<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_1554207</id>
	<title>2 Companies Win NASA's Moon-Landing Prize Money</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257264480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"NASA said it will this week award $1.65 million in prize money to a pair of aerospace companies that <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/47068">successfully simulated landing a spacecraft on the moon and lifting off again</a>. NASA's Centennial Challenges program, which was managed by the X Prize Foundation, will give a $1 million first prize to Masten Space Systems and a $500,000 second prize to Armadillo Aerospace for successfully completing the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " NASA said it will this week award $ 1.65 million in prize money to a pair of aerospace companies that successfully simulated landing a spacecraft on the moon and lifting off again .
NASA 's Centennial Challenges program , which was managed by the X Prize Foundation , will give a $ 1 million first prize to Masten Space Systems and a $ 500,000 second prize to Armadillo Aerospace for successfully completing the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "NASA said it will this week award $1.65 million in prize money to a pair of aerospace companies that successfully simulated landing a spacecraft on the moon and lifting off again.
NASA's Centennial Challenges program, which was managed by the X Prize Foundation, will give a $1 million first prize to Masten Space Systems and a $500,000 second prize to Armadillo Aerospace for successfully completing the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965102</id>
	<title>Re:armadillo placed second!</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1257271140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hurray! First Loser! Congrats!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hurray !
First Loser !
Congrats !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hurray!
First Loser!
Congrats!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966414</id>
	<title>Carmack / Armadillo was robbed</title>
	<author>jriskin</author>
	<datestamp>1257277080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they were giving out extra free days last year Armadillo probably would have got 100\% of the money a year ago! The judges should have taken this in to account, bonus points for accuracy? Sure, but they should lose a place just for having to try a 4th time. Fair would be armadillo gets $1.5m, being 'nice' would be $1m to armadillo and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 to Masten. But the other way around is just totally bogus.</p><p>Armadillo definitely deserved the full million. IMHO...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were giving out extra free days last year Armadillo probably would have got 100 \ % of the money a year ago !
The judges should have taken this in to account , bonus points for accuracy ?
Sure , but they should lose a place just for having to try a 4th time .
Fair would be armadillo gets $ 1.5m , being 'nice ' would be $ 1m to armadillo and .5 to Masten .
But the other way around is just totally bogus.Armadillo definitely deserved the full million .
IMHO.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were giving out extra free days last year Armadillo probably would have got 100\% of the money a year ago!
The judges should have taken this in to account, bonus points for accuracy?
Sure, but they should lose a place just for having to try a 4th time.
Fair would be armadillo gets $1.5m, being 'nice' would be $1m to armadillo and .5 to Masten.
But the other way around is just totally bogus.Armadillo definitely deserved the full million.
IMHO...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965462</id>
	<title>Should have gone to this inventor!</title>
	<author>snooz\_crash</author>
	<datestamp>1257272580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, he was robbed...<br>
<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5393626/ataris-lunar-lander-made-real" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5393626/ataris-lunar-lander-made-real</a> [gizmodo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , he was robbed.. . http : //gizmodo.com/5393626/ataris-lunar-lander-made-real [ gizmodo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, he was robbed...
http://gizmodo.com/5393626/ataris-lunar-lander-made-real [gizmodo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964452</id>
	<title>It's all about timing and thrust vectors</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1257268380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real key to successfully land the lander is to understand that you need to apply enough thrust to slow your descent without actually reversing the velocity of the craft. If you can balance that action so that you end up only a couple pixels off the ground, you can safely put the lander down on any flat surface.</p><p>The other problem is to navigate to a flat surface, but that is also easily solved by pressing the left and right arrow keys.</p><p>As for actual controls, I prefer using the spacebar to activate the rockets, although some people like the down arrow key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real key to successfully land the lander is to understand that you need to apply enough thrust to slow your descent without actually reversing the velocity of the craft .
If you can balance that action so that you end up only a couple pixels off the ground , you can safely put the lander down on any flat surface.The other problem is to navigate to a flat surface , but that is also easily solved by pressing the left and right arrow keys.As for actual controls , I prefer using the spacebar to activate the rockets , although some people like the down arrow key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real key to successfully land the lander is to understand that you need to apply enough thrust to slow your descent without actually reversing the velocity of the craft.
If you can balance that action so that you end up only a couple pixels off the ground, you can safely put the lander down on any flat surface.The other problem is to navigate to a flat surface, but that is also easily solved by pressing the left and right arrow keys.As for actual controls, I prefer using the spacebar to activate the rockets, although some people like the down arrow key.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964564</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1257268860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did you hear of a NASA project that DIDN'T go overbudget ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did you hear of a NASA project that DID N'T go overbudget ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did you hear of a NASA project that DIDN'T go overbudget ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966490</id>
	<title>Re:Rocket Club to Nasa Winner</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1257277500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wow, so in 10 years Armadillo went from a rocket club with a bunch of guys launching hobby motors in fields to building moon landers?</p></div></blockquote><p>More accurately "to building self guided rocket powered models capable of vertical take off and landing".  The craft couldn't survive the boost to orbit, let alone the extreme environment of the Earth-Moon cruise, let alone the extreme environment of the landing phase and the lunar surface.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Homebrew liquid fueled engines and homebrew control systems are kinda impressive hobbyist accomplishments...  (With the ubiquity of compact computing, the impressiveness of the latter has dropped off considerably in my estimation.)  But they're still a very, <i>very</i> long way from anything even remotely resembling an experimental prototype lunar lander.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so in 10 years Armadillo went from a rocket club with a bunch of guys launching hobby motors in fields to building moon landers ? More accurately " to building self guided rocket powered models capable of vertical take off and landing " .
The craft could n't survive the boost to orbit , let alone the extreme environment of the Earth-Moon cruise , let alone the extreme environment of the landing phase and the lunar surface .
  Homebrew liquid fueled engines and homebrew control systems are kinda impressive hobbyist accomplishments... ( With the ubiquity of compact computing , the impressiveness of the latter has dropped off considerably in my estimation .
) But they 're still a very , very long way from anything even remotely resembling an experimental prototype lunar lander .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so in 10 years Armadillo went from a rocket club with a bunch of guys launching hobby motors in fields to building moon landers?More accurately "to building self guided rocket powered models capable of vertical take off and landing".
The craft couldn't survive the boost to orbit, let alone the extreme environment of the Earth-Moon cruise, let alone the extreme environment of the landing phase and the lunar surface.
  Homebrew liquid fueled engines and homebrew control systems are kinda impressive hobbyist accomplishments...  (With the ubiquity of compact computing, the impressiveness of the latter has dropped off considerably in my estimation.
)  But they're still a very, very long way from anything even remotely resembling an experimental prototype lunar lander.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965254</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1257271740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that the point of these exercises is to get the civilian programs up to speed and with their own technology.</p><p>If a civilian company can duplicate or even best NASA at these "rudimentary" tasks, said company may be in a better position to be entirely self dependent.</p><p>If we can encourage these companies to "reinvent the wheel" now, they will be in a really good position to \_not\_ need NASA as a crutch on issues in the future.</p><p>Teaching a man to fish vs giving a man a fish..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the point of these exercises is to get the civilian programs up to speed and with their own technology.If a civilian company can duplicate or even best NASA at these " rudimentary " tasks , said company may be in a better position to be entirely self dependent.If we can encourage these companies to " reinvent the wheel " now , they will be in a really good position to \ _not \ _ need NASA as a crutch on issues in the future.Teaching a man to fish vs giving a man a fish. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the point of these exercises is to get the civilian programs up to speed and with their own technology.If a civilian company can duplicate or even best NASA at these "rudimentary" tasks, said company may be in a better position to be entirely self dependent.If we can encourage these companies to "reinvent the wheel" now, they will be in a really good position to \_not\_ need NASA as a crutch on issues in the future.Teaching a man to fish vs giving a man a fish..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29968454</id>
	<title>I was robbed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257243720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I modeled mine after the mars landings.</p><p>All I did was drop my lander from a plane and let it crater. It seemed like an easy win at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I modeled mine after the mars landings.All I did was drop my lander from a plane and let it crater .
It seemed like an easy win at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I modeled mine after the mars landings.All I did was drop my lander from a plane and let it crater.
It seemed like an easy win at the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965132</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1257271260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is in cost.  The hope is that for mere eraser shavings we can have small private companies develop the modern guidance and control software for a lander that would take traditional contractors with NASA direction much more to develop.</p><p>When someone says "we did it 50 years ago" remind them that we did it then with 3-4 times the budget, and improved computer technology only lends incremental advantages -- plus that there was some loss of institutional knowledge of vehicle development since we haven't developed anything successfully since the shuttle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is in cost .
The hope is that for mere eraser shavings we can have small private companies develop the modern guidance and control software for a lander that would take traditional contractors with NASA direction much more to develop.When someone says " we did it 50 years ago " remind them that we did it then with 3-4 times the budget , and improved computer technology only lends incremental advantages -- plus that there was some loss of institutional knowledge of vehicle development since we have n't developed anything successfully since the shuttle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is in cost.
The hope is that for mere eraser shavings we can have small private companies develop the modern guidance and control software for a lander that would take traditional contractors with NASA direction much more to develop.When someone says "we did it 50 years ago" remind them that we did it then with 3-4 times the budget, and improved computer technology only lends incremental advantages -- plus that there was some loss of institutional knowledge of vehicle development since we haven't developed anything successfully since the shuttle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965404</id>
	<title>Why couldnt Nasa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257272400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just claim their own prize money after all they where he first to ermm 'simulate' a moon landin all of 40 odd years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just claim their own prize money after all they where he first to ermm 'simulate ' a moon landin all of 40 odd years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just claim their own prize money after all they where he first to ermm 'simulate' a moon landin all of 40 odd years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966172</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Score:1, Troll</p></div></blockquote><p>You've confused the moderators with your advanced mathematical analysis. Then again, confusing moderators appears to be a regular occurrence around here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Score : 1 , TrollYou 've confused the moderators with your advanced mathematical analysis .
Then again , confusing moderators appears to be a regular occurrence around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Score:1, TrollYou've confused the moderators with your advanced mathematical analysis.
Then again, confusing moderators appears to be a regular occurrence around here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964812</id>
	<title>Didn't NASA "simulate" that in 1969?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257269820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; If NASA is hurting for money why pay for a simulation of something already done before?  Didn't RTFA, sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  If NASA is hurting for money why pay for a simulation of something already done before ?
Did n't RTFA , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  If NASA is hurting for money why pay for a simulation of something already done before?
Didn't RTFA, sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964948</id>
	<title>Lunar Lander's my favorite game...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the hours I've spent on it, I'm pretty overqualified to do the demo if they need me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the hours I 've spent on it , I 'm pretty overqualified to do the demo if they need me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the hours I've spent on it, I'm pretty overqualified to do the demo if they need me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964994</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>AmigaHeretic</author>
	<datestamp>1257270660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;It's almost as easy to click the link and RTFA as it is to complain about the summary...
<br> <br>
Holy crap there are links to articles in the summaries?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; It 's almost as easy to click the link and RTFA as it is to complain about the summary.. . Holy crap there are links to articles in the summaries ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;It's almost as easy to click the link and RTFA as it is to complain about the summary...
 
Holy crap there are links to articles in the summaries?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924</id>
	<title>Ummmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257270300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to be a negative nancy, but didn't we *actually* do this like 50 years ago?</p><p>What's next, a $1 million prize to the first company that can build a hydrogen bomb, construct a MOSFET (or something else the government did 50 years ago).</p><p>It just seems sad that we are still at this point, 50 years later.</p><p>Sorry for the negativity..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be a negative nancy , but did n't we * actually * do this like 50 years ago ? What 's next , a $ 1 million prize to the first company that can build a hydrogen bomb , construct a MOSFET ( or something else the government did 50 years ago ) .It just seems sad that we are still at this point , 50 years later.Sorry for the negativity. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be a negative nancy, but didn't we *actually* do this like 50 years ago?What's next, a $1 million prize to the first company that can build a hydrogen bomb, construct a MOSFET (or something else the government did 50 years ago).It just seems sad that we are still at this point, 50 years later.Sorry for the negativity..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29980720</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about timing and thrust vectors</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1257012540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strangely enough, one of the early "proof of demonstration" projects John Carmack had with his software was a completely software demonstration of the flight control systems.</p><p>He even posted the code for it... but I don't want to bother trying to dig it up.  It wasn't that polished, but it did do the job.</p><p>Mr. Carmack also controls most of the flight systems with his laptop computer out in the field.... so I wouldn't doubt that he may be using the spacebar or arrow keys to be controlling thrust.  When most folks are staring at the rocket, he is usually hunched over his little laptop during the tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strangely enough , one of the early " proof of demonstration " projects John Carmack had with his software was a completely software demonstration of the flight control systems.He even posted the code for it... but I do n't want to bother trying to dig it up .
It was n't that polished , but it did do the job.Mr .
Carmack also controls most of the flight systems with his laptop computer out in the field.... so I would n't doubt that he may be using the spacebar or arrow keys to be controlling thrust .
When most folks are staring at the rocket , he is usually hunched over his little laptop during the tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strangely enough, one of the early "proof of demonstration" projects John Carmack had with his software was a completely software demonstration of the flight control systems.He even posted the code for it... but I don't want to bother trying to dig it up.
It wasn't that polished, but it did do the job.Mr.
Carmack also controls most of the flight systems with his laptop computer out in the field.... so I wouldn't doubt that he may be using the spacebar or arrow keys to be controlling thrust.
When most folks are staring at the rocket, he is usually hunched over his little laptop during the tests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964494</id>
	<title>Other private space companies are Doomed.</title>
	<author>xxuserxx</author>
	<datestamp>1257268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not surprised at Armadillo's success.  John Carmak has been making mars simulators since the early 90s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not surprised at Armadillo 's success .
John Carmak has been making mars simulators since the early 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not surprised at Armadillo's success.
John Carmak has been making mars simulators since the early 90s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965388</id>
	<title>Re:Carmack was robbed</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1257272280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed!</p><p>NASA really administered this contest poorly.  At a minimum, the prize money should have been equal and in my opinion, not even that would be fair.  </p><p>It is really frustrating when the "judges" make rules allowances late in the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed ! NASA really administered this contest poorly .
At a minimum , the prize money should have been equal and in my opinion , not even that would be fair .
It is really frustrating when the " judges " make rules allowances late in the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed!NASA really administered this contest poorly.
At a minimum, the prize money should have been equal and in my opinion, not even that would be fair.
It is really frustrating when the "judges" make rules allowances late in the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965528</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257272880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to be a negative nancy, but didn't we *actually* do this like 50 years ago?<br> <br>

What's next, a $1 million prize to the first company that can build a hydrogen bomb, construct a MOSFET (or something else the government did 50 years ago).</p></div><p>NASA used a lunar lander (which was developed by a private contractor) roughly 40 not 50 years ago. Bell Labs not government developed the MOSFET. And unlike lunar landers, we still have operable hydrogen bombs and MOSFETs today.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It just seems sad that we are still at this point, 50 years later.</p></div><p>Well, things didn't work out. If we want to get back to the point we were 35-40 years ago, we have to redevelop the technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be a negative nancy , but did n't we * actually * do this like 50 years ago ?
What 's next , a $ 1 million prize to the first company that can build a hydrogen bomb , construct a MOSFET ( or something else the government did 50 years ago ) .NASA used a lunar lander ( which was developed by a private contractor ) roughly 40 not 50 years ago .
Bell Labs not government developed the MOSFET .
And unlike lunar landers , we still have operable hydrogen bombs and MOSFETs today.It just seems sad that we are still at this point , 50 years later.Well , things did n't work out .
If we want to get back to the point we were 35-40 years ago , we have to redevelop the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be a negative nancy, but didn't we *actually* do this like 50 years ago?
What's next, a $1 million prize to the first company that can build a hydrogen bomb, construct a MOSFET (or something else the government did 50 years ago).NASA used a lunar lander (which was developed by a private contractor) roughly 40 not 50 years ago.
Bell Labs not government developed the MOSFET.
And unlike lunar landers, we still have operable hydrogen bombs and MOSFETs today.It just seems sad that we are still at this point, 50 years later.Well, things didn't work out.
If we want to get back to the point we were 35-40 years ago, we have to redevelop the technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966466</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1257277380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be nice if all government operations were this efficient - only a 10\% loss, that's great!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if all government operations were this efficient - only a 10 \ % loss , that 's great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if all government operations were this efficient - only a 10\% loss, that's great!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964656</id>
	<title>Re:its NASA!!!</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257269220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"if we have learned anything in the past, just because it works in a simulation doesn't mean it will work in reality, more or less in Zero G."</p><p>'Cause everyone knows the moon has no gravitational pull...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if we have learned anything in the past , just because it works in a simulation does n't mean it will work in reality , more or less in Zero G. " 'Cause everyone knows the moon has no gravitational pull.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if we have learned anything in the past, just because it works in a simulation doesn't mean it will work in reality, more or less in Zero G."'Cause everyone knows the moon has no gravitational pull...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682</id>
	<title>Carmack was robbed</title>
	<author>HEbGb</author>
	<datestamp>1257269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/10/30/armadillos-mccormack-robbed-ngllc-judges/" title="parabolicarc.com">http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/10/30/armadillos-mccormack-robbed-ngllc-judges/</a> [parabolicarc.com]</p><p>The other team had a whole extra day to improve their results that Armadillo did not.  This is totally and blatantly unfair, and he has every right to be pissed.</p><p>Garbage like this will dissuade other teams from entering, no doubt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.parabolicarc.com/2009/10/30/armadillos-mccormack-robbed-ngllc-judges/ [ parabolicarc.com ] The other team had a whole extra day to improve their results that Armadillo did not .
This is totally and blatantly unfair , and he has every right to be pissed.Garbage like this will dissuade other teams from entering , no doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/10/30/armadillos-mccormack-robbed-ngllc-judges/ [parabolicarc.com]The other team had a whole extra day to improve their results that Armadillo did not.
This is totally and blatantly unfair, and he has every right to be pissed.Garbage like this will dissuade other teams from entering, no doubt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965032</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about timing and thrust vectors</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1257270840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We used a light pen on the PDP-11/34.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We used a light pen on the PDP-11/34 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used a light pen on the PDP-11/34.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966536</id>
	<title>Re:Carmack was robbed</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1257277740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I've long predicted, when real money starts being placed on the line - that what the alt.space community calls the 'mammals' (almost hobbyist level startups) will start behaving like the 'dinosaurs' (traditional aerospace companies).<br>
&nbsp; <br>A very interesting Rubicon has been crossed by the nascent 'small space' industry, even if they don't realize all the implications of it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 've long predicted , when real money starts being placed on the line - that what the alt.space community calls the 'mammals ' ( almost hobbyist level startups ) will start behaving like the 'dinosaurs ' ( traditional aerospace companies ) .
  A very interesting Rubicon has been crossed by the nascent 'small space ' industry , even if they do n't realize all the implications of it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I've long predicted, when real money starts being placed on the line - that what the alt.space community calls the 'mammals' (almost hobbyist level startups) will start behaving like the 'dinosaurs' (traditional aerospace companies).
  A very interesting Rubicon has been crossed by the nascent 'small space' industry, even if they don't realize all the implications of it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964830</id>
	<title>It ended in some amount of controversy</title>
	<author>malakai</author>
	<datestamp>1257269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The team that ended up 'beating' Armadillo's accuracy was given an extra day of flights. This didn't make John Carmack or many others very happy. At the same time, people are more upset with what appears to be arbitrary judging than competition. I think any of the three final teams would have removed a part from their engine and loaned it to another team. In fact, during previous attempts this happened with RR and AA.</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that I am unhappy about<br>Masten getting a fourth shot at the level 2 prize.  I understand that<br>there is a desire to award all the prize money this year and be able<br>to close the books on the LLC, but I don't think it is fair.  If you<br>can just call an abort each day, you can keep anyone else from<br>flying.  Three swings, three misses, time's up.</p><p>John Carmack</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>For the past couple weeks, as it became clear that Masten had a real<br>shot at completing the level 2 Lunar Lander Challenge and bettering our<br>landing accuracy, I have been kicking myself for not taking the<br>competition more seriously and working on a better landing accuracy.  If<br>they pulled it off, I was prepared to congratulate them and give a bit<br>of a sheepish mea culpa.  Nobody to be upset at except myself.  We could<br>have probably made a second flight in the drizzle on our scheduled days,<br>and once we had the roll thruster issue sorted out, our landing accuracy<br>would have been in the 20cm range.  I never thought it was worth<br>investing in differential RTK GPS systems, because it has no bearing on<br>our commercial operations.</p><p>The current situation, where Masten was allowed a third active day of<br>competition, after trying and failing on both scheduled days, is<br>different.  I don't hold anything against Masten for using an additional<br>time window that has been offered, since we wouldn't have passed it up<br>if we were in their situation, but I do think this was a mistake on the<br>judges part.</p><p>I recognize that it is in the best interests of both the NASA Centennial<br>Challenges department and the X-Prize Foundation to award all the prize<br>money this year, and that will likely have indirect benefits for us all<br>in coming years.  It is probably also beneficial to the nascent New<br>Space industry to get more money to Masten than Armadillo, since we have<br>other resources to draw upon.  Permit me to be petty enough to be upset<br>and bitter about a half million dollars being taken from me and given to<br>my competitor.</p><p>The rules have given the judges the discretion to do just about anything<br>up to and including awarding prize money for best effort if they felt it<br>necessary, so there may not be any grounds to challenge this, but I do<br>feel that we have been robbed.  I was going to argue that if Masten was<br>allowed to take a window on an unscheduled day with no notice, the<br>judges should come back to Texas on Sunday and let us take our unused<br>second window to try for a better accuracy, but our FAA waiver for the<br>LLC vehicle was only valid for the weekend of our scheduled attempt.</p><p>John Carmack</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The team that ended up 'beating ' Armadillo 's accuracy was given an extra day of flights .
This did n't make John Carmack or many others very happy .
At the same time , people are more upset with what appears to be arbitrary judging than competition .
I think any of the three final teams would have removed a part from their engine and loaned it to another team .
In fact , during previous attempts this happened with RR and AA.I do n't think anyone is going to be surprised that I am unhappy aboutMasten getting a fourth shot at the level 2 prize .
I understand thatthere is a desire to award all the prize money this year and be ableto close the books on the LLC , but I do n't think it is fair .
If youcan just call an abort each day , you can keep anyone else fromflying .
Three swings , three misses , time 's up.John CarmackFor the past couple weeks , as it became clear that Masten had a realshot at completing the level 2 Lunar Lander Challenge and bettering ourlanding accuracy , I have been kicking myself for not taking thecompetition more seriously and working on a better landing accuracy .
Ifthey pulled it off , I was prepared to congratulate them and give a bitof a sheepish mea culpa .
Nobody to be upset at except myself .
We couldhave probably made a second flight in the drizzle on our scheduled days,and once we had the roll thruster issue sorted out , our landing accuracywould have been in the 20cm range .
I never thought it was worthinvesting in differential RTK GPS systems , because it has no bearing onour commercial operations.The current situation , where Masten was allowed a third active day ofcompetition , after trying and failing on both scheduled days , isdifferent .
I do n't hold anything against Masten for using an additionaltime window that has been offered , since we would n't have passed it upif we were in their situation , but I do think this was a mistake on thejudges part.I recognize that it is in the best interests of both the NASA CentennialChallenges department and the X-Prize Foundation to award all the prizemoney this year , and that will likely have indirect benefits for us allin coming years .
It is probably also beneficial to the nascent NewSpace industry to get more money to Masten than Armadillo , since we haveother resources to draw upon .
Permit me to be petty enough to be upsetand bitter about a half million dollars being taken from me and given tomy competitor.The rules have given the judges the discretion to do just about anythingup to and including awarding prize money for best effort if they felt itnecessary , so there may not be any grounds to challenge this , but I dofeel that we have been robbed .
I was going to argue that if Masten wasallowed to take a window on an unscheduled day with no notice , thejudges should come back to Texas on Sunday and let us take our unusedsecond window to try for a better accuracy , but our FAA waiver for theLLC vehicle was only valid for the weekend of our scheduled attempt.John Carmack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The team that ended up 'beating' Armadillo's accuracy was given an extra day of flights.
This didn't make John Carmack or many others very happy.
At the same time, people are more upset with what appears to be arbitrary judging than competition.
I think any of the three final teams would have removed a part from their engine and loaned it to another team.
In fact, during previous attempts this happened with RR and AA.I don't think anyone is going to be surprised that I am unhappy aboutMasten getting a fourth shot at the level 2 prize.
I understand thatthere is a desire to award all the prize money this year and be ableto close the books on the LLC, but I don't think it is fair.
If youcan just call an abort each day, you can keep anyone else fromflying.
Three swings, three misses, time's up.John CarmackFor the past couple weeks, as it became clear that Masten had a realshot at completing the level 2 Lunar Lander Challenge and bettering ourlanding accuracy, I have been kicking myself for not taking thecompetition more seriously and working on a better landing accuracy.
Ifthey pulled it off, I was prepared to congratulate them and give a bitof a sheepish mea culpa.
Nobody to be upset at except myself.
We couldhave probably made a second flight in the drizzle on our scheduled days,and once we had the roll thruster issue sorted out, our landing accuracywould have been in the 20cm range.
I never thought it was worthinvesting in differential RTK GPS systems, because it has no bearing onour commercial operations.The current situation, where Masten was allowed a third active day ofcompetition, after trying and failing on both scheduled days, isdifferent.
I don't hold anything against Masten for using an additionaltime window that has been offered, since we wouldn't have passed it upif we were in their situation, but I do think this was a mistake on thejudges part.I recognize that it is in the best interests of both the NASA CentennialChallenges department and the X-Prize Foundation to award all the prizemoney this year, and that will likely have indirect benefits for us allin coming years.
It is probably also beneficial to the nascent NewSpace industry to get more money to Masten than Armadillo, since we haveother resources to draw upon.
Permit me to be petty enough to be upsetand bitter about a half million dollars being taken from me and given tomy competitor.The rules have given the judges the discretion to do just about anythingup to and including awarding prize money for best effort if they felt itnecessary, so there may not be any grounds to challenge this, but I dofeel that we have been robbed.
I was going to argue that if Masten wasallowed to take a window on an unscheduled day with no notice, thejudges should come back to Texas on Sunday and let us take our unusedsecond window to try for a better accuracy, but our FAA waiver for theLLC vehicle was only valid for the weekend of our scheduled attempt.John Carmack
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29975154</id>
	<title>Re:It ended in some amount of controversy</title>
	<author>stiller</author>
	<datestamp>1256981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree with John on this. A challenge was set. The team first to meet this challenge was Armadillo and so should be awarded the first prize. What if I better even Masten's result in a month or so? Will they take back their prize and award it to me? In the eyes of the public, the first one to complete a challenge wins it. Any deviation from this seems unfair and only hurts the image of all involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with John on this .
A challenge was set .
The team first to meet this challenge was Armadillo and so should be awarded the first prize .
What if I better even Masten 's result in a month or so ?
Will they take back their prize and award it to me ?
In the eyes of the public , the first one to complete a challenge wins it .
Any deviation from this seems unfair and only hurts the image of all involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with John on this.
A challenge was set.
The team first to meet this challenge was Armadillo and so should be awarded the first prize.
What if I better even Masten's result in a month or so?
Will they take back their prize and award it to me?
In the eyes of the public, the first one to complete a challenge wins it.
Any deviation from this seems unfair and only hurts the image of all involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964436</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1257268320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's almost as easy to click the link and RTFA as it is to complain about the summary...<br> <br>The extra $150,000 was awarded to one of the companies for their completion of an earlier phase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's almost as easy to click the link and RTFA as it is to complain about the summary... The extra $ 150,000 was awarded to one of the companies for their completion of an earlier phase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's almost as easy to click the link and RTFA as it is to complain about the summary... The extra $150,000 was awarded to one of the companies for their completion of an earlier phase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964580</id>
	<title>ate to the party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should win the prize.  I've been successfully landing Lunar Landers on the moon since 1979, and it only costs me 25 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should win the prize .
I 've been successfully landing Lunar Landers on the moon since 1979 , and it only costs me 25 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should win the prize.
I've been successfully landing Lunar Landers on the moon since 1979, and it only costs me 25 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29969114</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1257246240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you know that anytime two monetary values are added together, the gov't tacks on 10\%?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you know that anytime two monetary values are added together , the gov't tacks on 10 \ % ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you know that anytime two monetary values are added together, the gov't tacks on 10\%?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964844</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>butalearner</author>
	<datestamp>1257269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, the submitter just mixed up the conversion from metric.  Happens all the time here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the submitter just mixed up the conversion from metric .
Happens all the time here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the submitter just mixed up the conversion from metric.
Happens all the time here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965060</id>
	<title>A new way to imitate the lunar landing?</title>
	<author>Zarf\_is\_with\_you</author>
	<datestamp>1257270960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>I see another fake Moon Shot happening!  8-)<br><br>--<br>Ah say, son, you're about as sharp as a bowlin' ball.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see another fake Moon Shot happening !
8- ) --Ah say , son , you 're about as sharp as a bowlin ' ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see another fake Moon Shot happening!
8-)--Ah say, son, you're about as sharp as a bowlin' ball.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29970214</id>
	<title>"Boosted Hop" video</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1257249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently since doing their lunar lander run Armadillo Aerospace has been keeping itself busy with "boosted hops," where they fire the rocket up to a certain altitude, and then land back down under the rocket's own power. Here's a neat video of them boosting up to ~1000 feet:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYk9uGrAqn8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYk9uGrAqn8</a> [youtube.com]<br><a href="http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=16628" title="hobbyspace.com">http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=16628</a> [hobbyspace.com]</p><p>Starting with lower altitudes, each time they run they're going for an incrementally higher altitude. They've gone up to about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1AO0MWtdC4" title="youtube.com">1932 feet (589m)</a> [youtube.com] so far, with the plan to go all the way up to 6000 feet, which is the highest their FAA permit allows them to currently launch. I believe both Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems have a number of customers in the scientific community who want to use these sorts of controlled boosted hops for running things like microgravity experiments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently since doing their lunar lander run Armadillo Aerospace has been keeping itself busy with " boosted hops , " where they fire the rocket up to a certain altitude , and then land back down under the rocket 's own power .
Here 's a neat video of them boosting up to ~ 1000 feet : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = gYk9uGrAqn8 [ youtube.com ] http : //www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php ? itemid = 16628 [ hobbyspace.com ] Starting with lower altitudes , each time they run they 're going for an incrementally higher altitude .
They 've gone up to about 1932 feet ( 589m ) [ youtube.com ] so far , with the plan to go all the way up to 6000 feet , which is the highest their FAA permit allows them to currently launch .
I believe both Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems have a number of customers in the scientific community who want to use these sorts of controlled boosted hops for running things like microgravity experiments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently since doing their lunar lander run Armadillo Aerospace has been keeping itself busy with "boosted hops," where they fire the rocket up to a certain altitude, and then land back down under the rocket's own power.
Here's a neat video of them boosting up to ~1000 feet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYk9uGrAqn8 [youtube.com]http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=16628 [hobbyspace.com]Starting with lower altitudes, each time they run they're going for an incrementally higher altitude.
They've gone up to about 1932 feet (589m) [youtube.com] so far, with the plan to go all the way up to 6000 feet, which is the highest their FAA permit allows them to currently launch.
I believe both Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems have a number of customers in the scientific community who want to use these sorts of controlled boosted hops for running things like microgravity experiments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29981446</id>
	<title>Re:Carmack was robbed</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1257014760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree completely.  Why should the prize money be "equal"?  The point was to provide a strong incentive for contestants to get a vehicle to complete the basic requirements.... and to ensure that somebody who came in "2nd place" would at least receive a little bit of money for their effort instead of simply be left with the expenses of going up.</p><p>NASA did an excellent job here... considering that NASA employees running this contest consisted of a single office of I believe two people (it may even be just one) that is administering the Centennial Prizes.  The ones to complain about is our lovely legislators in the halls of Capitol Hill who have refused to add any more money to this or other contests to help improve American technical capabilities for spaceflight.</p><p>There have been 4 different companies and groups of people involved directly with this contest that have also launched working hardware.  That is a huge deal, as these groups have proven flight-worthy hardware capable of being used in other areas.  One of the teams had their "chief" engineer hired out from under them and is now working for Scaled Composites.  That these guys who built these rockets are now high on the list for head-hunters who want to look for talented and generally young engineers who have the skills necessary to build future rockets.... that should be readily apparent.</p><p>This is a very well managed contest, and one of the best applications of taxpayer money that I have seen in a long, long time.  To achieve similar results for a conventional NASA technology demonstrator project, it would have easily cost 10x or more with bureaucratic overhead from hell and only one semi-competent company involved that likely would have ended up as a failure or even just a simple paper study instead.  That seems to be the typical way that NASA does business, and for their effort they got four different rocket designs each with their own independent design heritage.  That is huge in my book.</p><p>Your proposal to "share the wealth" makes absolutely no sense to me in this situation at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree completely .
Why should the prize money be " equal " ?
The point was to provide a strong incentive for contestants to get a vehicle to complete the basic requirements.... and to ensure that somebody who came in " 2nd place " would at least receive a little bit of money for their effort instead of simply be left with the expenses of going up.NASA did an excellent job here... considering that NASA employees running this contest consisted of a single office of I believe two people ( it may even be just one ) that is administering the Centennial Prizes .
The ones to complain about is our lovely legislators in the halls of Capitol Hill who have refused to add any more money to this or other contests to help improve American technical capabilities for spaceflight.There have been 4 different companies and groups of people involved directly with this contest that have also launched working hardware .
That is a huge deal , as these groups have proven flight-worthy hardware capable of being used in other areas .
One of the teams had their " chief " engineer hired out from under them and is now working for Scaled Composites .
That these guys who built these rockets are now high on the list for head-hunters who want to look for talented and generally young engineers who have the skills necessary to build future rockets.... that should be readily apparent.This is a very well managed contest , and one of the best applications of taxpayer money that I have seen in a long , long time .
To achieve similar results for a conventional NASA technology demonstrator project , it would have easily cost 10x or more with bureaucratic overhead from hell and only one semi-competent company involved that likely would have ended up as a failure or even just a simple paper study instead .
That seems to be the typical way that NASA does business , and for their effort they got four different rocket designs each with their own independent design heritage .
That is huge in my book.Your proposal to " share the wealth " makes absolutely no sense to me in this situation at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree completely.
Why should the prize money be "equal"?
The point was to provide a strong incentive for contestants to get a vehicle to complete the basic requirements.... and to ensure that somebody who came in "2nd place" would at least receive a little bit of money for their effort instead of simply be left with the expenses of going up.NASA did an excellent job here... considering that NASA employees running this contest consisted of a single office of I believe two people (it may even be just one) that is administering the Centennial Prizes.
The ones to complain about is our lovely legislators in the halls of Capitol Hill who have refused to add any more money to this or other contests to help improve American technical capabilities for spaceflight.There have been 4 different companies and groups of people involved directly with this contest that have also launched working hardware.
That is a huge deal, as these groups have proven flight-worthy hardware capable of being used in other areas.
One of the teams had their "chief" engineer hired out from under them and is now working for Scaled Composites.
That these guys who built these rockets are now high on the list for head-hunters who want to look for talented and generally young engineers who have the skills necessary to build future rockets.... that should be readily apparent.This is a very well managed contest, and one of the best applications of taxpayer money that I have seen in a long, long time.
To achieve similar results for a conventional NASA technology demonstrator project, it would have easily cost 10x or more with bureaucratic overhead from hell and only one semi-competent company involved that likely would have ended up as a failure or even just a simple paper study instead.
That seems to be the typical way that NASA does business, and for their effort they got four different rocket designs each with their own independent design heritage.
That is huge in my book.Your proposal to "share the wealth" makes absolutely no sense to me in this situation at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964736</id>
	<title>Already done</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1257269520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a programable HP calculator. I believe it was a HP-41C. That had a lander program where you needed to enter figures to determine your decent onto the moon.</p><p>That was many, many years ago. So can I now get the money for wasting so much time on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a programable HP calculator .
I believe it was a HP-41C .
That had a lander program where you needed to enter figures to determine your decent onto the moon.That was many , many years ago .
So can I now get the money for wasting so much time on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a programable HP calculator.
I believe it was a HP-41C.
That had a lander program where you needed to enter figures to determine your decent onto the moon.That was many, many years ago.
So can I now get the money for wasting so much time on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965004</id>
	<title>A Real Faked Moon Landing</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1257270720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally some vindication for those in the tinfoil hats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally some vindication for those in the tinfoil hats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally some vindication for those in the tinfoil hats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965250</id>
	<title>Fake!</title>
	<author>GNUThomson</author>
	<datestamp>1257271740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will make faking lunar landings soooo much easier!
Hmmm.... unless this competition was faked, too!


Quick, where's my tinfoil hat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will make faking lunar landings soooo much easier !
Hmmm.... unless this competition was faked , too !
Quick , where 's my tinfoil hat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will make faking lunar landings soooo much easier!
Hmmm.... unless this competition was faked, too!
Quick, where's my tinfoil hat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29968136</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257242580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm.  I'll take "You missed the point" for $2000, Alex.</p><p>This wasn't an orbital launch competition.  This was a competition to build a craft capable of fulfilling the role of a re-usable lunar lander.  Because we have roughly 6x the gravity here on Earth, the flight requirements were scaled to match.  This was a competition to develop the control systems that would enable that sort of craft.  It was also a competition to actually build and fly such a craft to prove that your control systems work in an environment that is *more* difficult to fly in than the moon.  (On the moon, you don't have to worry about a gust of wind blowing you off course.)  If these craft are capable of completing the contest requirements, then they are more than capable of fulfilling the requirements in the actual lunar environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
I 'll take " You missed the point " for $ 2000 , Alex.This was n't an orbital launch competition .
This was a competition to build a craft capable of fulfilling the role of a re-usable lunar lander .
Because we have roughly 6x the gravity here on Earth , the flight requirements were scaled to match .
This was a competition to develop the control systems that would enable that sort of craft .
It was also a competition to actually build and fly such a craft to prove that your control systems work in an environment that is * more * difficult to fly in than the moon .
( On the moon , you do n't have to worry about a gust of wind blowing you off course .
) If these craft are capable of completing the contest requirements , then they are more than capable of fulfilling the requirements in the actual lunar environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
I'll take "You missed the point" for $2000, Alex.This wasn't an orbital launch competition.
This was a competition to build a craft capable of fulfilling the role of a re-usable lunar lander.
Because we have roughly 6x the gravity here on Earth, the flight requirements were scaled to match.
This was a competition to develop the control systems that would enable that sort of craft.
It was also a competition to actually build and fly such a craft to prove that your control systems work in an environment that is *more* difficult to fly in than the moon.
(On the moon, you don't have to worry about a gust of wind blowing you off course.
)  If these craft are capable of completing the contest requirements, then they are more than capable of fulfilling the requirements in the actual lunar environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965906</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1257274680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's next, a $1 million prize to the first company that can<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... construct a MOSFET (or something else the government did 50 years ago).</p></div><p>Exactly whom do you think constructs mosfets?  Wisconsin Department of Transportation?  USDA?  BATF?</p><p>Now if the offered a $1M prize for the first mosfet that switches 200 KW yet fits in a SOT-23 package (surface mount, about one by three millimeters) for like electric cars and stuff, that would be interesting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next , a $ 1 million prize to the first company that can ... construct a MOSFET ( or something else the government did 50 years ago ) .Exactly whom do you think constructs mosfets ?
Wisconsin Department of Transportation ?
USDA ? BATF ? Now if the offered a $ 1M prize for the first mosfet that switches 200 KW yet fits in a SOT-23 package ( surface mount , about one by three millimeters ) for like electric cars and stuff , that would be interesting .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next, a $1 million prize to the first company that can ... construct a MOSFET (or something else the government did 50 years ago).Exactly whom do you think constructs mosfets?
Wisconsin Department of Transportation?
USDA?  BATF?Now if the offered a $1M prize for the first mosfet that switches 200 KW yet fits in a SOT-23 package (surface mount, about one by three millimeters) for like electric cars and stuff, that would be interesting ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</id>
	<title>humm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257268140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1M + 0.5M = 1.65M !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1M + 0.5M = 1.65M !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1M + 0.5M = 1.65M !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965142</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257271260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes unfortunately 30 years ago. We stopped doing it.  And after 30 years most of the people who were involved retired. Or are near retiring.   IF we kept it up we will probably be so much better at space travel.  However the shuttle product made space travel a bad thing for government, to expensive and not far reaching enough.   We need to get off the idea of the StarTrek reusable ship. Until we get much better at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes unfortunately 30 years ago .
We stopped doing it .
And after 30 years most of the people who were involved retired .
Or are near retiring .
IF we kept it up we will probably be so much better at space travel .
However the shuttle product made space travel a bad thing for government , to expensive and not far reaching enough .
We need to get off the idea of the StarTrek reusable ship .
Until we get much better at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes unfortunately 30 years ago.
We stopped doing it.
And after 30 years most of the people who were involved retired.
Or are near retiring.
IF we kept it up we will probably be so much better at space travel.
However the shuttle product made space travel a bad thing for government, to expensive and not far reaching enough.
We need to get off the idea of the StarTrek reusable ship.
Until we get much better at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964598</id>
	<title>Rocket Club to Nasa Winner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257268980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, so in 10 years Armadillo went from a rocket club with a bunch of guys launching hobby motors in fields to building moon landers?</p><p>D</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so in 10 years Armadillo went from a rocket club with a bunch of guys launching hobby motors in fields to building moon landers ? D  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so in 10 years Armadillo went from a rocket club with a bunch of guys launching hobby motors in fields to building moon landers?D
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964424</id>
	<title>armadillo placed second!</title>
	<author>Satanboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257268320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>woot!  I've been cheering for Armadillo for a long time, hopefully we can prevent the first strogg attack if they can gain pace and get the number 1 spot soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>woot !
I 've been cheering for Armadillo for a long time , hopefully we can prevent the first strogg attack if they can gain pace and get the number 1 spot soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>woot!
I've been cheering for Armadillo for a long time, hopefully we can prevent the first strogg attack if they can gain pace and get the number 1 spot soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966776</id>
	<title>Disgraceful farce proving NASA is incompetent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257279060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Armadillo was robbed; Armadillo were first by MONTHS, succeeded in their allotted window in two sequential flight attempts and their craft never caught fire unlike Masten's.</p><p>Talk about destroying incentive. This is yet another illustration of the endemic incompetence at NASA. They could not organize a piss-up in a brewery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Armadillo was robbed ; Armadillo were first by MONTHS , succeeded in their allotted window in two sequential flight attempts and their craft never caught fire unlike Masten 's.Talk about destroying incentive .
This is yet another illustration of the endemic incompetence at NASA .
They could not organize a piss-up in a brewery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Armadillo was robbed; Armadillo were first by MONTHS, succeeded in their allotted window in two sequential flight attempts and their craft never caught fire unlike Masten's.Talk about destroying incentive.
This is yet another illustration of the endemic incompetence at NASA.
They could not organize a piss-up in a brewery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29967116</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1M + 0.5M = 1.65M !</p></div><p>did you mean:</p><p>1M + 0.5M != 1.65M</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1M + 0.5M = 1.65M ! did you mean : 1M + 0.5M ! = 1.65M</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1M + 0.5M = 1.65M !did you mean:1M + 0.5M != 1.65M
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966486</id>
	<title>First impression</title>
	<author>Venik</author>
	<datestamp>1257277500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I saw the title of the post, I thought the companies would be Industrial Light &amp; Magic and Apogee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw the title of the post , I thought the companies would be Industrial Light &amp; Magic and Apogee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw the title of the post, I thought the companies would be Industrial Light &amp; Magic and Apogee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29972400</id>
	<title>Re:Carmack was robbed</title>
	<author>Chris Gunn</author>
	<datestamp>1257260400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He admitted we would do the same given a chance.

He knew then nature of the competition when he entered.
I don't just mean the rules, but the motivations of the organisers as well.
He has no valid reason to publicly complain.

I can understand him *feeling* like he was robbed, that's only natural human nature. He's been expecting to win since the last competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He admitted we would do the same given a chance .
He knew then nature of the competition when he entered .
I do n't just mean the rules , but the motivations of the organisers as well .
He has no valid reason to publicly complain .
I can understand him * feeling * like he was robbed , that 's only natural human nature .
He 's been expecting to win since the last competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He admitted we would do the same given a chance.
He knew then nature of the competition when he entered.
I don't just mean the rules, but the motivations of the organisers as well.
He has no valid reason to publicly complain.
I can understand him *feeling* like he was robbed, that's only natural human nature.
He's been expecting to win since the last competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29967164</id>
	<title>You don't work in business I assume?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Blatantly unfair"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hmm... I take it you don't work in the business world?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I agree it doesn't sound right but then lots of people on slashdot shout that NASA should behave more like a business concern and less like a bloated government department... being totally and blatantly unfair when it suits them to get the results they want is a good way towards operating like many major corporations...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Blatantly unfair " ... hmm... I take it you do n't work in the business world ?
: - ) I agree it does n't sound right but then lots of people on slashdot shout that NASA should behave more like a business concern and less like a bloated government department... being totally and blatantly unfair when it suits them to get the results they want is a good way towards operating like many major corporations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Blatantly unfair" ... hmm... I take it you don't work in the business world?
:-)I agree it doesn't sound right but then lots of people on slashdot shout that NASA should behave more like a business concern and less like a bloated government department... being totally and blatantly unfair when it suits them to get the results they want is a good way towards operating like many major corporations...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965338</id>
	<title>Competition</title>
	<author>dferrantino</author>
	<datestamp>1257272100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and unfortunately the contractors building spacecraft for NASA now are the same ones who built them in the 60s. Competition, in general, spurs innovation and makes things cheaper, and pushing the growth of new startups in the industry would, at the bare minimum, bring new ideas to the fore.

Ideally I'm sure the goal is to get private companies more involved in launching and exploration. There are very few around currently, and most of them are still only in the developmental stages. NASA wins by both creating competition, and taking workload off of their own engineers. It also gives incentive for these companies to develop tech on their own, before government budgets come into play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and unfortunately the contractors building spacecraft for NASA now are the same ones who built them in the 60s .
Competition , in general , spurs innovation and makes things cheaper , and pushing the growth of new startups in the industry would , at the bare minimum , bring new ideas to the fore .
Ideally I 'm sure the goal is to get private companies more involved in launching and exploration .
There are very few around currently , and most of them are still only in the developmental stages .
NASA wins by both creating competition , and taking workload off of their own engineers .
It also gives incentive for these companies to develop tech on their own , before government budgets come into play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and unfortunately the contractors building spacecraft for NASA now are the same ones who built them in the 60s.
Competition, in general, spurs innovation and makes things cheaper, and pushing the growth of new startups in the industry would, at the bare minimum, bring new ideas to the fore.
Ideally I'm sure the goal is to get private companies more involved in launching and exploration.
There are very few around currently, and most of them are still only in the developmental stages.
NASA wins by both creating competition, and taking workload off of their own engineers.
It also gives incentive for these companies to develop tech on their own, before government budgets come into play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964422</id>
	<title>its NASA!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257268320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if we have learned anything in the past, just because it works in a simulation doesn't mean it will work in reality, more or less in Zero G.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if we have learned anything in the past , just because it works in a simulation does n't mean it will work in reality , more or less in Zero G .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if we have learned anything in the past, just because it works in a simulation doesn't mean it will work in reality, more or less in Zero G.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964952</id>
	<title>Re:its NASA!!!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257270480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if we have learned anything in the past, just because it works in a simulation doesn't mean it will work in reality, more or less in Zero G.</i></p><p>FYI, this wasn't a simulation in the sense of a <i>computer</i> simulation, but rather in the sense that they were not actually required to perform this test on the moon.  As far as I can tell from TFA, the only thing "simulated" was the Level 2 landing site which instead of a flat landing pad was a rocky surface designed to "simulate" the surface of the moon.</p><p>So, these were real rockets that were really taking off, traveling horizontally, and landing vertically.  Yes gravity would be lower on the moon (not zero) and that could certainly introduce some kinds but I think this is still a worthwhile demonstration of working technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if we have learned anything in the past , just because it works in a simulation does n't mean it will work in reality , more or less in Zero G.FYI , this was n't a simulation in the sense of a computer simulation , but rather in the sense that they were not actually required to perform this test on the moon .
As far as I can tell from TFA , the only thing " simulated " was the Level 2 landing site which instead of a flat landing pad was a rocky surface designed to " simulate " the surface of the moon.So , these were real rockets that were really taking off , traveling horizontally , and landing vertically .
Yes gravity would be lower on the moon ( not zero ) and that could certainly introduce some kinds but I think this is still a worthwhile demonstration of working technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if we have learned anything in the past, just because it works in a simulation doesn't mean it will work in reality, more or less in Zero G.FYI, this wasn't a simulation in the sense of a computer simulation, but rather in the sense that they were not actually required to perform this test on the moon.
As far as I can tell from TFA, the only thing "simulated" was the Level 2 landing site which instead of a flat landing pad was a rocky surface designed to "simulate" the surface of the moon.So, these were real rockets that were really taking off, traveling horizontally, and landing vertically.
Yes gravity would be lower on the moon (not zero) and that could certainly introduce some kinds but I think this is still a worthwhile demonstration of working technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29971634</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257255540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ships can, and should be reusable. In deep space. The solution is to decouple deep space travel and launch - when you're launching the ship you need multistage and some other tricks to escape the gravity well. But when you're in space you can use the same ship to travel to Mars and back twice, with only a refueling stop, since it takes rather little energy to propel yourself once you're out of Earth's gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ships can , and should be reusable .
In deep space .
The solution is to decouple deep space travel and launch - when you 're launching the ship you need multistage and some other tricks to escape the gravity well .
But when you 're in space you can use the same ship to travel to Mars and back twice , with only a refueling stop , since it takes rather little energy to propel yourself once you 're out of Earth 's gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ships can, and should be reusable.
In deep space.
The solution is to decouple deep space travel and launch - when you're launching the ship you need multistage and some other tricks to escape the gravity well.
But when you're in space you can use the same ship to travel to Mars and back twice, with only a refueling stop, since it takes rather little energy to propel yourself once you're out of Earth's gravity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964862</id>
	<title>Re:humm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257270000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reward was in Imperial dollars the other reward was in metric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reward was in Imperial dollars the other reward was in metric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reward was in Imperial dollars the other reward was in metric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966106</id>
	<title>Re:Already done</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1257275640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two years ago I worked with my son to build a Lunar Lander program on his TI calculator; it was pretty much his introduction to programming.  Good times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two years ago I worked with my son to build a Lunar Lander program on his TI calculator ; it was pretty much his introduction to programming .
Good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two years ago I worked with my son to build a Lunar Lander program on his TI calculator; it was pretty much his introduction to programming.
Good times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965962</id>
	<title>Re:Ummmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wondered why Camarack is wasting his time building rockets and why NASA bothers holding such pointless contests.  I wouldn't want real live people to go anywhere near these contraptions even if they do "work".  Rocket science requires world class effort and resources that camarack just does not have.</p><p>If you want to do something that matters in this space contribute to material science, control systems, simulation, design automation..etc, there are a ton of possibilities.  Reinventing the wheel with lox propellents is a dead end.</p><p>The spaceship prizes that hand out awards to peoples crappy little crafts for almost making it into space is also a joke.  It takes 30x the thrust than what they are capable of to get into anything resembling a real orbit.</p><p>Please don't take this the wrong way - I think it would be awesome for private companies to successfully design rockets, shuttles..etc and advance the state of art beyond what NASA is capable of but these contests are more of a PR effort than an honest attempt at accomplishing a specific technological goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered why Camarack is wasting his time building rockets and why NASA bothers holding such pointless contests .
I would n't want real live people to go anywhere near these contraptions even if they do " work " .
Rocket science requires world class effort and resources that camarack just does not have.If you want to do something that matters in this space contribute to material science , control systems , simulation , design automation..etc , there are a ton of possibilities .
Reinventing the wheel with lox propellents is a dead end.The spaceship prizes that hand out awards to peoples crappy little crafts for almost making it into space is also a joke .
It takes 30x the thrust than what they are capable of to get into anything resembling a real orbit.Please do n't take this the wrong way - I think it would be awesome for private companies to successfully design rockets , shuttles..etc and advance the state of art beyond what NASA is capable of but these contests are more of a PR effort than an honest attempt at accomplishing a specific technological goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered why Camarack is wasting his time building rockets and why NASA bothers holding such pointless contests.
I wouldn't want real live people to go anywhere near these contraptions even if they do "work".
Rocket science requires world class effort and resources that camarack just does not have.If you want to do something that matters in this space contribute to material science, control systems, simulation, design automation..etc, there are a ton of possibilities.
Reinventing the wheel with lox propellents is a dead end.The spaceship prizes that hand out awards to peoples crappy little crafts for almost making it into space is also a joke.
It takes 30x the thrust than what they are capable of to get into anything resembling a real orbit.Please don't take this the wrong way - I think it would be awesome for private companies to successfully design rockets, shuttles..etc and advance the state of art beyond what NASA is capable of but these contests are more of a PR effort than an honest attempt at accomplishing a specific technological goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965652</id>
	<title>Re:It ended in some amount of controversy</title>
	<author>njvack</author>
	<datestamp>1257273480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think any of the three final teams would have removed a part from their engine and loaned it to another team.</p></div><p>And indeed, after Masten's third attempt, their rocket was damaged badly enough by a fire that they really thought they wouldn't be able to fly the next day, regardless of the judges' decision. It was the help of volunteers from other competing teams that got them off the ground the next day. In addition to fixing the problem that caused the fire, they essentially needed to replace all the wiring on the rocket.</p><p>And the next day, a bunch of Masten's team members drove up to FAR and helped Unreasonable Rocket to troubleshoot <em>their</em> rockets -- even though success by Unreasonable could only cost them prize money.</p><p>The members of these teams are not only ridiculously talented, they're also ridiculously open and supportive of each other. It's a bit humbling to watch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think any of the three final teams would have removed a part from their engine and loaned it to another team.And indeed , after Masten 's third attempt , their rocket was damaged badly enough by a fire that they really thought they would n't be able to fly the next day , regardless of the judges ' decision .
It was the help of volunteers from other competing teams that got them off the ground the next day .
In addition to fixing the problem that caused the fire , they essentially needed to replace all the wiring on the rocket.And the next day , a bunch of Masten 's team members drove up to FAR and helped Unreasonable Rocket to troubleshoot their rockets -- even though success by Unreasonable could only cost them prize money.The members of these teams are not only ridiculously talented , they 're also ridiculously open and supportive of each other .
It 's a bit humbling to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think any of the three final teams would have removed a part from their engine and loaned it to another team.And indeed, after Masten's third attempt, their rocket was damaged badly enough by a fire that they really thought they wouldn't be able to fly the next day, regardless of the judges' decision.
It was the help of volunteers from other competing teams that got them off the ground the next day.
In addition to fixing the problem that caused the fire, they essentially needed to replace all the wiring on the rocket.And the next day, a bunch of Masten's team members drove up to FAR and helped Unreasonable Rocket to troubleshoot their rockets -- even though success by Unreasonable could only cost them prize money.The members of these teams are not only ridiculously talented, they're also ridiculously open and supportive of each other.
It's a bit humbling to watch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964830</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29967116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29971634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29972400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29967164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29980720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29981446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29969114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29975154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1554207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29968136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29980720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29971634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29968136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29972400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29967164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29981446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29975154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29969114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29967116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29966490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29964948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1554207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1554207.29965338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
