<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_202223</id>
	<title>NASA Trying To Reinvent Their Approach</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257153240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes to tell us that NASA has started down the road to reinvention with the <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46960">addition of four new committees</a> to the external advisory group that drives the agency's direction.  <i>"The four new committees include Commercial Space, Education and Public Outreach, Information Technology Infrastructure, and Technology Innovation. The council's members provide advice and make recommendations to the NASA administrator about agency programs, policies, plans, financial controls and other matters pertinent to NASA's responsibilities. In the realm of commercial space, NASA has been pushed by outside experts to leave low Earth orbit flights to other aerospace firms. The Review of United States Human Space Flight Plan Committee report recently took that a step further in recommending: A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all US aerospace companies. This would let NASA focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified NASA Orion spacecraft."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes to tell us that NASA has started down the road to reinvention with the addition of four new committees to the external advisory group that drives the agency 's direction .
" The four new committees include Commercial Space , Education and Public Outreach , Information Technology Infrastructure , and Technology Innovation .
The council 's members provide advice and make recommendations to the NASA administrator about agency programs , policies , plans , financial controls and other matters pertinent to NASA 's responsibilities .
In the realm of commercial space , NASA has been pushed by outside experts to leave low Earth orbit flights to other aerospace firms .
The Review of United States Human Space Flight Plan Committee report recently took that a step further in recommending : A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all US aerospace companies .
This would let NASA focus on more challenging roles , including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified NASA Orion spacecraft .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes to tell us that NASA has started down the road to reinvention with the addition of four new committees to the external advisory group that drives the agency's direction.
"The four new committees include Commercial Space, Education and Public Outreach, Information Technology Infrastructure, and Technology Innovation.
The council's members provide advice and make recommendations to the NASA administrator about agency programs, policies, plans, financial controls and other matters pertinent to NASA's responsibilities.
In the realm of commercial space, NASA has been pushed by outside experts to leave low Earth orbit flights to other aerospace firms.
The Review of United States Human Space Flight Plan Committee report recently took that a step further in recommending: A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all US aerospace companies.
This would let NASA focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified NASA Orion spacecraft.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956168</id>
	<title>New committee heads</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1257161820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked article didn't seem to mention it anywhere, but it's worth noting who the heads of the new committees are:</p><p><a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29537" title="spaceref.com">http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29537</a> [spaceref.com]<br><a href="http://www.spacenews.com/civil/091030-bolden-revamps-nasa-advisory-council.html" title="spacenews.com">http://www.spacenews.com/civil/091030-bolden-revamps-nasa-advisory-council.html</a> [spacenews.com]</p><p>* Commercial Space Committee: <a href="http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/staff.shtml" title="commercial...flight.org">Bretton Alexander</a> [commercial...flight.org], current head of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation<br>* Education and Public Outreach: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles\_O'Brien\_(journalist)" title="wikipedia.org">Miles O'Brien</a> [wikipedia.org], pretty much the best and most clueful space journalist around<br>* Technology and Innovation Committee: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther\_Dyson" title="wikipedia.org">Esther Dyson</a> [wikipedia.org], well known for her tech entrepreneurship work<br>* (IT Infrastructure Committee chair seems to be pending)</p><p>All in all, they seem to be rather good picks. It also seems that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley\_Huntress" title="wikipedia.org">Wesley Huntress</a> [wikipedia.org]  has been chosen as the chair of the Science Committee. In 2004 he was head of a study, <a href="http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/nextsteps.pdf" title="iaaweb.org">The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space</a> [iaaweb.org], a rather fascinating report proposing a space exploration infrastructure which would initially focus on Lagrange points and Near-Earth Objects, quite similar to the Flexible Path option proposed by the Augustine Commission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked article did n't seem to mention it anywhere , but it 's worth noting who the heads of the new committees are : http : //www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html ? pid = 29537 [ spaceref.com ] http : //www.spacenews.com/civil/091030-bolden-revamps-nasa-advisory-council.html [ spacenews.com ] * Commercial Space Committee : Bretton Alexander [ commercial...flight.org ] , current head of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation * Education and Public Outreach : Miles O'Brien [ wikipedia.org ] , pretty much the best and most clueful space journalist around * Technology and Innovation Committee : Esther Dyson [ wikipedia.org ] , well known for her tech entrepreneurship work * ( IT Infrastructure Committee chair seems to be pending ) All in all , they seem to be rather good picks .
It also seems that Wesley Huntress [ wikipedia.org ] has been chosen as the chair of the Science Committee .
In 2004 he was head of a study , The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space [ iaaweb.org ] , a rather fascinating report proposing a space exploration infrastructure which would initially focus on Lagrange points and Near-Earth Objects , quite similar to the Flexible Path option proposed by the Augustine Commission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked article didn't seem to mention it anywhere, but it's worth noting who the heads of the new committees are:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29537 [spaceref.com]http://www.spacenews.com/civil/091030-bolden-revamps-nasa-advisory-council.html [spacenews.com]* Commercial Space Committee: Bretton Alexander [commercial...flight.org], current head of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation* Education and Public Outreach: Miles O'Brien [wikipedia.org], pretty much the best and most clueful space journalist around* Technology and Innovation Committee: Esther Dyson [wikipedia.org], well known for her tech entrepreneurship work* (IT Infrastructure Committee chair seems to be pending)All in all, they seem to be rather good picks.
It also seems that Wesley Huntress [wikipedia.org]  has been chosen as the chair of the Science Committee.
In 2004 he was head of a study, The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space [iaaweb.org], a rather fascinating report proposing a space exploration infrastructure which would initially focus on Lagrange points and Near-Earth Objects, quite similar to the Flexible Path option proposed by the Augustine Commission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29964986</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>pod</author>
	<datestamp>1257270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're begging the question though, aren't you? Saying that since no one wants to explore other planets, NASA should, because it's important. If it's so important, how come no one wants to do it?</p><p>NASA is a gigantic bureaucracy. After decades of operation that's cost taxpayers trillions of (inflation adjusted) dollars, we still don't have a manned reusable LEO vehicle that can operate for less than 10s of millions between launches, and can't launch more than once every few months. In fact, as far as practical benefits go, all we have to show for it are some fake moon rocks.</p><p>The last thing we should be doing is pinning our hopes on a committee-driven organization like NASA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're begging the question though , are n't you ?
Saying that since no one wants to explore other planets , NASA should , because it 's important .
If it 's so important , how come no one wants to do it ? NASA is a gigantic bureaucracy .
After decades of operation that 's cost taxpayers trillions of ( inflation adjusted ) dollars , we still do n't have a manned reusable LEO vehicle that can operate for less than 10s of millions between launches , and ca n't launch more than once every few months .
In fact , as far as practical benefits go , all we have to show for it are some fake moon rocks.The last thing we should be doing is pinning our hopes on a committee-driven organization like NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're begging the question though, aren't you?
Saying that since no one wants to explore other planets, NASA should, because it's important.
If it's so important, how come no one wants to do it?NASA is a gigantic bureaucracy.
After decades of operation that's cost taxpayers trillions of (inflation adjusted) dollars, we still don't have a manned reusable LEO vehicle that can operate for less than 10s of millions between launches, and can't launch more than once every few months.
In fact, as far as practical benefits go, all we have to show for it are some fake moon rocks.The last thing we should be doing is pinning our hopes on a committee-driven organization like NASA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955684</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>Princeofcups</author>
	<datestamp>1257159660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.</p></div><p>Yeah, way too small.  There's no reason that we are not spending at least 10\% of the GLOBAL budget on space exploration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff , it needs a lot more money than it has now .
Personally , I 'd like to see NASA get at least 2 \ % of the total budget , which is more than 3 times what it gets now , but I seem to be in the minority on that one.Yeah , way too small .
There 's no reason that we are not spending at least 10 \ % of the GLOBAL budget on space exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.Yeah, way too small.
There's no reason that we are not spending at least 10\% of the GLOBAL budget on space exploration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961200</id>
	<title>Re:Space Leads To Colonies Leads To Rebellion...</title>
	<author>Xin Jing</author>
	<datestamp>1257241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that Exploitation Colonialism hits the nail on the head rather accurately <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation\_colonialism" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation\_colonialism</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>I would imagine that a wealthy space-faring corporation could easily be substituted for a traditional government, and employees forced to work in laborious and dangerous conditions would seek to improve their lives through and organized revolt or uprising, where "the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt#Political\_and\_socioeconomic\_revolutions" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt#Political\_and\_socioeconomic\_revolutions</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Let's face it, it's not going to be wealthy and powerful people that will be employed to physically mine minerals and resources from dangerous space locations, it's the same folks that have been used to build empires and further development of infrastructure and the momentum for expansionism since time began - the poor, the uneducated, the desperate and the outsiders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Exploitation Colonialism hits the nail on the head rather accurately http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation \ _colonialism [ wikipedia.org ] .I would imagine that a wealthy space-faring corporation could easily be substituted for a traditional government , and employees forced to work in laborious and dangerous conditions would seek to improve their lives through and organized revolt or uprising , where " the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt # Political \ _and \ _socioeconomic \ _revolutions [ wikipedia.org ] Let 's face it , it 's not going to be wealthy and powerful people that will be employed to physically mine minerals and resources from dangerous space locations , it 's the same folks that have been used to build empires and further development of infrastructure and the momentum for expansionism since time began - the poor , the uneducated , the desperate and the outsiders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Exploitation Colonialism hits the nail on the head rather accurately http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation\_colonialism [wikipedia.org].I would imagine that a wealthy space-faring corporation could easily be substituted for a traditional government, and employees forced to work in laborious and dangerous conditions would seek to improve their lives through and organized revolt or uprising, where "the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt#Political\_and\_socioeconomic\_revolutions [wikipedia.org]Let's face it, it's not going to be wealthy and powerful people that will be employed to physically mine minerals and resources from dangerous space locations, it's the same folks that have been used to build empires and further development of infrastructure and the momentum for expansionism since time began - the poor, the uneducated, the desperate and the outsiders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955398</id>
	<title>Re:What could go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Managing large organisations is <b>hard</b>. You can't just say <i>make it so</i> and expect anything will get done. Getting even one thing done in a four year period in a large organisation like NASA will take an enormous amount of organisation and planning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Managing large organisations is hard .
You ca n't just say make it so and expect anything will get done .
Getting even one thing done in a four year period in a large organisation like NASA will take an enormous amount of organisation and planning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managing large organisations is hard.
You can't just say make it so and expect anything will get done.
Getting even one thing done in a four year period in a large organisation like NASA will take an enormous amount of organisation and planning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955220</id>
	<title>Re:Quick summary</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1257157500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot user C:  You both suck, we should be dumping money into a big hole and burning it, screw the earth and space, kill everyone.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot user C : You both suck , we should be dumping money into a big hole and burning it , screw the earth and space , kill everyone.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot user C:  You both suck, we should be dumping money into a big hole and burning it, screw the earth and space, kill everyone.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955884</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257160500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.</p> </div><p>Whatever gives you that idea? NASA doesn't seem to be using its current funding effectively, what would it do with three times the funding?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff , it needs a lot more money than it has now .
Whatever gives you that idea ?
NASA does n't seem to be using its current funding effectively , what would it do with three times the funding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.
Whatever gives you that idea?
NASA doesn't seem to be using its current funding effectively, what would it do with three times the funding?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956012</id>
	<title>Great IDEA</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1257160980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China has 4 trillion spare dollars sitting around. They should offer up an X-prize to the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has 4 trillion spare dollars sitting around .
They should offer up an X-prize to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has 4 trillion spare dollars sitting around.
They should offer up an X-prize to the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961048</id>
	<title>Re:NASAs first priority</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1257239400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.</p></div><p>Never really thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to think all that porn might be affecting the US scientific community.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.Never really thought I 'd say this , but I 'm beginning to think all that porn might be affecting the US scientific community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.Never really thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to think all that porn might be affecting the US scientific community.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968878</id>
	<title>Luckily, it's a moot point...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1257245400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... since space colonies are utter pie-in-the-sky (so to speak). There is not the slightest chance we're going to be establishing colonies on other bodies in the solar system any time soon. 1) We don't have the technology. The few efforts we've made at establishing truly self-contained ecosystems on the surface of the earth have been failures - read up on Biosphere II, which experienced massive disturbances in its ecology, and had to "import" atmosphere from the outside world... an option that's not going to be available on, say, Mars. There were numerous other ecological problems noted - such as the die-off of most of the animal life, insufficient food supplies, etc, etc.</p><p>More importantly 2) there's no money in space colonization. Lifting all these people, their life support equipment, their living spaces, and whatever they need to do work, into space, would be absolutely staggeringly expensive (consider that to get something just to LEO costs around $10k/kg). Oh, you want to build all that stuff on site? Then all you have to do is invent the robot machinery to do that, and send the equivalent of several automated factories to the site. That only becomes more expensive. And what can the colonists do to recoup all that money? The answer, essentially, is that they can't. There's nothing you can get in space that can't be obtained more cheaply on earth.</p><p>Bottom line: don't count your revolutions before they're hatched. We would have to figure out how it's technologically possible and even remotely cost effect to even establish such a colony first, and we're a long, long way from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... since space colonies are utter pie-in-the-sky ( so to speak ) .
There is not the slightest chance we 're going to be establishing colonies on other bodies in the solar system any time soon .
1 ) We do n't have the technology .
The few efforts we 've made at establishing truly self-contained ecosystems on the surface of the earth have been failures - read up on Biosphere II , which experienced massive disturbances in its ecology , and had to " import " atmosphere from the outside world... an option that 's not going to be available on , say , Mars .
There were numerous other ecological problems noted - such as the die-off of most of the animal life , insufficient food supplies , etc , etc.More importantly 2 ) there 's no money in space colonization .
Lifting all these people , their life support equipment , their living spaces , and whatever they need to do work , into space , would be absolutely staggeringly expensive ( consider that to get something just to LEO costs around $ 10k/kg ) .
Oh , you want to build all that stuff on site ?
Then all you have to do is invent the robot machinery to do that , and send the equivalent of several automated factories to the site .
That only becomes more expensive .
And what can the colonists do to recoup all that money ?
The answer , essentially , is that they ca n't .
There 's nothing you can get in space that ca n't be obtained more cheaply on earth.Bottom line : do n't count your revolutions before they 're hatched .
We would have to figure out how it 's technologically possible and even remotely cost effect to even establish such a colony first , and we 're a long , long way from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... since space colonies are utter pie-in-the-sky (so to speak).
There is not the slightest chance we're going to be establishing colonies on other bodies in the solar system any time soon.
1) We don't have the technology.
The few efforts we've made at establishing truly self-contained ecosystems on the surface of the earth have been failures - read up on Biosphere II, which experienced massive disturbances in its ecology, and had to "import" atmosphere from the outside world... an option that's not going to be available on, say, Mars.
There were numerous other ecological problems noted - such as the die-off of most of the animal life, insufficient food supplies, etc, etc.More importantly 2) there's no money in space colonization.
Lifting all these people, their life support equipment, their living spaces, and whatever they need to do work, into space, would be absolutely staggeringly expensive (consider that to get something just to LEO costs around $10k/kg).
Oh, you want to build all that stuff on site?
Then all you have to do is invent the robot machinery to do that, and send the equivalent of several automated factories to the site.
That only becomes more expensive.
And what can the colonists do to recoup all that money?
The answer, essentially, is that they can't.
There's nothing you can get in space that can't be obtained more cheaply on earth.Bottom line: don't count your revolutions before they're hatched.
We would have to figure out how it's technologically possible and even remotely cost effect to even establish such a colony first, and we're a long, long way from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968586</id>
	<title>Oh, god, not the asteroids again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we need to review the definition of the word "profit" - which means to sell something at a higher price than it costs you to get it. The asteroids are made of iron, nickel, and silicates... the same as the earth. And they're like 200 million miles away. There is no way - ever - that you are going to be able to extract this stuff, ship it back to earth and make more money than you paid to get it - especially considering that we have an essentially unlimited supply on earth. And there's absolutely no reason to build stuff in space - no one lives there, remember? This whole "we've got to start an economy in space... so we can have an economy in space" is just another self-licking ice cream cone. There's no reason to do it, which is the real reason why no companies are champing at the bit to get started.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we need to review the definition of the word " profit " - which means to sell something at a higher price than it costs you to get it .
The asteroids are made of iron , nickel , and silicates... the same as the earth .
And they 're like 200 million miles away .
There is no way - ever - that you are going to be able to extract this stuff , ship it back to earth and make more money than you paid to get it - especially considering that we have an essentially unlimited supply on earth .
And there 's absolutely no reason to build stuff in space - no one lives there , remember ?
This whole " we 've got to start an economy in space... so we can have an economy in space " is just another self-licking ice cream cone .
There 's no reason to do it , which is the real reason why no companies are champing at the bit to get started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we need to review the definition of the word "profit" - which means to sell something at a higher price than it costs you to get it.
The asteroids are made of iron, nickel, and silicates... the same as the earth.
And they're like 200 million miles away.
There is no way - ever - that you are going to be able to extract this stuff, ship it back to earth and make more money than you paid to get it - especially considering that we have an essentially unlimited supply on earth.
And there's absolutely no reason to build stuff in space - no one lives there, remember?
This whole "we've got to start an economy in space... so we can have an economy in space" is just another self-licking ice cream cone.
There's no reason to do it, which is the real reason why no companies are champing at the bit to get started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116</id>
	<title>What could go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More committees. Way to think outside the box.</p><p>If they want to reinvent their approach, perhaps they should start by not creating multiple committees every time they want to accomplish something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or am I forgetting the long track record of success by new committees at already-bloated government organizations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More committees .
Way to think outside the box.If they want to reinvent their approach , perhaps they should start by not creating multiple committees every time they want to accomplish something ... or am I forgetting the long track record of success by new committees at already-bloated government organizations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More committees.
Way to think outside the box.If they want to reinvent their approach, perhaps they should start by not creating multiple committees every time they want to accomplish something ... or am I forgetting the long track record of success by new committees at already-bloated government organizations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436</id>
	<title>If they really want to get humanity into space...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257158400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids.  Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies.<br>Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far.  Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach.  Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO.  Focus on utilising robotic missions where possible and reserve human space flight for in depth study where the time lag/AI insufficiencies become problematic.  Get hacking on the problem of orbital space debris- that will be a major problem if we're going to be going to do anything outside of our atmosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids .
Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to * everyone * not just US companies.Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far .
Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach .
Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO .
Focus on utilising robotic missions where possible and reserve human space flight for in depth study where the time lag/AI insufficiencies become problematic .
Get hacking on the problem of orbital space debris- that will be a major problem if we 're going to be going to do anything outside of our atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids.
Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies.Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far.
Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach.
Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO.
Focus on utilising robotic missions where possible and reserve human space flight for in depth study where the time lag/AI insufficiencies become problematic.
Get hacking on the problem of orbital space debris- that will be a major problem if we're going to be going to do anything outside of our atmosphere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29957744</id>
	<title>NASA equals...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA equals National Air and Space <em>Administration</em></p><p>with accent on Administration. Only managers and bean counters get a paycheck from NASA. Everyone else is an outside contractor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA equals National Air and Space Administrationwith accent on Administration .
Only managers and bean counters get a paycheck from NASA .
Everyone else is an outside contractor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA equals National Air and Space Administrationwith accent on Administration.
Only managers and bean counters get a paycheck from NASA.
Everyone else is an outside contractor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29964004</id>
	<title>No real change</title>
	<author>rcharbon</author>
	<datestamp>1257266580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By adding 4 new committees, NASA is showing that they're not interested in real change.  That's what any government organization does.  Now, if they were eliminating some committees, that would be news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By adding 4 new committees , NASA is showing that they 're not interested in real change .
That 's what any government organization does .
Now , if they were eliminating some committees , that would be news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By adding 4 new committees, NASA is showing that they're not interested in real change.
That's what any government organization does.
Now, if they were eliminating some committees, that would be news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956870</id>
	<title>Re:NASAs first priority</title>
	<author>Xiroth</author>
	<datestamp>1257165960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Armageddon and other Hollywood flicks have lead us to believe that we have the power to blow apart masses thousands of kilometers wide, which I really don't think we do.</p></div></blockquote><p>Th-thousands of kilometres?! Good god, how many rogue planets are there? <em>Earth</em> is only 12,000km across.</p><p>No, the asteroid that is likely to have wiped out the dinosaurs and created the K-T boundary was estimated to be about 10km in diameter, and that impact is estimated to have had the power of about 100 trillion tonnes of TNT - about 2 million times the size of the largest nuclear bomb ever tested (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K\%E2\%80\%93T\_boundary&amp;oldid=320243672#Alvarez\_impact\_hypothesis" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia link</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p><p>No comment on whether that would be feasible. It's within the realms of possibility with current technology, but would be incredibly, ridiculously difficult. Still, saving the species may be worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Armageddon and other Hollywood flicks have lead us to believe that we have the power to blow apart masses thousands of kilometers wide , which I really do n't think we do.Th-thousands of kilometres ? !
Good god , how many rogue planets are there ?
Earth is only 12,000km across.No , the asteroid that is likely to have wiped out the dinosaurs and created the K-T boundary was estimated to be about 10km in diameter , and that impact is estimated to have had the power of about 100 trillion tonnes of TNT - about 2 million times the size of the largest nuclear bomb ever tested ( Wikipedia link [ wikipedia.org ] ) .No comment on whether that would be feasible .
It 's within the realms of possibility with current technology , but would be incredibly , ridiculously difficult .
Still , saving the species may be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Armageddon and other Hollywood flicks have lead us to believe that we have the power to blow apart masses thousands of kilometers wide, which I really don't think we do.Th-thousands of kilometres?!
Good god, how many rogue planets are there?
Earth is only 12,000km across.No, the asteroid that is likely to have wiped out the dinosaurs and created the K-T boundary was estimated to be about 10km in diameter, and that impact is estimated to have had the power of about 100 trillion tonnes of TNT - about 2 million times the size of the largest nuclear bomb ever tested (Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org]).No comment on whether that would be feasible.
It's within the realms of possibility with current technology, but would be incredibly, ridiculously difficult.
Still, saving the species may be worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955566</id>
	<title>NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of video about NASA's new moon vehicles on http://www.disclose.tv/ Just search for NASA there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of video about NASA 's new moon vehicles on http : //www.disclose.tv/ Just search for NASA there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of video about NASA's new moon vehicles on http://www.disclose.tv/ Just search for NASA there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958044</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>suomynonAyletamitlU</author>
	<datestamp>1257171360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There's profit in it" generally means "There's profit that we can expect to see in a reasonably near timeframe."</p><p>There are hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in the space shuttles.  The Apollo program took similar investment.  Neither of those programs was <b>ambitious</b> enough to do return with any resources in greater quantity than is useful for research.  How many thousands of tons of rocks would you have to return from the astroid belt to be worth a single, solitary, measly billion dollars?  This discounts the much higher amounts of fuel necesary to transfer your ship to and from the astroid belt, let alone with that same tonnage of cargo.</p><p>This is not to say that it can't be done or that it can't be done for a profit but until there is significant investment in the means to get there and back, or some amazing advance in energy storage/generation and thruster capability, or both, it can only be done by someone who doesn't have to sheepishly return to investors for more money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's profit in it " generally means " There 's profit that we can expect to see in a reasonably near timeframe .
" There are hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in the space shuttles .
The Apollo program took similar investment .
Neither of those programs was ambitious enough to do return with any resources in greater quantity than is useful for research .
How many thousands of tons of rocks would you have to return from the astroid belt to be worth a single , solitary , measly billion dollars ?
This discounts the much higher amounts of fuel necesary to transfer your ship to and from the astroid belt , let alone with that same tonnage of cargo.This is not to say that it ca n't be done or that it ca n't be done for a profit but until there is significant investment in the means to get there and back , or some amazing advance in energy storage/generation and thruster capability , or both , it can only be done by someone who does n't have to sheepishly return to investors for more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's profit in it" generally means "There's profit that we can expect to see in a reasonably near timeframe.
"There are hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in the space shuttles.
The Apollo program took similar investment.
Neither of those programs was ambitious enough to do return with any resources in greater quantity than is useful for research.
How many thousands of tons of rocks would you have to return from the astroid belt to be worth a single, solitary, measly billion dollars?
This discounts the much higher amounts of fuel necesary to transfer your ship to and from the astroid belt, let alone with that same tonnage of cargo.This is not to say that it can't be done or that it can't be done for a profit but until there is significant investment in the means to get there and back, or some amazing advance in energy storage/generation and thruster capability, or both, it can only be done by someone who doesn't have to sheepishly return to investors for more money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1257157440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What it's supposed to do is stuff that's valuable to humanity, but costs a lot of money and isn't expected to make a profit.  This is essentially the role of any government organization:  Do the things that will benefit everyone, but that businesses are unwilling to take on because there isn't enough money in it.
<br> <br>
Low Earth Orbit is now at the point where we can see possibilities for how to make money there, so the time is right to hand it over to commercial interests.  However, there is no particularly obvious or near-term profit motive for exploring other planets.  Thus, if we want it done, NASA is going to have to do it, because nobody else will (except other governments).
<br> <br>
Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it 's supposed to do is stuff that 's valuable to humanity , but costs a lot of money and is n't expected to make a profit .
This is essentially the role of any government organization : Do the things that will benefit everyone , but that businesses are unwilling to take on because there is n't enough money in it .
Low Earth Orbit is now at the point where we can see possibilities for how to make money there , so the time is right to hand it over to commercial interests .
However , there is no particularly obvious or near-term profit motive for exploring other planets .
Thus , if we want it done , NASA is going to have to do it , because nobody else will ( except other governments ) .
Of course , in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff , it needs a lot more money than it has now .
Personally , I 'd like to see NASA get at least 2 \ % of the total budget , which is more than 3 times what it gets now , but I seem to be in the minority on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it's supposed to do is stuff that's valuable to humanity, but costs a lot of money and isn't expected to make a profit.
This is essentially the role of any government organization:  Do the things that will benefit everyone, but that businesses are unwilling to take on because there isn't enough money in it.
Low Earth Orbit is now at the point where we can see possibilities for how to make money there, so the time is right to hand it over to commercial interests.
However, there is no particularly obvious or near-term profit motive for exploring other planets.
Thus, if we want it done, NASA is going to have to do it, because nobody else will (except other governments).
Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955710</id>
	<title>Re:If they really want to get humanity into space.</title>
	<author>Paranatural</author>
	<datestamp>1257159840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you opened it to anyone, all of the conservative pundits (Beck, Coulter, O'Riley, Limbaugh) would cry and cry about how much Obama hates America because he let everyone bid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you opened it to anyone , all of the conservative pundits ( Beck , Coulter , O'Riley , Limbaugh ) would cry and cry about how much Obama hates America because he let everyone bid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you opened it to anyone, all of the conservative pundits (Beck, Coulter, O'Riley, Limbaugh) would cry and cry about how much Obama hates America because he let everyone bid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968526</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257244080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more."</p><p>Citation required?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more .
" Citation required ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more.
"Citation required?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956356</id>
	<title>Re:Quick summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257162720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is incorrect.</p><p>The truth is, your Slashdot user B would not be a true Slashdotter, but some nefarious changeling, put into place to fan the flames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is incorrect.The truth is , your Slashdot user B would not be a true Slashdotter , but some nefarious changeling , put into place to fan the flames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is incorrect.The truth is, your Slashdot user B would not be a true Slashdotter, but some nefarious changeling, put into place to fan the flames.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956940</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257166320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, there is no particularly obvious or near-term profit motive for exploring other planets.  Thus, if we want it done, NASA is going to have to do it, because nobody else will (except other governments).</p></div><p>There are lots of interesting resources which could be mined from (near) space. For example, private industry could set up a Lunar base and mine Helium-3 from the upper layers of regolith. It could make incredible strides in fusion, which in turn creates energy and can make profit.</p><p>Hell, I'm sure you could automate the entire process and hardly have a need for real, live, human beings there. Maybe a one-person operation, aided by computer systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , there is no particularly obvious or near-term profit motive for exploring other planets .
Thus , if we want it done , NASA is going to have to do it , because nobody else will ( except other governments ) .There are lots of interesting resources which could be mined from ( near ) space .
For example , private industry could set up a Lunar base and mine Helium-3 from the upper layers of regolith .
It could make incredible strides in fusion , which in turn creates energy and can make profit.Hell , I 'm sure you could automate the entire process and hardly have a need for real , live , human beings there .
Maybe a one-person operation , aided by computer systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, there is no particularly obvious or near-term profit motive for exploring other planets.
Thus, if we want it done, NASA is going to have to do it, because nobody else will (except other governments).There are lots of interesting resources which could be mined from (near) space.
For example, private industry could set up a Lunar base and mine Helium-3 from the upper layers of regolith.
It could make incredible strides in fusion, which in turn creates energy and can make profit.Hell, I'm sure you could automate the entire process and hardly have a need for real, live, human beings there.
Maybe a one-person operation, aided by computer systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29957684</id>
	<title>Exciting times!</title>
	<author>Chris Gunn</author>
	<datestamp>1257169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA was just following the Bush Directive. "Go to Mars".</p><p>Having a man stand on Mars is not that exciting.</p><p>I was more excited by the interesting rover designs Nasa had come up with.
The In-situ resource utilisation has potential. A technology worth developing.</p><p>Basically, what is interesting/inspiring is increasing our capabilities.</p><p>This is what I would like to see NASA focus on. I was very pleased to see the Augustine panel suggest that Nasa forget Mars/Moon for now, and focus on the tech for longer duration manned space missions.</p><p>They actually thought about things. They promoted the Shuttle derived heavy lift, which, apparently would be so cheap to develop, you'd have to be insane not to do it.
They promoted in-orbit refueling stations.</p><p>After that the United Launch Alliance put out plans to support these objectives, that had a lot of engineering work and imagination put into them.
I hadn't seen so much imagination and rational planning in many years.</p><p>Fantastic stuff!</p><p>It is now time for NASA to consider all these events, and come up with a plan. That is what these committees are for.
There are some big questions. What should NASA do, and what should they contract off to the ULA/spacex etc.</p><p>Another obvious project would be extra-solar-system probes using VASIMR engines.</p><p>- I am so thankful for Dr Chang-diaz</p><p>I'm looking forward to see how it works out on the ISS orbit keeping project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA was just following the Bush Directive .
" Go to Mars " .Having a man stand on Mars is not that exciting.I was more excited by the interesting rover designs Nasa had come up with .
The In-situ resource utilisation has potential .
A technology worth developing.Basically , what is interesting/inspiring is increasing our capabilities.This is what I would like to see NASA focus on .
I was very pleased to see the Augustine panel suggest that Nasa forget Mars/Moon for now , and focus on the tech for longer duration manned space missions.They actually thought about things .
They promoted the Shuttle derived heavy lift , which , apparently would be so cheap to develop , you 'd have to be insane not to do it .
They promoted in-orbit refueling stations.After that the United Launch Alliance put out plans to support these objectives , that had a lot of engineering work and imagination put into them .
I had n't seen so much imagination and rational planning in many years.Fantastic stuff ! It is now time for NASA to consider all these events , and come up with a plan .
That is what these committees are for .
There are some big questions .
What should NASA do , and what should they contract off to the ULA/spacex etc.Another obvious project would be extra-solar-system probes using VASIMR engines.- I am so thankful for Dr Chang-diazI 'm looking forward to see how it works out on the ISS orbit keeping project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA was just following the Bush Directive.
"Go to Mars".Having a man stand on Mars is not that exciting.I was more excited by the interesting rover designs Nasa had come up with.
The In-situ resource utilisation has potential.
A technology worth developing.Basically, what is interesting/inspiring is increasing our capabilities.This is what I would like to see NASA focus on.
I was very pleased to see the Augustine panel suggest that Nasa forget Mars/Moon for now, and focus on the tech for longer duration manned space missions.They actually thought about things.
They promoted the Shuttle derived heavy lift, which, apparently would be so cheap to develop, you'd have to be insane not to do it.
They promoted in-orbit refueling stations.After that the United Launch Alliance put out plans to support these objectives, that had a lot of engineering work and imagination put into them.
I hadn't seen so much imagination and rational planning in many years.Fantastic stuff!It is now time for NASA to consider all these events, and come up with a plan.
That is what these committees are for.
There are some big questions.
What should NASA do, and what should they contract off to the ULA/spacex etc.Another obvious project would be extra-solar-system probes using VASIMR engines.- I am so thankful for Dr Chang-diazI'm looking forward to see how it works out on the ISS orbit keeping project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29966654</id>
	<title>To quote the illustrious Mr. Quayle...</title>
	<author>Erelas</author>
	<datestamp>1257278340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For NASA, space is still a high priority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For NASA , space is still a high priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For NASA, space is still a high priority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958460</id>
	<title>Duplication of effort</title>
	<author>scanrate</author>
	<datestamp>1257173460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a World Space Agency instead of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_space\_agencies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this massive expenditure and duplication of effort.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Oh, right. That would make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a World Space Agency instead of this massive expenditure and duplication of effort .
[ wikipedia.org ] Oh , right .
That would make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a World Space Agency instead of this massive expenditure and duplication of effort.
[wikipedia.org]Oh, right.
That would make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150</id>
	<title>NASAs first priority</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1257157260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should be to develop and test asteroid detection and avoidance systems.</p><p>That freeze dried ice cream is useless when we all get vaporized on impact.</p><p>The sad thing is these systems are under funded and we have no credible defense against an asteroid. But we're looking to go to Mars! Yay!</p><p>Think of the children. America is so rich they bombed the moon. Tell a kid in Africa we bombed it to find water, when he has the same problem right here on earth.</p><p>Once we find out if asteroid detection, deflection or destruction is trivial and reliable, then we can go on to mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.</p><p>Of course, we could do both in parallel, as complementary solutions to the same problem but my point is NASA is all over the board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be to develop and test asteroid detection and avoidance systems.That freeze dried ice cream is useless when we all get vaporized on impact.The sad thing is these systems are under funded and we have no credible defense against an asteroid .
But we 're looking to go to Mars !
Yay ! Think of the children .
America is so rich they bombed the moon .
Tell a kid in Africa we bombed it to find water , when he has the same problem right here on earth.Once we find out if asteroid detection , deflection or destruction is trivial and reliable , then we can go on to mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.Of course , we could do both in parallel , as complementary solutions to the same problem but my point is NASA is all over the board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be to develop and test asteroid detection and avoidance systems.That freeze dried ice cream is useless when we all get vaporized on impact.The sad thing is these systems are under funded and we have no credible defense against an asteroid.
But we're looking to go to Mars!
Yay!Think of the children.
America is so rich they bombed the moon.
Tell a kid in Africa we bombed it to find water, when he has the same problem right here on earth.Once we find out if asteroid detection, deflection or destruction is trivial and reliable, then we can go on to mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.Of course, we could do both in parallel, as complementary solutions to the same problem but my point is NASA is all over the board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956322</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>fireslack</author>
	<datestamp>1257162540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What it's supposed to do is stuff that's valuable to humanity, but costs a lot of money and isn't expected to make a profit. This is essentially the role of any government organization: Do the things that will benefit everyone, but that businesses are unwilling to take on because there isn't enough money in it.</p> </div><p>That may be true of the former Soviet Union and some modern European countries, but but the United States government was established to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

What you said may be A role, but its not a major role and certainly not "essential".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it 's supposed to do is stuff that 's valuable to humanity , but costs a lot of money and is n't expected to make a profit .
This is essentially the role of any government organization : Do the things that will benefit everyone , but that businesses are unwilling to take on because there is n't enough money in it .
That may be true of the former Soviet Union and some modern European countries , but but the United States government was established to " form a more perfect Union , establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity... " What you said may be A role , but its not a major role and certainly not " essential " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it's supposed to do is stuff that's valuable to humanity, but costs a lot of money and isn't expected to make a profit.
This is essentially the role of any government organization: Do the things that will benefit everyone, but that businesses are unwilling to take on because there isn't enough money in it.
That may be true of the former Soviet Union and some modern European countries, but but the United States government was established to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

What you said may be A role, but its not a major role and certainly not "essential".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955484</id>
	<title>The Most Reliable Approach:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is to use <a href="http://www.energia.ru/english/index.html" title="energia.ru" rel="nofollow">Energia</a> [energia.ru], makers of Soyuz.</p><p>Yours In Baikonur,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is to use Energia [ energia.ru ] , makers of Soyuz.Yours In Baikonur,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is to use Energia [energia.ru], makers of Soyuz.Yours In Baikonur,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955262</id>
	<title>Reinvent the approach</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1257157620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's form some committees to help our advisory group figure out how we can fix this gigantic bureaucracy!</p><p>I've got a clue for them. They need to follow some simple rules.</p><p>1. Rockets should look like cocks<br>2. People should only ride on liquid fuel rockets.<br>3. If you're the booster designer, double the requirements.</p><p>4. Success!</p><p>Explanation:<br>1. Rockets should look like cocks. Stacked vertically, not side by side. Both shuttle failures resulted from the orbiter, tank, and boosters being in a side-by-side configuration. If the thing had been stacked vertically, there's no need to worry about ice hitting what's next to you, or fire burning the attachment to what's next to you.</p><p>2. Liquid fuel rockets are way safer than solid fuel rockets. It's going to be damn hard for astronauts to escape alive if they abort anywhere near a full blast solid fuel candle. Maybe do a hybrid solid, but what we have now is a fucking hazard to the astronauts and ground crew. Just ask the Brazilians. Oops, they're fucking DEAD. booom!</p><p>3. The moon mission was saved by the genius Nazi von Braun increasing the Saturn V weight capability well above the requirements. The payload turned out to be a bloated mess compared to initial projections, but the Saturn could handle it. A huge problem was averted. Compare that to the current Constellation program, where the booster was designed to lift what the payload guys said they'd need. And now that the payload has gained weight, there's some serious doubt that Ares will ever be able to fulfill the design requirements. FAIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's form some committees to help our advisory group figure out how we can fix this gigantic bureaucracy ! I 've got a clue for them .
They need to follow some simple rules.1 .
Rockets should look like cocks2 .
People should only ride on liquid fuel rockets.3 .
If you 're the booster designer , double the requirements.4 .
Success ! Explanation : 1. Rockets should look like cocks .
Stacked vertically , not side by side .
Both shuttle failures resulted from the orbiter , tank , and boosters being in a side-by-side configuration .
If the thing had been stacked vertically , there 's no need to worry about ice hitting what 's next to you , or fire burning the attachment to what 's next to you.2 .
Liquid fuel rockets are way safer than solid fuel rockets .
It 's going to be damn hard for astronauts to escape alive if they abort anywhere near a full blast solid fuel candle .
Maybe do a hybrid solid , but what we have now is a fucking hazard to the astronauts and ground crew .
Just ask the Brazilians .
Oops , they 're fucking DEAD .
booom ! 3. The moon mission was saved by the genius Nazi von Braun increasing the Saturn V weight capability well above the requirements .
The payload turned out to be a bloated mess compared to initial projections , but the Saturn could handle it .
A huge problem was averted .
Compare that to the current Constellation program , where the booster was designed to lift what the payload guys said they 'd need .
And now that the payload has gained weight , there 's some serious doubt that Ares will ever be able to fulfill the design requirements .
FAIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's form some committees to help our advisory group figure out how we can fix this gigantic bureaucracy!I've got a clue for them.
They need to follow some simple rules.1.
Rockets should look like cocks2.
People should only ride on liquid fuel rockets.3.
If you're the booster designer, double the requirements.4.
Success!Explanation:1. Rockets should look like cocks.
Stacked vertically, not side by side.
Both shuttle failures resulted from the orbiter, tank, and boosters being in a side-by-side configuration.
If the thing had been stacked vertically, there's no need to worry about ice hitting what's next to you, or fire burning the attachment to what's next to you.2.
Liquid fuel rockets are way safer than solid fuel rockets.
It's going to be damn hard for astronauts to escape alive if they abort anywhere near a full blast solid fuel candle.
Maybe do a hybrid solid, but what we have now is a fucking hazard to the astronauts and ground crew.
Just ask the Brazilians.
Oops, they're fucking DEAD.
booom!3. The moon mission was saved by the genius Nazi von Braun increasing the Saturn V weight capability well above the requirements.
The payload turned out to be a bloated mess compared to initial projections, but the Saturn could handle it.
A huge problem was averted.
Compare that to the current Constellation program, where the booster was designed to lift what the payload guys said they'd need.
And now that the payload has gained weight, there's some serious doubt that Ares will ever be able to fulfill the design requirements.
FAIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959836</id>
	<title>Re:Definition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posting anonymously for pedantry...
<br> <br>
Jellyfish don't have a brain, yet also have far more than 6 'legs' [more like floating polyps, but whatever, same difference.]
<br> <br>
Better than that though, Jellyfish happen to be thriving in oceans all over the world.
<br> <br>
Just goes to show that even nature is better at it than we are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anonymously for pedantry.. . Jellyfish do n't have a brain , yet also have far more than 6 'legs ' [ more like floating polyps , but whatever , same difference .
] Better than that though , Jellyfish happen to be thriving in oceans all over the world .
Just goes to show that even nature is better at it than we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anonymously for pedantry...
 
Jellyfish don't have a brain, yet also have far more than 6 'legs' [more like floating polyps, but whatever, same difference.
]
 
Better than that though, Jellyfish happen to be thriving in oceans all over the world.
Just goes to show that even nature is better at it than we are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958478</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257173520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.</p></div><p>Not by me you're not. Ask people that tell you that we should redirect NASA budget into "social programs" and more welfare (and there are many such myopic individuals) how NASA's funding compares to the DOD's. Most times I've asked that question the typically ignorant answer is "oh, about equal, I'd say." Explain how miniscule the total outlay for space exploration (expensive as it is) is in relation to our defense spending, and sometimes eyebrows go up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd like to see NASA get at least 2 \ % of the total budget , which is more than 3 times what it gets now , but I seem to be in the minority on that one.Not by me you 're not .
Ask people that tell you that we should redirect NASA budget into " social programs " and more welfare ( and there are many such myopic individuals ) how NASA 's funding compares to the DOD 's .
Most times I 've asked that question the typically ignorant answer is " oh , about equal , I 'd say .
" Explain how miniscule the total outlay for space exploration ( expensive as it is ) is in relation to our defense spending , and sometimes eyebrows go up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.Not by me you're not.
Ask people that tell you that we should redirect NASA budget into "social programs" and more welfare (and there are many such myopic individuals) how NASA's funding compares to the DOD's.
Most times I've asked that question the typically ignorant answer is "oh, about equal, I'd say.
" Explain how miniscule the total outlay for space exploration (expensive as it is) is in relation to our defense spending, and sometimes eyebrows go up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955952</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257160680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that so many idiots want to Kill NASA and America's space program when <a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/091102072935.pk7tjzw2.html" title="spacedaily.com" rel="nofollow">China just announced that they are going to militarize Space</a> [spacedaily.com]. I mean I can understand if Chinese are hoping that America will kill its program. BUT, there are appears to be Americans that want this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that so many idiots want to Kill NASA and America 's space program when China just announced that they are going to militarize Space [ spacedaily.com ] .
I mean I can understand if Chinese are hoping that America will kill its program .
BUT , there are appears to be Americans that want this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that so many idiots want to Kill NASA and America's space program when China just announced that they are going to militarize Space [spacedaily.com].
I mean I can understand if Chinese are hoping that America will kill its program.
BUT, there are appears to be Americans that want this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955600</id>
	<title>yikes, anti-gravity suits available, for some...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;Atlas Shrugged&rdquo; was published 52 years ago, but in the Obama era, Rand&rsquo;s angry message is more resonant than ever before. Sales of the book have reportedly spiked. At &ldquo;tea parties&rdquo; and other conservative protests, alongside the Obama-as-Joker signs, you will find placards reading &ldquo;Atlas Shrugs&rdquo; and &ldquo;Ayn Rand Was Right.&rdquo; Not long after the inauguration, as right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck were invoking Rand and issuing warnings of incipient socialism, Representative John Campbell, Republican of California, told a reporter that the prospect of rising taxes and government regulation meant &ldquo;people are starting to feel like we&rsquo;re living through the scenario that happened in &lsquo;Atlas Shrugged.&rsquo; &rdquo;</p><p>Rand&rsquo;s style of vehement individualism has never been universally popular among conservatives &mdash; back in 1957, Whittaker Chambers denounced the &ldquo;wickedness&rdquo; of &ldquo;Atlas Shrugged&rdquo; in National Review &mdash; and Rand still has her critics on the right today. But it can often seem, as Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New Republic recently observed, that &ldquo;Rand is everywhere in this right-wing mood.&rdquo; And while it&rsquo;s not hard to understand Rand&rsquo;s revenge-fantasy appeal to those on the right, would-be Galts ought to hear the story Anne C. Heller has to tell in her dramatic and very timely biography, &ldquo;Ayn Rand and the World She Made.&rdquo;</p><p>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   Atlas Shrugged    was published 52 years ago , but in the Obama era , Rand    s angry message is more resonant than ever before .
Sales of the book have reportedly spiked .
At    tea parties    and other conservative protests , alongside the Obama-as-Joker signs , you will find placards reading    Atlas Shrugs    and    Ayn Rand Was Right.    Not long after the inauguration , as right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck were invoking Rand and issuing warnings of incipient socialism , Representative John Campbell , Republican of California , told a reporter that the prospect of rising taxes and government regulation meant    people are starting to feel like we    re living through the scenario that happened in    Atlas Shrugged.       Rand    s style of vehement individualism has never been universally popular among conservatives    back in 1957 , Whittaker Chambers denounced the    wickedness    of    Atlas Shrugged    in National Review    and Rand still has her critics on the right today .
But it can often seem , as Jonathan Chait , a senior editor at The New Republic recently observed , that    Rand is everywhere in this right-wing mood.    And while it    s not hard to understand Rand    s revenge-fantasy appeal to those on the right , would-be Galts ought to hear the story Anne C. Heller has to tell in her dramatic and very timely biography ,    Ayn Rand and the World She Made.    http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“Atlas Shrugged” was published 52 years ago, but in the Obama era, Rand’s angry message is more resonant than ever before.
Sales of the book have reportedly spiked.
At “tea parties” and other conservative protests, alongside the Obama-as-Joker signs, you will find placards reading “Atlas Shrugs” and “Ayn Rand Was Right.” Not long after the inauguration, as right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck were invoking Rand and issuing warnings of incipient socialism, Representative John Campbell, Republican of California, told a reporter that the prospect of rising taxes and government regulation meant “people are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged.’ ”Rand’s style of vehement individualism has never been universally popular among conservatives — back in 1957, Whittaker Chambers denounced the “wickedness” of “Atlas Shrugged” in National Review — and Rand still has her critics on the right today.
But it can often seem, as Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New Republic recently observed, that “Rand is everywhere in this right-wing mood.” And while it’s not hard to understand Rand’s revenge-fantasy appeal to those on the right, would-be Galts ought to hear the story Anne C. Heller has to tell in her dramatic and very timely biography, “Ayn Rand and the World She Made.”http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963268</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>NevarMore</author>
	<datestamp>1257262800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.</p></div><p>No I agree with you entirely. I just think that we should shrink the federal budget so that NASA's current allocation is 2\% of that budget.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff , it needs a lot more money than it has now .
Personally , I 'd like to see NASA get at least 2 \ % of the total budget , which is more than 3 times what it gets now , but I seem to be in the minority on that one.No I agree with you entirely .
I just think that we should shrink the federal budget so that NASA 's current allocation is 2 \ % of that budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, in order for NASA to do that sort of stuff, it needs a lot more money than it has now.
Personally, I'd like to see NASA get at least 2\% of the total budget, which is more than 3 times what it gets now, but I seem to be in the minority on that one.No I agree with you entirely.
I just think that we should shrink the federal budget so that NASA's current allocation is 2\% of that budget.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29957106</id>
	<title>Failsauce nasa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>India and China, homes of cheap and mass-produced, are busy going forward and they'll take the lead if NASA keeps on reiterating what a great shop it was in the seventies. It wasn't, Feynmann showed conclusively and in great detail what a structurally shoddy shop it was, but there wasn't anything better. Now? All budget cuts are more than deserved, for it's a dedicated pointy-hair support shop drenched in aint-we-cool sauce to the point of religion. In fact, you could cut it down to a ten person government grant approval office for commercial space flight challenges and you'd come out ahead.</p><p>To fix that, it's not difficult to see where they should be going:</p><p>- Go metric. All the way. Don't quibble over a couple hundred milllion as an excuse to preserve past failures. Go metric, you're well behind 95\% of the world here. How is that pushing the technology forward?</p><p>- Put a proper drive behind low earth orbit taxiing. The space shuttle was a neat idea 30 years ago, but 20 years ago it became clear it wasn't so much cheaper than the usual rockets up to the point that now it's actually cheaper to launch those rockets again than launch the space shuttle. Why are the low earth orbit taxi rides more expensive than premium gold plated limo rides? Something is fishy here.</p><p>With both of the above there's room to look outside and push achievements again. But to make real progress there is something more to be done:</p><p>- Cut the crap, the red tape, the bullshit, the top-down design and millions of botches to make it fly despite management fiat. Engineer bottom-up, skunk works style. Make it work quickly, then make it work good enough to achieve the thing you wanted to explore, then make it work well. Lather, rinse, repeat. Do all that well before it's started to rust, thanks.</p><p>As Burt Rutan said: If we're not killing people, we're not pushing hard enough. There is a reason why it's called the <b>bleeding</b> edge. But who wants to die in an exploding space shuttle because of an engineering defect that could've been fixed a score or more years ago? Or through sheer aging of the materials? So make space exploration wort dieing for again. By making the taxi rides to work reliable and safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>India and China , homes of cheap and mass-produced , are busy going forward and they 'll take the lead if NASA keeps on reiterating what a great shop it was in the seventies .
It was n't , Feynmann showed conclusively and in great detail what a structurally shoddy shop it was , but there was n't anything better .
Now ? All budget cuts are more than deserved , for it 's a dedicated pointy-hair support shop drenched in aint-we-cool sauce to the point of religion .
In fact , you could cut it down to a ten person government grant approval office for commercial space flight challenges and you 'd come out ahead.To fix that , it 's not difficult to see where they should be going : - Go metric .
All the way .
Do n't quibble over a couple hundred milllion as an excuse to preserve past failures .
Go metric , you 're well behind 95 \ % of the world here .
How is that pushing the technology forward ? - Put a proper drive behind low earth orbit taxiing .
The space shuttle was a neat idea 30 years ago , but 20 years ago it became clear it was n't so much cheaper than the usual rockets up to the point that now it 's actually cheaper to launch those rockets again than launch the space shuttle .
Why are the low earth orbit taxi rides more expensive than premium gold plated limo rides ?
Something is fishy here.With both of the above there 's room to look outside and push achievements again .
But to make real progress there is something more to be done : - Cut the crap , the red tape , the bullshit , the top-down design and millions of botches to make it fly despite management fiat .
Engineer bottom-up , skunk works style .
Make it work quickly , then make it work good enough to achieve the thing you wanted to explore , then make it work well .
Lather , rinse , repeat .
Do all that well before it 's started to rust , thanks.As Burt Rutan said : If we 're not killing people , we 're not pushing hard enough .
There is a reason why it 's called the bleeding edge .
But who wants to die in an exploding space shuttle because of an engineering defect that could 've been fixed a score or more years ago ?
Or through sheer aging of the materials ?
So make space exploration wort dieing for again .
By making the taxi rides to work reliable and safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India and China, homes of cheap and mass-produced, are busy going forward and they'll take the lead if NASA keeps on reiterating what a great shop it was in the seventies.
It wasn't, Feynmann showed conclusively and in great detail what a structurally shoddy shop it was, but there wasn't anything better.
Now? All budget cuts are more than deserved, for it's a dedicated pointy-hair support shop drenched in aint-we-cool sauce to the point of religion.
In fact, you could cut it down to a ten person government grant approval office for commercial space flight challenges and you'd come out ahead.To fix that, it's not difficult to see where they should be going:- Go metric.
All the way.
Don't quibble over a couple hundred milllion as an excuse to preserve past failures.
Go metric, you're well behind 95\% of the world here.
How is that pushing the technology forward?- Put a proper drive behind low earth orbit taxiing.
The space shuttle was a neat idea 30 years ago, but 20 years ago it became clear it wasn't so much cheaper than the usual rockets up to the point that now it's actually cheaper to launch those rockets again than launch the space shuttle.
Why are the low earth orbit taxi rides more expensive than premium gold plated limo rides?
Something is fishy here.With both of the above there's room to look outside and push achievements again.
But to make real progress there is something more to be done:- Cut the crap, the red tape, the bullshit, the top-down design and millions of botches to make it fly despite management fiat.
Engineer bottom-up, skunk works style.
Make it work quickly, then make it work good enough to achieve the thing you wanted to explore, then make it work well.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Do all that well before it's started to rust, thanks.As Burt Rutan said: If we're not killing people, we're not pushing hard enough.
There is a reason why it's called the bleeding edge.
But who wants to die in an exploding space shuttle because of an engineering defect that could've been fixed a score or more years ago?
Or through sheer aging of the materials?
So make space exploration wort dieing for again.
By making the taxi rides to work reliable and safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955280</id>
	<title>Re:NASAs first priority</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1257157680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free-ze Dried Ice Cream for some!!!!</p><p>Asteroid Arcade Games for everyone else!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free-ze Dried Ice Cream for some ! ! !
! Asteroid Arcade Games for everyone else ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free-ze Dried Ice Cream for some!!!
!Asteroid Arcade Games for everyone else!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29967780</id>
	<title>Suggestion:</title>
	<author>Cprossu</author>
	<datestamp>1257240900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nasa, Take off your management hat and put on your engineering hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nasa , Take off your management hat and put on your engineering hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nasa, Take off your management hat and put on your engineering hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112</id>
	<title>Quick summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot user A: This is great!</p><p>Slashdot user B: What a waste of money!  We may not even need unmanned missions to space, let alone manned missions.  Let's fix earth, instead.</p><p>Slashdot user A: You jackass.  We <i>need</i> to be able to colonize other planets, either because (1) we such at conservation, or (2) eventually we'll get hit by a killer asteroid, or (3) eventually the sun will go out / go boom.</p><p>Slashdot user B: Those are all very speculative or a long time off.  We have more pressing problems here and now.</p><p>I just wanted to get that preliminary stuff out of the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot user A : This is great ! Slashdot user B : What a waste of money !
We may not even need unmanned missions to space , let alone manned missions .
Let 's fix earth , instead.Slashdot user A : You jackass .
We need to be able to colonize other planets , either because ( 1 ) we such at conservation , or ( 2 ) eventually we 'll get hit by a killer asteroid , or ( 3 ) eventually the sun will go out / go boom.Slashdot user B : Those are all very speculative or a long time off .
We have more pressing problems here and now.I just wanted to get that preliminary stuff out of the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot user A: This is great!Slashdot user B: What a waste of money!
We may not even need unmanned missions to space, let alone manned missions.
Let's fix earth, instead.Slashdot user A: You jackass.
We need to be able to colonize other planets, either because (1) we such at conservation, or (2) eventually we'll get hit by a killer asteroid, or (3) eventually the sun will go out / go boom.Slashdot user B: Those are all very speculative or a long time off.
We have more pressing problems here and now.I just wanted to get that preliminary stuff out of the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955422</id>
	<title>NASA</title>
	<author>ISoldat53</author>
	<datestamp>1257158340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A press release in search of a mission.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A press release in search of a mission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A press release in search of a mission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955996</id>
	<title>Re:Quick summary</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1257160920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot user Q: CmdrTaco's penis is sooooo small.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot user Q : CmdrTaco 's penis is sooooo small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot user Q: CmdrTaco's penis is sooooo small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961520</id>
	<title>Re:Quick summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great timing and about time too. There are other emissionless technologies that ought to be developed (see www.emdrive.com). Small now but I am betting that they will eventually be self lifting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great timing and about time too .
There are other emissionless technologies that ought to be developed ( see www.emdrive.com ) .
Small now but I am betting that they will eventually be self lifting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great timing and about time too.
There are other emissionless technologies that ought to be developed (see www.emdrive.com).
Small now but I am betting that they will eventually be self lifting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955402</id>
	<title>Take an english class, slashdot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA trying to reinvent ITS approach. NASA is singular, not plural.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA trying to reinvent ITS approach .
NASA is singular , not plural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA trying to reinvent ITS approach.
NASA is singular, not plural.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955332</id>
	<title>Re:NASAs first priority</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257157920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jupiter does a pretty good job as our defense system. There have been a few asteroids on possible collision courses with Earth, and they all got sucked up by our bigger brother.</p><p>Asteroids are not our biggest concern. Just because one wiped out the dinosaurs doesn't mean that one will wipe us out too. We've evolved a long way to survive in harsh conditions.</p><p>In all honesty, I can't even imagine a practical asteroid evasion plan short of evacuating Earth. Armageddon and other Hollywood flicks have lead us to believe that we have the power to blow apart masses thousands of kilometers wide, which I really don't think we do.</p><p>We find an asteroid heading towards us thats the size of the moon - there won't be much we can do to stop it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jupiter does a pretty good job as our defense system .
There have been a few asteroids on possible collision courses with Earth , and they all got sucked up by our bigger brother.Asteroids are not our biggest concern .
Just because one wiped out the dinosaurs does n't mean that one will wipe us out too .
We 've evolved a long way to survive in harsh conditions.In all honesty , I ca n't even imagine a practical asteroid evasion plan short of evacuating Earth .
Armageddon and other Hollywood flicks have lead us to believe that we have the power to blow apart masses thousands of kilometers wide , which I really do n't think we do.We find an asteroid heading towards us thats the size of the moon - there wo n't be much we can do to stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jupiter does a pretty good job as our defense system.
There have been a few asteroids on possible collision courses with Earth, and they all got sucked up by our bigger brother.Asteroids are not our biggest concern.
Just because one wiped out the dinosaurs doesn't mean that one will wipe us out too.
We've evolved a long way to survive in harsh conditions.In all honesty, I can't even imagine a practical asteroid evasion plan short of evacuating Earth.
Armageddon and other Hollywood flicks have lead us to believe that we have the power to blow apart masses thousands of kilometers wide, which I really don't think we do.We find an asteroid heading towards us thats the size of the moon - there won't be much we can do to stop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963062</id>
	<title>Re:Space Leads To Colonies Leads To Rebellion...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1257261660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And we all know what happens over time when a government extends itself beyond a sustainable threshold for too long - rebellions. Factions. Unrest. New states and governments that represent the people and their values.</p></div></blockquote><p>And the next thing you know, sombody's dropping a space colony on Australia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And we all know what happens over time when a government extends itself beyond a sustainable threshold for too long - rebellions .
Factions. Unrest .
New states and governments that represent the people and their values.And the next thing you know , sombody 's dropping a space colony on Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we all know what happens over time when a government extends itself beyond a sustainable threshold for too long - rebellions.
Factions. Unrest.
New states and governments that represent the people and their values.And the next thing you know, sombody's dropping a space colony on Australia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955630</id>
	<title>Re:What could go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA is a hopeless entrenched bureaucracy.  Forming more committees, and writing reports, is what they do when threatened, its their counterpart to the old west circling of the wagons when attacked by Indians.</p><p>As an aside here is a <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham10232009.html" title="counterpunch.org">fascinating article</a> [counterpunch.org] by an ex CIA agent on why the CIA has exactly the same disease NASA has and why they are dysfunctional too.  Apparently most CIA agents spend most of their time angling to making a jump to the private sector where they can get rich by using their insider knowledge to get lucrative contracts.... from the CIA.</p><p>NASA is pretty similar.  There are very few scientists and engineers left at NASA.  They are mostly contract monitors who shuffle paper from pile to pile to get money from Congress to award contracts to the private sector and the contractors do all the actual work.  Of course contractors tend to be flakes, and are just in it to milk as much money as they can.  During Apollo there were a lot of contractors but there were actual engineers and scientists at NASA who did stuff, not so much any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is a hopeless entrenched bureaucracy .
Forming more committees , and writing reports , is what they do when threatened , its their counterpart to the old west circling of the wagons when attacked by Indians.As an aside here is a fascinating article [ counterpunch.org ] by an ex CIA agent on why the CIA has exactly the same disease NASA has and why they are dysfunctional too .
Apparently most CIA agents spend most of their time angling to making a jump to the private sector where they can get rich by using their insider knowledge to get lucrative contracts.... from the CIA.NASA is pretty similar .
There are very few scientists and engineers left at NASA .
They are mostly contract monitors who shuffle paper from pile to pile to get money from Congress to award contracts to the private sector and the contractors do all the actual work .
Of course contractors tend to be flakes , and are just in it to milk as much money as they can .
During Apollo there were a lot of contractors but there were actual engineers and scientists at NASA who did stuff , not so much any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is a hopeless entrenched bureaucracy.
Forming more committees, and writing reports, is what they do when threatened, its their counterpart to the old west circling of the wagons when attacked by Indians.As an aside here is a fascinating article [counterpunch.org] by an ex CIA agent on why the CIA has exactly the same disease NASA has and why they are dysfunctional too.
Apparently most CIA agents spend most of their time angling to making a jump to the private sector where they can get rich by using their insider knowledge to get lucrative contracts.... from the CIA.NASA is pretty similar.
There are very few scientists and engineers left at NASA.
They are mostly contract monitors who shuffle paper from pile to pile to get money from Congress to award contracts to the private sector and the contractors do all the actual work.
Of course contractors tend to be flakes, and are just in it to milk as much money as they can.
During Apollo there were a lot of contractors but there were actual engineers and scientists at NASA who did stuff, not so much any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963006</id>
	<title>Re:What could go wrong?</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1257261360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it takes large organizations longer to do things, then why don't we just fire 90\% of them and get everything done faster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it takes large organizations longer to do things , then why do n't we just fire 90 \ % of them and get everything done faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it takes large organizations longer to do things, then why don't we just fire 90\% of them and get everything done faster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064</id>
	<title>Sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But NASA ought to just go away.</p><p>For most of it's life it has been a public works project and now, like every other gubmint program it is a monster of inefficiency and waste.</p><p>If what it is SUPPOSED to do is so important then some company will do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But NASA ought to just go away.For most of it 's life it has been a public works project and now , like every other gubmint program it is a monster of inefficiency and waste.If what it is SUPPOSED to do is so important then some company will do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But NASA ought to just go away.For most of it's life it has been a public works project and now, like every other gubmint program it is a monster of inefficiency and waste.If what it is SUPPOSED to do is so important then some company will do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956512</id>
	<title>Not a very promising start...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1257163680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally, when I see a 'reinvention' start off with new committees, I get sleepy.</p><p>Then I look around to see where the ad hoc committee in charge of making sure nothing gets done is.</p><p>When I find that, I gauge if there is any chance of disbanding that committee...</p><p>If not, time to move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally , when I see a 'reinvention ' start off with new committees , I get sleepy.Then I look around to see where the ad hoc committee in charge of making sure nothing gets done is.When I find that , I gauge if there is any chance of disbanding that committee...If not , time to move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally, when I see a 'reinvention' start off with new committees, I get sleepy.Then I look around to see where the ad hoc committee in charge of making sure nothing gets done is.When I find that, I gauge if there is any chance of disbanding that committee...If not, time to move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257159360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh there's profit in it...  The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more.  Space travel entails a very large barrier to any competitive entities surviving long enough to be profitable.  The X-prize provided a near term reward which spurred tons of research into cheap sub-orbital space flight and now there's some rudimentary space industry that can be used to get the ball rolling.  The next step is obtaining resources for LEO cheaply and that likely means making use of volatiles and such from NEOs.  Then once that is all set up, we can start making real progress into expanding into places that aren't as easily profitable without all of the space infrastructure already in place.  Really, I think what NASA needs most is competition through x-prize style incentives.  Just a few hundred million a year might be enough to do the trick.  It's comparatively tiny compared to their 17 billion$/year budget but it'll probably get things really going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh there 's profit in it... The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more .
Space travel entails a very large barrier to any competitive entities surviving long enough to be profitable .
The X-prize provided a near term reward which spurred tons of research into cheap sub-orbital space flight and now there 's some rudimentary space industry that can be used to get the ball rolling .
The next step is obtaining resources for LEO cheaply and that likely means making use of volatiles and such from NEOs .
Then once that is all set up , we can start making real progress into expanding into places that are n't as easily profitable without all of the space infrastructure already in place .
Really , I think what NASA needs most is competition through x-prize style incentives .
Just a few hundred million a year might be enough to do the trick .
It 's comparatively tiny compared to their 17 billion $ /year budget but it 'll probably get things really going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh there's profit in it...  The asteroid belt alone has enough resources to sustain humanity at current rates of consumption for 150 million years or more.
Space travel entails a very large barrier to any competitive entities surviving long enough to be profitable.
The X-prize provided a near term reward which spurred tons of research into cheap sub-orbital space flight and now there's some rudimentary space industry that can be used to get the ball rolling.
The next step is obtaining resources for LEO cheaply and that likely means making use of volatiles and such from NEOs.
Then once that is all set up, we can start making real progress into expanding into places that aren't as easily profitable without all of the space infrastructure already in place.
Really, I think what NASA needs most is competition through x-prize style incentives.
Just a few hundred million a year might be enough to do the trick.
It's comparatively tiny compared to their 17 billion$/year budget but it'll probably get things really going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955208</id>
	<title>Re:What could go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they need more Meetings, I am sure a consensus solution could be reached if we add 4 more hours of meetings each day...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they need more Meetings , I am sure a consensus solution could be reached if we add 4 more hours of meetings each day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they need more Meetings, I am sure a consensus solution could be reached if we add 4 more hours of meetings each day...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955400</id>
	<title>Re:NASAs first priority</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1257158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once we find out if asteroid detection, deflection or destruction is trivial and reliable, then we can go on to mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.</p></div><p>I presume the NASA memory foam will come into play here.  We should be good to go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we find out if asteroid detection , deflection or destruction is trivial and reliable , then we can go on to mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.I presume the NASA memory foam will come into play here .
We should be good to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we find out if asteroid detection, deflection or destruction is trivial and reliable, then we can go on to mentally masturbating about colonizing other bodies.I presume the NASA memory foam will come into play here.
We should be good to go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955428</id>
	<title>Re:NASAs first priority</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1257158340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should be to develop and test asteroid detection and avoidance systems.</p></div><p>Okay, sure.  In order to detect incoming asteroids, it's going to need to be able to scan the entire sky.  It can't do that now, and doesn't have the funds to develop the capability to do that.  Once it has the capability, it has to figure out a way to neutralize the threat of any incoming asteroid.  Since we can probably rule out the possibility of altering the orbit of the planet to get out of the way, we need to either alter the orbit of the asteroid, or destroy it, and we're going to have to do it well before it reaches Earth.  So, how do we alter the course of or destroy something that big that far away?  Well, we're going to need a big fucking rocket, one that's big enough to travel that far and carry whatever big-ass thing we decide to use to render the asteroid harmless.
<br> <br>
Of course, asteroid detection and avoidance is really boring.  No one grows up wanting to fuck up an asteroid.  However, lots of people grow up wanting to visit other planets.  So, we could probably get some funding if we decided to go exploring other planets instead.  But what will we need to explore other planets?  Probably a big fucking rocket, one that's big enough to travel that far and carry whatever big-ass thing we decide to put on the other planet.
<br> <br>
So, I say we fund planet exploration.  That way, we get people excited about space again, and we also develop the big fucking rocket you need to take care of those pesky asteroids.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be to develop and test asteroid detection and avoidance systems.Okay , sure .
In order to detect incoming asteroids , it 's going to need to be able to scan the entire sky .
It ca n't do that now , and does n't have the funds to develop the capability to do that .
Once it has the capability , it has to figure out a way to neutralize the threat of any incoming asteroid .
Since we can probably rule out the possibility of altering the orbit of the planet to get out of the way , we need to either alter the orbit of the asteroid , or destroy it , and we 're going to have to do it well before it reaches Earth .
So , how do we alter the course of or destroy something that big that far away ?
Well , we 're going to need a big fucking rocket , one that 's big enough to travel that far and carry whatever big-ass thing we decide to use to render the asteroid harmless .
Of course , asteroid detection and avoidance is really boring .
No one grows up wanting to fuck up an asteroid .
However , lots of people grow up wanting to visit other planets .
So , we could probably get some funding if we decided to go exploring other planets instead .
But what will we need to explore other planets ?
Probably a big fucking rocket , one that 's big enough to travel that far and carry whatever big-ass thing we decide to put on the other planet .
So , I say we fund planet exploration .
That way , we get people excited about space again , and we also develop the big fucking rocket you need to take care of those pesky asteroids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be to develop and test asteroid detection and avoidance systems.Okay, sure.
In order to detect incoming asteroids, it's going to need to be able to scan the entire sky.
It can't do that now, and doesn't have the funds to develop the capability to do that.
Once it has the capability, it has to figure out a way to neutralize the threat of any incoming asteroid.
Since we can probably rule out the possibility of altering the orbit of the planet to get out of the way, we need to either alter the orbit of the asteroid, or destroy it, and we're going to have to do it well before it reaches Earth.
So, how do we alter the course of or destroy something that big that far away?
Well, we're going to need a big fucking rocket, one that's big enough to travel that far and carry whatever big-ass thing we decide to use to render the asteroid harmless.
Of course, asteroid detection and avoidance is really boring.
No one grows up wanting to fuck up an asteroid.
However, lots of people grow up wanting to visit other planets.
So, we could probably get some funding if we decided to go exploring other planets instead.
But what will we need to explore other planets?
Probably a big fucking rocket, one that's big enough to travel that far and carry whatever big-ass thing we decide to put on the other planet.
So, I say we fund planet exploration.
That way, we get people excited about space again, and we also develop the big fucking rocket you need to take care of those pesky asteroids.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956290</id>
	<title>Re:If they really want to get humanity into space.</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1257162420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids.</p></div><p>This is basically the finding of a report by Wesley Huntress (see <a href="http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/nextsteps.pdf" title="iaaweb.org">"The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space"</a> [iaaweb.org]), who was just named as head of the NASA Science Advisory Committee.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies.<br>Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far. Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach. Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO.</p></div><p>Bretton Alexander, the newly appointed head of the Commercial Spaceflight Advisory Committee, is also President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a group which includes <a href="http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/members.shtml" title="commercial...flight.org">private spaceflight companies</a> [commercial...flight.org] like SpaceX, Armadillo Aerospace, Scaled Composites, and the X Prize Foundation. I suspect he'll be advocating pretty much exactly the sorts of things you describe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids.This is basically the finding of a report by Wesley Huntress ( see " The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space " [ iaaweb.org ] ) , who was just named as head of the NASA Science Advisory Committee.Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to * everyone * not just US companies.Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far .
Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach .
Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO.Bretton Alexander , the newly appointed head of the Commercial Spaceflight Advisory Committee , is also President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation , a group which includes private spaceflight companies [ commercial...flight.org ] like SpaceX , Armadillo Aerospace , Scaled Composites , and the X Prize Foundation .
I suspect he 'll be advocating pretty much exactly the sorts of things you describe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would do well to put the moon and Mars on the back burner and focus on the asteroids.This is basically the finding of a report by Wesley Huntress (see "The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space" [iaaweb.org]), who was just named as head of the NASA Science Advisory Committee.Then set aside a few hundred million a year in x-prize style incentives open to *everyone* not just US companies.Focus on alternative propulsion and energy systems as chemical engines are not going to get us very far.
Get NASA out of Earth to LEO and focused toward targets that are farther out and harder to reach.
Let SpaceX and friends take care of launch costs to LEO.Bretton Alexander, the newly appointed head of the Commercial Spaceflight Advisory Committee, is also President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a group which includes private spaceflight companies [commercial...flight.org] like SpaceX, Armadillo Aerospace, Scaled Composites, and the X Prize Foundation.
I suspect he'll be advocating pretty much exactly the sorts of things you describe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955386</id>
	<title>Definition</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1257158160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Committee: The only known form of life with 6 or more legs, and no brain.</p><p>(From the notebooks of Lazarus Long</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Committee : The only known form of life with 6 or more legs , and no brain .
( From the notebooks of Lazarus Long</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Committee: The only known form of life with 6 or more legs, and no brain.
(From the notebooks of Lazarus Long</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955268</id>
	<title>It's over</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257157680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like the original formulation of Godwin's law: once an organization faces problems by immediately forming a committee, no further solutions are possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like the original formulation of Godwin 's law : once an organization faces problems by immediately forming a committee , no further solutions are possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like the original formulation of Godwin's law: once an organization faces problems by immediately forming a committee, no further solutions are possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956150</id>
	<title>Re:Quick summary</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1257161700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot user D: And who is going to pay for this big hole? The taxpayers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot user D : And who is going to pay for this big hole ?
The taxpayers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot user D: And who is going to pay for this big hole?
The taxpayers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416</id>
	<title>Space Leads To Colonies Leads To Rebellion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we all know what happens over time when a government extends itself beyond a sustainable threshold for too long - rebellions.  Factions.  Unrest.  New states and governments that represent the people and their values.  The classic example of establishing an independent base away from Earth is that one day if it survives, it will become a separate entity and demand recognition.  In the past,  the most technologically advanced and financially powerful countries in the history of the world had sent out ships to discover and tame a new land and guess what happened - things were never the same again.</p><p>Governments don't want colonies because of the inherent cost and effort to establish and maintain them over a protracted time. When American was new, for awhile it was a money-grab and several nations participated because it was a frontier where companies could pay others to do the hard work and extend their reach and hopefully deepen their pockets.  All of those efforts were reduced to war in order to stop a new state from forming.</p><p>Historically, the human desire to acquire wealth has always run headlong into the need to exploit others to obtain that wealth and power.  When a sustainable space-faring colony is finally created, we'll get to learn again that those who are in direct control will have plans of making that colony their own by establishing a new government to protect and provide for the people better than the governments that sent them there.  In order to promote the ideals of wealth and power, the value of human rights gets violated.</p><p>And then begins the arms race, the effort by the governments of origin to minimize the loss of assets and sovereignty, the efforts by the separatists to establish a new place for themselves and ultimately be accepted as a distinctly different people with the right to shape their own destiny.  Once people get the taste of freedom and the chance to claim their own space and write their own chapter in the pages of history, there's no turning back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we all know what happens over time when a government extends itself beyond a sustainable threshold for too long - rebellions .
Factions. Unrest .
New states and governments that represent the people and their values .
The classic example of establishing an independent base away from Earth is that one day if it survives , it will become a separate entity and demand recognition .
In the past , the most technologically advanced and financially powerful countries in the history of the world had sent out ships to discover and tame a new land and guess what happened - things were never the same again.Governments do n't want colonies because of the inherent cost and effort to establish and maintain them over a protracted time .
When American was new , for awhile it was a money-grab and several nations participated because it was a frontier where companies could pay others to do the hard work and extend their reach and hopefully deepen their pockets .
All of those efforts were reduced to war in order to stop a new state from forming.Historically , the human desire to acquire wealth has always run headlong into the need to exploit others to obtain that wealth and power .
When a sustainable space-faring colony is finally created , we 'll get to learn again that those who are in direct control will have plans of making that colony their own by establishing a new government to protect and provide for the people better than the governments that sent them there .
In order to promote the ideals of wealth and power , the value of human rights gets violated.And then begins the arms race , the effort by the governments of origin to minimize the loss of assets and sovereignty , the efforts by the separatists to establish a new place for themselves and ultimately be accepted as a distinctly different people with the right to shape their own destiny .
Once people get the taste of freedom and the chance to claim their own space and write their own chapter in the pages of history , there 's no turning back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we all know what happens over time when a government extends itself beyond a sustainable threshold for too long - rebellions.
Factions.  Unrest.
New states and governments that represent the people and their values.
The classic example of establishing an independent base away from Earth is that one day if it survives, it will become a separate entity and demand recognition.
In the past,  the most technologically advanced and financially powerful countries in the history of the world had sent out ships to discover and tame a new land and guess what happened - things were never the same again.Governments don't want colonies because of the inherent cost and effort to establish and maintain them over a protracted time.
When American was new, for awhile it was a money-grab and several nations participated because it was a frontier where companies could pay others to do the hard work and extend their reach and hopefully deepen their pockets.
All of those efforts were reduced to war in order to stop a new state from forming.Historically, the human desire to acquire wealth has always run headlong into the need to exploit others to obtain that wealth and power.
When a sustainable space-faring colony is finally created, we'll get to learn again that those who are in direct control will have plans of making that colony their own by establishing a new government to protect and provide for the people better than the governments that sent them there.
In order to promote the ideals of wealth and power, the value of human rights gets violated.And then begins the arms race, the effort by the governments of origin to minimize the loss of assets and sovereignty, the efforts by the separatists to establish a new place for themselves and ultimately be accepted as a distinctly different people with the right to shape their own destiny.
Once people get the taste of freedom and the chance to claim their own space and write their own chapter in the pages of history, there's no turning back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29957744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29964986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_202223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29957744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29959416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29961520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_202223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968526
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958044
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29968586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29964986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29958478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29956322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29963268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_202223.29955884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
