If you build it as one "thing", you can just weld it or glue it or whatever they do together and you can do that with tons of external equipment and QA here on earth or use larger parts and don't have a assembly point at all.
Also all the cables and wires and tubes that ought to go from one module to another, it all gets much harder.
One thing is research robots that we can slowly send off on a space trajectory, minimal acceleration also means minimal stress.
Building something like a Mars expedition craft that will assemble in orbit and reliably not have structural failure when you turn on the engines to get going is a different matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842387</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1256225820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.</i> </p><p>So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle. Interesting.</p></div><p>Just like AK47/74 is more reliable than m4/16</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system , which has flown safely for the last 38 years , and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle .
So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle .
Interesting.Just like AK47/74 is more reliable than m4/16</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.
So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle.
Interesting.Just like AK47/74 is more reliable than m4/16
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841719</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1256216280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it."</p><p>If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it, unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go, which would seem to be a problem if they are "expensive".  Maybe if its bulk stuff like fuel, water or oxygen it wouldn't be so much of a problem to lose one but for those the launch is the expensive thing.</p><p>I'm pretty sure the Apollo people thought all this out and they came up with a pretty good solution that is known to work.  I wager they figured it was best to launch everything at once where possible.  As prone as launches are to being aborted for technical problems and weather in Florida if you had to do many launches it could take a long and unpredictable amount of time to get everything you need in to orbit.  Just hope you don't need to hit a window, to go to Mars for example.</p><p>I think it remains to be seen how much actual economy of scale you can get in launchers.  So far they are more custom built by craftsmen than an assembly line where economy of scale would really pay off.  Would be interesting if you could make a reliable assembly line that could turn them out like Model T's.  Would also be interesting to know what launch rate and how much it would cost annually to make a real rocket assembly line with economy of scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity , you do n't lose your entire ( much more expensive than the rocket itself ) payload , but rather just a piece of it .
" If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it , unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go , which would seem to be a problem if they are " expensive " .
Maybe if its bulk stuff like fuel , water or oxygen it would n't be so much of a problem to lose one but for those the launch is the expensive thing.I 'm pretty sure the Apollo people thought all this out and they came up with a pretty good solution that is known to work .
I wager they figured it was best to launch everything at once where possible .
As prone as launches are to being aborted for technical problems and weather in Florida if you had to do many launches it could take a long and unpredictable amount of time to get everything you need in to orbit .
Just hope you do n't need to hit a window , to go to Mars for example.I think it remains to be seen how much actual economy of scale you can get in launchers .
So far they are more custom built by craftsmen than an assembly line where economy of scale would really pay off .
Would be interesting if you could make a reliable assembly line that could turn them out like Model T 's .
Would also be interesting to know what launch rate and how much it would cost annually to make a real rocket assembly line with economy of scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it.
"If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it, unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go, which would seem to be a problem if they are "expensive".
Maybe if its bulk stuff like fuel, water or oxygen it wouldn't be so much of a problem to lose one but for those the launch is the expensive thing.I'm pretty sure the Apollo people thought all this out and they came up with a pretty good solution that is known to work.
I wager they figured it was best to launch everything at once where possible.
As prone as launches are to being aborted for technical problems and weather in Florida if you had to do many launches it could take a long and unpredictable amount of time to get everything you need in to orbit.
Just hope you don't need to hit a window, to go to Mars for example.I think it remains to be seen how much actual economy of scale you can get in launchers.
So far they are more custom built by craftsmen than an assembly line where economy of scale would really pay off.
Would be interesting if you could make a reliable assembly line that could turn them out like Model T's.
Would also be interesting to know what launch rate and how much it would cost annually to make a real rocket assembly line with economy of scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840465</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256207760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or you could look at it as being about 0.4\% of the budget.  or about what we spent in Iraq last month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or you could look at it as being about 0.4 \ % of the budget .
or about what we spent in Iraq last month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or you could look at it as being about 0.4\% of the budget.
or about what we spent in Iraq last month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>Larson2042</author>
	<datestamp>1256211120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heavy lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration. It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities. The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of launchers; Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, life-cycle costs, maturity, operational complexity and the "way of doing business" within the program and NASA.</p></div><p>I still don't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift. Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket, putting all your payload eggs in one basket, rather than use a greater number of smaller, cheaper, existing rockets? The more rockets you fly, the more you have to build, and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit. Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it. Yes, flying your moon/mars/where-ever spacecraft into orbit a piece at a time means that you have to assemble it once you are up there, but that just puts into use all this lovely experience gained building the ISS. So, more light to medium lift: give it a chance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heavy lift : A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit , combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth , is beneficial to exploration .
It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities .
The Committee reviewed : the Ares family of launchers ; Shuttle-derived vehicles ; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family .
Each approach has advantages and disadvantages , trading capability , life-cycle costs , maturity , operational complexity and the " way of doing business " within the program and NASA.I still do n't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift .
Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket , putting all your payload eggs in one basket , rather than use a greater number of smaller , cheaper , existing rockets ?
The more rockets you fly , the more you have to build , and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit .
Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity , you do n't lose your entire ( much more expensive than the rocket itself ) payload , but rather just a piece of it .
Yes , flying your moon/mars/where-ever spacecraft into orbit a piece at a time means that you have to assemble it once you are up there , but that just puts into use all this lovely experience gained building the ISS .
So , more light to medium lift : give it a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heavy lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration.
It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities.
The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of launchers; Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family.
Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, life-cycle costs, maturity, operational complexity and the "way of doing business" within the program and NASA.I still don't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift.
Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket, putting all your payload eggs in one basket, rather than use a greater number of smaller, cheaper, existing rockets?
The more rockets you fly, the more you have to build, and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit.
Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it.
Yes, flying your moon/mars/where-ever spacecraft into orbit a piece at a time means that you have to assemble it once you are up there, but that just puts into use all this lovely experience gained building the ISS.
So, more light to medium lift: give it a chance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943</id>
	<title>Space debris concern...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256204880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are private companies are as concerned about minimizing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_debris" title="wikipedia.org">space debris</a> [wikipedia.org] as NASA and the FKA?<br>The more space flights we have, the greater of a problem it becomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are private companies are as concerned about minimizing space debris [ wikipedia.org ] as NASA and the FKA ? The more space flights we have , the greater of a problem it becomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are private companies are as concerned about minimizing space debris [wikipedia.org] as NASA and the FKA?The more space flights we have, the greater of a problem it becomes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</id>
	<title>Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256205720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA<p><div class="quote"><p>In polls, a huge percent of the American people support the space program. It costs each of us around 7 cents a day. I think most people would be willing to pay that, to have a human space flight program.</p></div><p>
Way off...bear with me here

U.S. population appx 300,000,000 x Percentage of population who pay taxes 55
<br>
gives us 165,000,000 taxpayers
<br>
the NASA budget is $17,600,000,000 / yr, divided between those taxpayers yeilds roughly \%106/yr, or roughly 30 cents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/day.
<br>
<br>
Did I miss something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTAIn polls , a huge percent of the American people support the space program .
It costs each of us around 7 cents a day .
I think most people would be willing to pay that , to have a human space flight program .
Way off...bear with me here U.S. population appx 300,000,000 x Percentage of population who pay taxes 55 gives us 165,000,000 taxpayers the NASA budget is $ 17,600,000,000 / yr , divided between those taxpayers yeilds roughly \ % 106/yr , or roughly 30 cents /day .
Did I miss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTAIn polls, a huge percent of the American people support the space program.
It costs each of us around 7 cents a day.
I think most people would be willing to pay that, to have a human space flight program.
Way off...bear with me here

U.S. population appx 300,000,000 x Percentage of population who pay taxes 55

gives us 165,000,000 taxpayers

the NASA budget is $17,600,000,000 / yr, divided between those taxpayers yeilds roughly \%106/yr, or roughly 30 cents /day.
Did I miss something?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839929</id>
	<title>Perhaps Buzz cares for a different reason?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256204760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps Buzz hopes that the people shot into space will take pictures of the aliens with their camera phones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Buzz hopes that the people shot into space will take pictures of the aliens with their camera phones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Buzz hopes that the people shot into space will take pictures of the aliens with their camera phones?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841631</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1256215680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I still don't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift. Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket, putting all your payload eggs in one basket, rather than use a greater number of smaller, cheaper, existing rockets?</p></div></blockquote><p>Simple engineering - the more chunks you split your payload into, the more complex the resulting assembly becomes (because now you need interfaces between the chunks), the heavier the resulting assembly becomes (because of the connectors between chunks and docking/berthing assemblies), and the greater the chance of fucking something up during building, testing, and on orbit assembly.  Then there's simply math - if your rocket has a 98\% chance of flight success (about average nowadays), then each launch you add to the manifest means the greater chance one will go awry.<br>
&nbsp; <br>As far as expense goes, you're way off base - rocket costs scale very weakly with size, and very strongly with complexity and the number of man hours required to prep it for launch.  (Which is why the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus\_(rocket)" title="wikipedia.org">Pegasus</a> [wikipedia.org], despite it's small size and modest payload, is somewhat above the middle of the pack in $/kg to orbit.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The more rockets you fly, the more you have to build, and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the handwaving-and-smokescreen theory.  The reality is that economies of scale in manufacturing don't begin to provide significant advantage until you're talking dozens of launches a year.  Costs still really don't drop much until you tackle the problem of the standing army required to integrate, checkout, and launch the vehicle - multiple smaller launches can actually cost more in total than one big launch.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it.</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be a point in favor of multiple smaller chunks - if space hardware could be bought off the shelf like the load of roof trusses I saw dumped all over the median in an accident the other day.  But it can't, and won't be for the foreseeable future.  This means that losing a portion of the payload is no different than losing the whole payload, either one is game over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do n't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift .
Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket , putting all your payload eggs in one basket , rather than use a greater number of smaller , cheaper , existing rockets ? Simple engineering - the more chunks you split your payload into , the more complex the resulting assembly becomes ( because now you need interfaces between the chunks ) , the heavier the resulting assembly becomes ( because of the connectors between chunks and docking/berthing assemblies ) , and the greater the chance of fucking something up during building , testing , and on orbit assembly .
Then there 's simply math - if your rocket has a 98 \ % chance of flight success ( about average nowadays ) , then each launch you add to the manifest means the greater chance one will go awry .
  As far as expense goes , you 're way off base - rocket costs scale very weakly with size , and very strongly with complexity and the number of man hours required to prep it for launch .
( Which is why the Pegasus [ wikipedia.org ] , despite it 's small size and modest payload , is somewhat above the middle of the pack in $ /kg to orbit .
)     The more rockets you fly , the more you have to build , and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit.That 's the handwaving-and-smokescreen theory .
The reality is that economies of scale in manufacturing do n't begin to provide significant advantage until you 're talking dozens of launches a year .
Costs still really do n't drop much until you tackle the problem of the standing army required to integrate , checkout , and launch the vehicle - multiple smaller launches can actually cost more in total than one big launch .
    Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity , you do n't lose your entire ( much more expensive than the rocket itself ) payload , but rather just a piece of it.That would be a point in favor of multiple smaller chunks - if space hardware could be bought off the shelf like the load of roof trusses I saw dumped all over the median in an accident the other day .
But it ca n't , and wo n't be for the foreseeable future .
This means that losing a portion of the payload is no different than losing the whole payload , either one is game over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still don't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift.
Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket, putting all your payload eggs in one basket, rather than use a greater number of smaller, cheaper, existing rockets?Simple engineering - the more chunks you split your payload into, the more complex the resulting assembly becomes (because now you need interfaces between the chunks), the heavier the resulting assembly becomes (because of the connectors between chunks and docking/berthing assemblies), and the greater the chance of fucking something up during building, testing, and on orbit assembly.
Then there's simply math - if your rocket has a 98\% chance of flight success (about average nowadays), then each launch you add to the manifest means the greater chance one will go awry.
  As far as expense goes, you're way off base - rocket costs scale very weakly with size, and very strongly with complexity and the number of man hours required to prep it for launch.
(Which is why the Pegasus [wikipedia.org], despite it's small size and modest payload, is somewhat above the middle of the pack in $/kg to orbit.
)
  
  The more rockets you fly, the more you have to build, and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit.That's the handwaving-and-smokescreen theory.
The reality is that economies of scale in manufacturing don't begin to provide significant advantage until you're talking dozens of launches a year.
Costs still really don't drop much until you tackle the problem of the standing army required to integrate, checkout, and launch the vehicle - multiple smaller launches can actually cost more in total than one big launch.
  
  Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it.That would be a point in favor of multiple smaller chunks - if space hardware could be bought off the shelf like the load of roof trusses I saw dumped all over the median in an accident the other day.
But it can't, and won't be for the foreseeable future.
This means that losing a portion of the payload is no different than losing the whole payload, either one is game over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840371</id>
	<title>Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1256207280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really like these recent comments from Jeff Greason, definitely my favorite member of the Augustine Committee, regarding launch safety:</p><p><a href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/22/a-question-of-safety/" title="spacepolitics.com">http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/22/a-question-of-safety/</a> [spacepolitics.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The topic of safety same up Wednesday as well in a talk by Augustine committee member Jeff Greason at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in New Mexico. In the Q&amp;A session after his speech, he was asked why the committee didn't endorse Constellation as the "most viable" option "even though from a safety and mission assurance standpoint it's clearly the best option." Greason said that safety and mission assurance was considered by the Augustine committee, but that goes beyond simply the choice of launch vehicles.</p><p><b>"Launch is a relatively small contributor to the safety and mission assurance" of human missions to the Moon and beyond. "It is not negligible, it is not something you want to forget about, but it does not dominate the loss of crew probabilities."</b> Therefore, he said, it was a mistake to focus on further increasing the reliability of a relatively small aspect of overall mission risk, particularly if those choices lead you to take out safety systems in other components that because of mass restrictions. "These are false economies in terms of safety and mission assurance."</p><p>Greason was also skeptical about the probabilistic risk assessments used to estimate the safety of various proposed systems. <b>Most launch failures are not from random types of events, he said, but instead failures of design, testing, procedure, and the like. "If it was built wrong, it doesn't work a lot of the time, no matter what you thought the probabilistic failure was."</b> The only way to "buy down" those failures, he said, is though flight experience, which is why "real boosters" have lower reliabilities than estimated when they were "paper boosters" still in the design phase.</p><p><b>"And the truth is, Ares 1 is, right now, a paper booster," Greason continued. "And the further truth is, its projected launch rate is extremely low, so it will never get out of 'infant mortality,'" that initial phase of non-probabilistic failures. "Even if Ares 1 were built exactly as planned, we would never find out whether its mature probabilistic risk assessment was or was not achievable as planned, because we would never get through the phase of life where we're supposed to work out all the teething problems."</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like these recent comments from Jeff Greason , definitely my favorite member of the Augustine Committee , regarding launch safety : http : //www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/22/a-question-of-safety/ [ spacepolitics.com ] The topic of safety same up Wednesday as well in a talk by Augustine committee member Jeff Greason at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in New Mexico .
In the Q&amp;A session after his speech , he was asked why the committee did n't endorse Constellation as the " most viable " option " even though from a safety and mission assurance standpoint it 's clearly the best option .
" Greason said that safety and mission assurance was considered by the Augustine committee , but that goes beyond simply the choice of launch vehicles .
" Launch is a relatively small contributor to the safety and mission assurance " of human missions to the Moon and beyond .
" It is not negligible , it is not something you want to forget about , but it does not dominate the loss of crew probabilities .
" Therefore , he said , it was a mistake to focus on further increasing the reliability of a relatively small aspect of overall mission risk , particularly if those choices lead you to take out safety systems in other components that because of mass restrictions .
" These are false economies in terms of safety and mission assurance .
" Greason was also skeptical about the probabilistic risk assessments used to estimate the safety of various proposed systems .
Most launch failures are not from random types of events , he said , but instead failures of design , testing , procedure , and the like .
" If it was built wrong , it does n't work a lot of the time , no matter what you thought the probabilistic failure was .
" The only way to " buy down " those failures , he said , is though flight experience , which is why " real boosters " have lower reliabilities than estimated when they were " paper boosters " still in the design phase .
" And the truth is , Ares 1 is , right now , a paper booster , " Greason continued .
" And the further truth is , its projected launch rate is extremely low , so it will never get out of 'infant mortality, ' " that initial phase of non-probabilistic failures .
" Even if Ares 1 were built exactly as planned , we would never find out whether its mature probabilistic risk assessment was or was not achievable as planned , because we would never get through the phase of life where we 're supposed to work out all the teething problems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like these recent comments from Jeff Greason, definitely my favorite member of the Augustine Committee, regarding launch safety:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/22/a-question-of-safety/ [spacepolitics.com] The topic of safety same up Wednesday as well in a talk by Augustine committee member Jeff Greason at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in New Mexico.
In the Q&amp;A session after his speech, he was asked why the committee didn't endorse Constellation as the "most viable" option "even though from a safety and mission assurance standpoint it's clearly the best option.
" Greason said that safety and mission assurance was considered by the Augustine committee, but that goes beyond simply the choice of launch vehicles.
"Launch is a relatively small contributor to the safety and mission assurance" of human missions to the Moon and beyond.
"It is not negligible, it is not something you want to forget about, but it does not dominate the loss of crew probabilities.
" Therefore, he said, it was a mistake to focus on further increasing the reliability of a relatively small aspect of overall mission risk, particularly if those choices lead you to take out safety systems in other components that because of mass restrictions.
"These are false economies in terms of safety and mission assurance.
"Greason was also skeptical about the probabilistic risk assessments used to estimate the safety of various proposed systems.
Most launch failures are not from random types of events, he said, but instead failures of design, testing, procedure, and the like.
"If it was built wrong, it doesn't work a lot of the time, no matter what you thought the probabilistic failure was.
" The only way to "buy down" those failures, he said, is though flight experience, which is why "real boosters" have lower reliabilities than estimated when they were "paper boosters" still in the design phase.
"And the truth is, Ares 1 is, right now, a paper booster," Greason continued.
"And the further truth is, its projected launch rate is extremely low, so it will never get out of 'infant mortality,'" that initial phase of non-probabilistic failures.
"Even if Ares 1 were built exactly as planned, we would never find out whether its mature probabilistic risk assessment was or was not achievable as planned, because we would never get through the phase of life where we're supposed to work out all the teething problems.
" 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841683</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>Larson2042</author>
	<datestamp>1256216040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, we've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare. Remember, the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as 1982. Conceptually, it's almost 30 years old. Even a lot of the hardware is 20+. There were huge overruns, and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing. Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.</p></div><p>This is exactly my point. You say that the station derives from an old study, and that much of the hardware used is old. Well, any Mars craft could be a blank sheet design taking the lessons learned from ISS and putting them to good use. And as for delays due to the shuttle, you again make my point. If NASA designs another heavy lift vehicle, it will be the only way to get a Mars craft (or pieces thereof) into orbit. What happens if that launch system goes down to a failure? You have the exact same situation you had with the shuttle. However, if you design your Mars craft from the beginning to use existing medium lift, you'll have multiple options to get stuff into orbit (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, Ariane, etc).
<br> <br>
Finally, while being able to put everything together as one big piece and launch it may simplify some aspects of the design, if we're going to really do worthwhile things in space (colonies, stations, mining) there will have to be piecemeal launches. Habitats and the like will simply need to be too big to be able to launch on a single rocket. Why not start getting really good at putting stuff together in orbit (or on the lunar surface) now? That way, when the expertise is really necessary, we'll have it. We won't have to stop and spend money to develop it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , we 've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare .
Remember , the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as 1982 .
Conceptually , it 's almost 30 years old .
Even a lot of the hardware is 20 + .
There were huge overruns , and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing .
Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.This is exactly my point .
You say that the station derives from an old study , and that much of the hardware used is old .
Well , any Mars craft could be a blank sheet design taking the lessons learned from ISS and putting them to good use .
And as for delays due to the shuttle , you again make my point .
If NASA designs another heavy lift vehicle , it will be the only way to get a Mars craft ( or pieces thereof ) into orbit .
What happens if that launch system goes down to a failure ?
You have the exact same situation you had with the shuttle .
However , if you design your Mars craft from the beginning to use existing medium lift , you 'll have multiple options to get stuff into orbit ( Atlas V , Delta IV , Falcon 9 , Ariane , etc ) .
Finally , while being able to put everything together as one big piece and launch it may simplify some aspects of the design , if we 're going to really do worthwhile things in space ( colonies , stations , mining ) there will have to be piecemeal launches .
Habitats and the like will simply need to be too big to be able to launch on a single rocket .
Why not start getting really good at putting stuff together in orbit ( or on the lunar surface ) now ?
That way , when the expertise is really necessary , we 'll have it .
We wo n't have to stop and spend money to develop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, we've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare.
Remember, the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as 1982.
Conceptually, it's almost 30 years old.
Even a lot of the hardware is 20+.
There were huge overruns, and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing.
Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.This is exactly my point.
You say that the station derives from an old study, and that much of the hardware used is old.
Well, any Mars craft could be a blank sheet design taking the lessons learned from ISS and putting them to good use.
And as for delays due to the shuttle, you again make my point.
If NASA designs another heavy lift vehicle, it will be the only way to get a Mars craft (or pieces thereof) into orbit.
What happens if that launch system goes down to a failure?
You have the exact same situation you had with the shuttle.
However, if you design your Mars craft from the beginning to use existing medium lift, you'll have multiple options to get stuff into orbit (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, Ariane, etc).
Finally, while being able to put everything together as one big piece and launch it may simplify some aspects of the design, if we're going to really do worthwhile things in space (colonies, stations, mining) there will have to be piecemeal launches.
Habitats and the like will simply need to be too big to be able to launch on a single rocket.
Why not start getting really good at putting stuff together in orbit (or on the lunar surface) now?
That way, when the expertise is really necessary, we'll have it.
We won't have to stop and spend money to develop it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841515</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1256214660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to put even one person into space for any extended duration (i.e., something more than Mercury-style joyrides around the planet), you need to take a long a lot of oxygen, food, water, and other necessities, while also providing a reasonable level of safety. Plus, you need to get cargo to the ISS somehow, and the ISS is on a rather inconveniently inclined orbit.</p><p>Figure around 20 metric tons to LEO with a good sized crew. That's about what the shuttle does now, as does the Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy. Neither of the last two have flow with people on board (Falcon 9 hasn't flown yet at all, but should soon), which is why they have smaller variants.</p><p>And if you want to do anything beyond LEO, you're going to need something much bigger than any of those. Ares V may have a place, but given the other launchers out there, I'm less certain about Ares I. You already have a pick of options for launch capabilities in that range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to put even one person into space for any extended duration ( i.e. , something more than Mercury-style joyrides around the planet ) , you need to take a long a lot of oxygen , food , water , and other necessities , while also providing a reasonable level of safety .
Plus , you need to get cargo to the ISS somehow , and the ISS is on a rather inconveniently inclined orbit.Figure around 20 metric tons to LEO with a good sized crew .
That 's about what the shuttle does now , as does the Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy .
Neither of the last two have flow with people on board ( Falcon 9 has n't flown yet at all , but should soon ) , which is why they have smaller variants.And if you want to do anything beyond LEO , you 're going to need something much bigger than any of those .
Ares V may have a place , but given the other launchers out there , I 'm less certain about Ares I. You already have a pick of options for launch capabilities in that range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to put even one person into space for any extended duration (i.e., something more than Mercury-style joyrides around the planet), you need to take a long a lot of oxygen, food, water, and other necessities, while also providing a reasonable level of safety.
Plus, you need to get cargo to the ISS somehow, and the ISS is on a rather inconveniently inclined orbit.Figure around 20 metric tons to LEO with a good sized crew.
That's about what the shuttle does now, as does the Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy.
Neither of the last two have flow with people on board (Falcon 9 hasn't flown yet at all, but should soon), which is why they have smaller variants.And if you want to do anything beyond LEO, you're going to need something much bigger than any of those.
Ares V may have a place, but given the other launchers out there, I'm less certain about Ares I. You already have a pick of options for launch capabilities in that range.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29847629</id>
	<title>Re:The Augustine report ?</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1256320620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gosh, you think their might be a few 100 Windows fanboys here? <br> <br>
Augustine Report <br>
Augustine Report <br>
Augustine Report</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh , you think their might be a few 100 Windows fanboys here ?
Augustine Report Augustine Report Augustine Report</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh, you think their might be a few 100 Windows fanboys here?
Augustine Report 
Augustine Report 
Augustine Report</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841387</id>
	<title>Re:Space debris concern...</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1256213820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding is that debris in LEO isn't so much of an issue because it's orbit will decay relatively quickly and it will then burn up on reentry. It is also much easier to track.</p><p>If we get a major debris problem in GEO though then afaict that would be a huge problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that debris in LEO is n't so much of an issue because it 's orbit will decay relatively quickly and it will then burn up on reentry .
It is also much easier to track.If we get a major debris problem in GEO though then afaict that would be a huge problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that debris in LEO isn't so much of an issue because it's orbit will decay relatively quickly and it will then burn up on reentry.
It is also much easier to track.If we get a major debris problem in GEO though then afaict that would be a huge problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841181</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1256212320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that's because it is.....Why is that interesting?  It's common knowledge, and has been for years.  The Soyuz is a freakin' tank, and is about as simple of a system as you could design.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's because it is.....Why is that interesting ?
It 's common knowledge , and has been for years .
The Soyuz is a freakin ' tank , and is about as simple of a system as you could design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's because it is.....Why is that interesting?
It's common knowledge, and has been for years.
The Soyuz is a freakin' tank, and is about as simple of a system as you could design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256207220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you expect to happen:</p><p>Government: "Hey, guys, you know that whole space exploration thing we have?  That thing that has in the past and could in the future do one hell of a lot of good for humanity and has advanced technology quite wildly before?  Well, turns out it costs money.  If we split it up, it's around an extra $110/year.  How about it?"<br>People: "Sure!  That's a pretty paltry amount to pay.  Would be nice to actually have advancements in our culture so that the rest of the world doesn't mock us quite as often as they do!"</p><p>What Reality(tm) says will happen:</p><p>Government: "Hey, guys, you know that whole space exploration thing we have?  That thing-"<br>Stupid people: "ZOMG moon == hoax and government == EVIL EVIL they take money and I GET NOTHINGZ why should I ever give you ANYTHING U DUM POLTICANS hate hate hat"<br>Government: "But... but it's only around 30 cents/day... what-"<br>Stupid people: "SEE TAHT they want to take mah moneiz and my jobs and I *degrades into incoherence and shotgun blasts*"</p><p>Sorry, man, but stupid people are stubborn people.  The dark ages were a good time for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you expect to happen : Government : " Hey , guys , you know that whole space exploration thing we have ?
That thing that has in the past and could in the future do one hell of a lot of good for humanity and has advanced technology quite wildly before ?
Well , turns out it costs money .
If we split it up , it 's around an extra $ 110/year .
How about it ?
" People : " Sure !
That 's a pretty paltry amount to pay .
Would be nice to actually have advancements in our culture so that the rest of the world does n't mock us quite as often as they do !
" What Reality ( tm ) says will happen : Government : " Hey , guys , you know that whole space exploration thing we have ?
That thing- " Stupid people : " ZOMG moon = = hoax and government = = EVIL EVIL they take money and I GET NOTHINGZ why should I ever give you ANYTHING U DUM POLTICANS hate hate hat " Government : " But... but it 's only around 30 cents/day... what- " Stupid people : " SEE TAHT they want to take mah moneiz and my jobs and I * degrades into incoherence and shotgun blasts * " Sorry , man , but stupid people are stubborn people .
The dark ages were a good time for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you expect to happen:Government: "Hey, guys, you know that whole space exploration thing we have?
That thing that has in the past and could in the future do one hell of a lot of good for humanity and has advanced technology quite wildly before?
Well, turns out it costs money.
If we split it up, it's around an extra $110/year.
How about it?
"People: "Sure!
That's a pretty paltry amount to pay.
Would be nice to actually have advancements in our culture so that the rest of the world doesn't mock us quite as often as they do!
"What Reality(tm) says will happen:Government: "Hey, guys, you know that whole space exploration thing we have?
That thing-"Stupid people: "ZOMG moon == hoax and government == EVIL EVIL they take money and I GET NOTHINGZ why should I ever give you ANYTHING U DUM POLTICANS hate hate hat"Government: "But... but it's only around 30 cents/day... what-"Stupid people: "SEE TAHT they want to take mah moneiz and my jobs and I *degrades into incoherence and shotgun blasts*"Sorry, man, but stupid people are stubborn people.
The dark ages were a good time for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839889</id>
	<title>Re:The Augustine report ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256204580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that should teach you to (attempt to) read the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that should teach you to ( attempt to ) read the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that should teach you to (attempt to) read the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840343</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256207160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you consider the full 300M population* and only the cost of human space flight (about half of the total NASA budget) then the numbers line up pretty well.</p><p>Of course, considering that the polls the report refers to refer to both manned and unmanned exploration, this seems slightly dishonest, but not ridiculously out of line.</p><p>* If you're going to be restricting it to those paying taxes, you should probably also consider the income distribution of those paying taxes, and that the median tax load is going to be less than the average tax load, as far as I know</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you consider the full 300M population * and only the cost of human space flight ( about half of the total NASA budget ) then the numbers line up pretty well.Of course , considering that the polls the report refers to refer to both manned and unmanned exploration , this seems slightly dishonest , but not ridiculously out of line .
* If you 're going to be restricting it to those paying taxes , you should probably also consider the income distribution of those paying taxes , and that the median tax load is going to be less than the average tax load , as far as I know</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you consider the full 300M population* and only the cost of human space flight (about half of the total NASA budget) then the numbers line up pretty well.Of course, considering that the polls the report refers to refer to both manned and unmanned exploration, this seems slightly dishonest, but not ridiculously out of line.
* If you're going to be restricting it to those paying taxes, you should probably also consider the income distribution of those paying taxes, and that the median tax load is going to be less than the average tax load, as far as I know</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840757</id>
	<title>Buzz would show up ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256209380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... to a door opening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to a door opening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to a door opening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840347</id>
	<title>No, thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256207160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Commercial spaceflights ? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take a <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/19/2248214/Ultracapacitor-Bus-Recharges-At-Each-Stop" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">ultracapacitor-powered bus</a> [slashdot.org], thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial spaceflights ?
Call me old fashioned ( and it wo n't be the first time ) but I 'll take a ultracapacitor-powered bus [ slashdot.org ] , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial spaceflights ?
Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take a ultracapacitor-powered bus [slashdot.org], thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840169</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256206140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Costs about as much as a child sponsorship.  Maybe we can send them to space (and save ourselves the 30 cents later)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Costs about as much as a child sponsorship .
Maybe we can send them to space ( and save ourselves the 30 cents later ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Costs about as much as a child sponsorship.
Maybe we can send them to space (and save ourselves the 30 cents later)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839875</id>
	<title>Re:The Augustine report ?</title>
	<author>The-Pheon</author>
	<datestamp>1256204520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Real link is here:<br><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf" title="nasa.gov">Final Report</a> [nasa.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Real link is here : Final Report [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Real link is here:Final Report [nasa.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841385</id>
	<title>Re:Heavy-lift</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1256213820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. The claim that heavy-lift is truly necessary is somewhat hard for me to buy, although my suspicion is that suggesting otherwise would just be too big of a mindset change for NASA to handle. If they do have a heavy-lift system, I do hope they pick the EELV-derived heavy-lift, even if it'll be nigh-impossible politically -- congressmen have already started defensive maneuvers to try to protect the status quo. The main benefit of an EELV-derived system is that it minimizes the amount of specialized infrastructure you'd have to maintain, and since the EELV infrastructure is used for many medium-lift commercial launches you also wouldn't have to maintain a standing army of personnel specifically for the heavy-lift launcher. If it does indeed turn out that heavy-lift is unnecessary, you can simply scale back the number of heavy-lift launches; with the shuttle-derived heavy-lift, you have the pay the standing support army (the biggest part of the lifecycle cost) no matter how many launches you actually have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The claim that heavy-lift is truly necessary is somewhat hard for me to buy , although my suspicion is that suggesting otherwise would just be too big of a mindset change for NASA to handle .
If they do have a heavy-lift system , I do hope they pick the EELV-derived heavy-lift , even if it 'll be nigh-impossible politically -- congressmen have already started defensive maneuvers to try to protect the status quo .
The main benefit of an EELV-derived system is that it minimizes the amount of specialized infrastructure you 'd have to maintain , and since the EELV infrastructure is used for many medium-lift commercial launches you also would n't have to maintain a standing army of personnel specifically for the heavy-lift launcher .
If it does indeed turn out that heavy-lift is unnecessary , you can simply scale back the number of heavy-lift launches ; with the shuttle-derived heavy-lift , you have the pay the standing support army ( the biggest part of the lifecycle cost ) no matter how many launches you actually have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The claim that heavy-lift is truly necessary is somewhat hard for me to buy, although my suspicion is that suggesting otherwise would just be too big of a mindset change for NASA to handle.
If they do have a heavy-lift system, I do hope they pick the EELV-derived heavy-lift, even if it'll be nigh-impossible politically -- congressmen have already started defensive maneuvers to try to protect the status quo.
The main benefit of an EELV-derived system is that it minimizes the amount of specialized infrastructure you'd have to maintain, and since the EELV infrastructure is used for many medium-lift commercial launches you also wouldn't have to maintain a standing army of personnel specifically for the heavy-lift launcher.
If it does indeed turn out that heavy-lift is unnecessary, you can simply scale back the number of heavy-lift launches; with the shuttle-derived heavy-lift, you have the pay the standing support army (the biggest part of the lifecycle cost) no matter how many launches you actually have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841703</id>
	<title>Re:Space debris concern...</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1256216160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A kind of space janitor if you will.</p></div><p>This can only be a good thing.  We're going to need all the space janitors we can get in case the Sariens attack.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A kind of space janitor if you will.This can only be a good thing .
We 're going to need all the space janitors we can get in case the Sariens attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A kind of space janitor if you will.This can only be a good thing.
We're going to need all the space janitors we can get in case the Sariens attack.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840389</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1256207400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You misunderstood the "<b>a</b> huge percent", what they really mean is 1\%.</p><p>And the 7 cents a day is actually in Canadian Dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You misunderstood the " a huge percent " , what they really mean is 1 \ % .And the 7 cents a day is actually in Canadian Dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misunderstood the "a huge percent", what they really mean is 1\%.And the 7 cents a day is actually in Canadian Dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842055</id>
	<title>As you said,  depends on rate of launch.</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1256221500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea is for NASA to have a heavy launch and then do it at least once every 2 months, but better would be once a month. As to light to medium, that is what EELV, SpaceX, SS3, etc are doing. What is needed is for NASA to stimulate the space business so that commercial flights take off, which would ultimately lead to needing heavy launch needs. Obama/Dems/NASA HAVE the ability to do this stimulus with relatively LITTLE money. We will see if they will the right thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is for NASA to have a heavy launch and then do it at least once every 2 months , but better would be once a month .
As to light to medium , that is what EELV , SpaceX , SS3 , etc are doing .
What is needed is for NASA to stimulate the space business so that commercial flights take off , which would ultimately lead to needing heavy launch needs .
Obama/Dems/NASA HAVE the ability to do this stimulus with relatively LITTLE money .
We will see if they will the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is for NASA to have a heavy launch and then do it at least once every 2 months, but better would be once a month.
As to light to medium, that is what EELV, SpaceX, SS3, etc are doing.
What is needed is for NASA to stimulate the space business so that commercial flights take off, which would ultimately lead to needing heavy launch needs.
Obama/Dems/NASA HAVE the ability to do this stimulus with relatively LITTLE money.
We will see if they will the right thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29864907</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256489340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA does more than space activity, so if you remove the non space activities (the aeronautics side of NASA) you would probably get the 7 cents a day figure. (I don't know what that figure is, just considering the comments about the apparent lack of savings if the shuttle program is cancelled and that is because of the infrastructure costs that are there regardless of whether the shuttle flies or not).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA does more than space activity , so if you remove the non space activities ( the aeronautics side of NASA ) you would probably get the 7 cents a day figure .
( I do n't know what that figure is , just considering the comments about the apparent lack of savings if the shuttle program is cancelled and that is because of the infrastructure costs that are there regardless of whether the shuttle flies or not ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA does more than space activity, so if you remove the non space activities (the aeronautics side of NASA) you would probably get the 7 cents a day figure.
(I don't know what that figure is, just considering the comments about the apparent lack of savings if the shuttle program is cancelled and that is because of the infrastructure costs that are there regardless of whether the shuttle flies or not).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840229</id>
	<title>Re:ob</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1256206500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, its rocket engineering.</p><p>The first time its proving the science of the fundamental principals at incredible risk, and is a prime fit for government development.  The second time its just trying to engineer it better and cheaper -- a better job for competitive enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its rocket engineering.The first time its proving the science of the fundamental principals at incredible risk , and is a prime fit for government development .
The second time its just trying to engineer it better and cheaper -- a better job for competitive enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its rocket engineering.The first time its proving the science of the fundamental principals at incredible risk, and is a prime fit for government development.
The second time its just trying to engineer it better and cheaper -- a better job for competitive enterprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842495</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256227140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. The Russians have never lost a cosmonaut during a mission, to my knowledge. They have different systems with different safety margins depending on whether they're sending up people or other payloads. We try to do both with the same vehicle, and as a result, we split the difference on the safety margins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
The Russians have never lost a cosmonaut during a mission , to my knowledge .
They have different systems with different safety margins depending on whether they 're sending up people or other payloads .
We try to do both with the same vehicle , and as a result , we split the difference on the safety margins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
The Russians have never lost a cosmonaut during a mission, to my knowledge.
They have different systems with different safety margins depending on whether they're sending up people or other payloads.
We try to do both with the same vehicle, and as a result, we split the difference on the safety margins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841085</id>
	<title>Re:Space debris concern...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256211660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the bright side. If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it. A kind of space janitor if you will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the bright side .
If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it .
A kind of space janitor if you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the bright side.
If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it.
A kind of space janitor if you will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841311</id>
	<title>Re:ob</title>
	<author>nitehawk214</author>
	<datestamp>1256213220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, its not rocket surgery!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , its not rocket surgery !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, its not rocket surgery!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841393</id>
	<title>Re:Summary of Augustine Report</title>
	<author>Truth is life</author>
	<datestamp>1256213880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, we've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a <i>nightmare</i>. Remember, the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as <i>1982</i>. Conceptually, it's almost 30 years old. Even a lot of the hardware is 20+. There were huge overruns, and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing. Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.</p><p>Economies of scale work both ways--sure, cheap, reliable, low-lift boosters are great, but there are important technical simplifications that you can make by launching everything in just one or two gos--not having to store cryogens in orbit, minimal assembly, more robust craft design--you can build your lunar lander or whatever in one big piece, and assemble it on Earth in carefully controlled, well-understood conditions, rather than in a dangerous, poorly-defined environment, for example--which might very well outweigh the benefits of low-ish launch costs. I'm also skeptical of any NASA effort to reduce launch costs directly. After all, the Shuttle was supposed to massively reduce launch costs, and look where that ended up. Now, they do support COTS, which may very well reduce launch costs some, but they aren't bending metal themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , we 've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare .
Remember , the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as 1982 .
Conceptually , it 's almost 30 years old .
Even a lot of the hardware is 20 + .
There were huge overruns , and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing .
Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.Economies of scale work both ways--sure , cheap , reliable , low-lift boosters are great , but there are important technical simplifications that you can make by launching everything in just one or two gos--not having to store cryogens in orbit , minimal assembly , more robust craft design--you can build your lunar lander or whatever in one big piece , and assemble it on Earth in carefully controlled , well-understood conditions , rather than in a dangerous , poorly-defined environment , for example--which might very well outweigh the benefits of low-ish launch costs .
I 'm also skeptical of any NASA effort to reduce launch costs directly .
After all , the Shuttle was supposed to massively reduce launch costs , and look where that ended up .
Now , they do support COTS , which may very well reduce launch costs some , but they are n't bending metal themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, we've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare.
Remember, the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as 1982.
Conceptually, it's almost 30 years old.
Even a lot of the hardware is 20+.
There were huge overruns, and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing.
Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.Economies of scale work both ways--sure, cheap, reliable, low-lift boosters are great, but there are important technical simplifications that you can make by launching everything in just one or two gos--not having to store cryogens in orbit, minimal assembly, more robust craft design--you can build your lunar lander or whatever in one big piece, and assemble it on Earth in carefully controlled, well-understood conditions, rather than in a dangerous, poorly-defined environment, for example--which might very well outweigh the benefits of low-ish launch costs.
I'm also skeptical of any NASA effort to reduce launch costs directly.
After all, the Shuttle was supposed to massively reduce launch costs, and look where that ended up.
Now, they do support COTS, which may very well reduce launch costs some, but they aren't bending metal themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839779</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256204040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843473</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable Spin</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1256330580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just did a rough calculation and that's almost 3 times more than what Norway spend per taxpayer per day.</p><p>You win!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just did a rough calculation and that 's almost 3 times more than what Norway spend per taxpayer per day.You win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just did a rough calculation and that's almost 3 times more than what Norway spend per taxpayer per day.You win!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840279</id>
	<title>Yeah</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1256206800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ol dick would NEVER put jobs ahead of NASA lives. Nah. Never. hehehehehehehe</htmltext>
<tokenext>ol dick would NEVER put jobs ahead of NASA lives .
Nah. Never .
hehehehehehehe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ol dick would NEVER put jobs ahead of NASA lives.
Nah. Never.
hehehehehehehe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29846697</id>
	<title>NASA Budget</title>
	<author>rayharris</author>
	<datestamp>1256316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to have a checkbox on my tax return that said: "I hereby direct that ( ) 5\% ( ) 10\% ( ) 100\% of my taxes be used for NASA."</p><p>If you could guarantee that it would be <i>added</i> to the NASA budget and not just be used to shuffle money around, I'd even let them keep my refund.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to have a checkbox on my tax return that said : " I hereby direct that ( ) 5 \ % ( ) 10 \ % ( ) 100 \ % of my taxes be used for NASA .
" If you could guarantee that it would be added to the NASA budget and not just be used to shuffle money around , I 'd even let them keep my refund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to have a checkbox on my tax return that said: "I hereby direct that ( ) 5\% ( ) 10\% ( ) 100\% of my taxes be used for NASA.
"If you could guarantee that it would be added to the NASA budget and not just be used to shuffle money around, I'd even let them keep my refund.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699</id>
	<title>Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle</title>
	<author>waimate</author>
	<datestamp>1256208960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.</i></p><p>So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle. Interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system , which has flown safely for the last 38 years , and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle .
Interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle.
Interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842611</id>
	<title>mo3 up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256229000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">guys 4re usually</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>guys 4re usually [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guys 4re usually [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839923</id>
	<title>Re:The Augustine report ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256204700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ? It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Paging Buzz Aldrin, article submitter needs an ass-kicking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ?
It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here .
Paging Buzz Aldrin , article submitter needs an ass-kicking : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ?
It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here.
Paging Buzz Aldrin, article submitter needs an ass-kicking :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29846371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29844971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29845813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29847629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29853061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29845095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_2025232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29864907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841393
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841631
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29844971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29845095
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29845813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29864907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29846371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29853061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29843541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29847629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29842495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29841215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_2025232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29839929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_2025232.29840469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
