<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_17_205205</id>
	<title>NASA Willing To Team With China; Rumors of a Budget Cut</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258447320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"2009 has been an interesting year for NASA &mdash; from <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/02/202223/NASA-Trying-To-Reinvent-Their-Approach">a new strategy</a> to <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/25/1614246/NASA-To-Team-Up-With-Russia-For-Future-Mars-Flight">even closer ties with an old enemy</a>. So it's perhaps no surprise that NASA has publicly stated that they are <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hla2i5PLLHuXp5CanUH6ygR6M5zA">ready to team up with China</a>. NASA Chief Charles Bolden said, 'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor. I think they're a very capable nation. They have demonstrated their capability to do something that only two other nations that have done &mdash; that is, to put humans in space. And I think that is an achievement you cannot ignore. They are a nation that is trying to really lead. If we could cooperate we would probably be better off than if we would not.' While the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China\_National\_Space\_Administration">budget of the China National Space Administration</a> is a fraction of NASA's, partnering with them has been <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22777.pdf">considered since 2008</a>. In possibly related news, rumors are circulating of the Obama administration <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-atlantis-shuttle-launch-20091116,0,4658928.story">cutting NASA's budget by ten percent</a> for fiscal year 2011 despite the success of Monday's Atlantis launch. Considering the <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1955242/Future-of-NASAs-Manned-Spaceflight-Looks-Bleak">Augustine panel's recommendations</a>, such a cut could halt US human space flight for a decade."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " 2009 has been an interesting year for NASA    from a new strategy to even closer ties with an old enemy .
So it 's perhaps no surprise that NASA has publicly stated that they are ready to team up with China .
NASA Chief Charles Bolden said , 'I am perfectly willing , if that 's the direction that comes to me , to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor .
I think they 're a very capable nation .
They have demonstrated their capability to do something that only two other nations that have done    that is , to put humans in space .
And I think that is an achievement you can not ignore .
They are a nation that is trying to really lead .
If we could cooperate we would probably be better off than if we would not .
' While the budget of the China National Space Administration is a fraction of NASA 's , partnering with them has been considered since 2008 .
In possibly related news , rumors are circulating of the Obama administration cutting NASA 's budget by ten percent for fiscal year 2011 despite the success of Monday 's Atlantis launch .
Considering the Augustine panel 's recommendations , such a cut could halt US human space flight for a decade .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "2009 has been an interesting year for NASA — from a new strategy to even closer ties with an old enemy.
So it's perhaps no surprise that NASA has publicly stated that they are ready to team up with China.
NASA Chief Charles Bolden said, 'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor.
I think they're a very capable nation.
They have demonstrated their capability to do something that only two other nations that have done — that is, to put humans in space.
And I think that is an achievement you cannot ignore.
They are a nation that is trying to really lead.
If we could cooperate we would probably be better off than if we would not.
' While the budget of the China National Space Administration is a fraction of NASA's, partnering with them has been considered since 2008.
In possibly related news, rumors are circulating of the Obama administration cutting NASA's budget by ten percent for fiscal year 2011 despite the success of Monday's Atlantis launch.
Considering the Augustine panel's recommendations, such a cut could halt US human space flight for a decade.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139852</id>
	<title>Re:we should team up with Canada and Mexico</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258480740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i thought it was more like a robotic arm...</p><p>space station's arm is canadian</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought it was more like a robotic arm...space station 's arm is canadian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought it was more like a robotic arm...space station's arm is canadian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135062</id>
	<title>Team Up With</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.energia.ru/" title="energia.ru" rel="nofollow">Energia</a> [energia.ru].</p><p>Yours In Baikonur,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Energia [ energia.ru ] .Yours In Baikonur,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energia [energia.ru].Yours In Baikonur,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139510</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1258477860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Somehow I don't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; Nuking China in response to economic blackmail would turn the entire world against the US. I hope that none of our politicians here are that crazy. If there are pols that crazy, we need to lock them up. Immediately.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I do n't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state .
  Nuking China in response to economic blackmail would turn the entire world against the US .
I hope that none of our politicians here are that crazy .
If there are pols that crazy , we need to lock them up .
Immediately.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I don't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state.
  Nuking China in response to economic blackmail would turn the entire world against the US.
I hope that none of our politicians here are that crazy.
If there are pols that crazy, we need to lock them up.
Immediately.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136086</id>
	<title>Give them more money!</title>
	<author>Silm</author>
	<datestamp>1258456860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder why it is so bewildering for any government to just give more money to NASA and the likes. The arguments for an increase in spending are huge, both from an economical standpoint, and of course as a good way to increase the scientific knowledge of the whole human population.
Should I perhaps be more cynical and just assume leaders are all corrupt, powerhungry, and dont really care for the common good? I can accept some of these exist, however regrettable. Keeping that in mind, there should atleast be some leaders with a good interest in science. Where the heck are they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why it is so bewildering for any government to just give more money to NASA and the likes .
The arguments for an increase in spending are huge , both from an economical standpoint , and of course as a good way to increase the scientific knowledge of the whole human population .
Should I perhaps be more cynical and just assume leaders are all corrupt , powerhungry , and dont really care for the common good ?
I can accept some of these exist , however regrettable .
Keeping that in mind , there should atleast be some leaders with a good interest in science .
Where the heck are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why it is so bewildering for any government to just give more money to NASA and the likes.
The arguments for an increase in spending are huge, both from an economical standpoint, and of course as a good way to increase the scientific knowledge of the whole human population.
Should I perhaps be more cynical and just assume leaders are all corrupt, powerhungry, and dont really care for the common good?
I can accept some of these exist, however regrettable.
Keeping that in mind, there should atleast be some leaders with a good interest in science.
Where the heck are they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135066</id>
	<title>Re:Why not team up with Russia?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it does really boil down to politics.  NASA is willing to team with China because the Administration is bullish on China.  NASA is unwilling to team with Russia because Congress doesn't want to because of Russia's violation of various technology transfer treaties.  (Congress is currently making noises about not renewing or canceling the special dispensation that allows NASA astronauts to fly on Soyuz.)<br> <br>The basic technology for the Chinese program did originally come from Russia, but they've gone considerably beyond that now.  However, real the problem is that China doesn't actually appear to be interested in much more than the "Potemkin village" program they currently have.  They spend just enough and fly just enough and try just enough that they appear to have a space program (a modern hallmark of a 'Great Nation', as battlewagons were back before WWII) but no more.  Sure, China produces a lot of press releases and Brave Pronunciations Of Grand Goals In Space...  But there doesn't seem to ever be much in the way of actual progress.  (Though it does keep columnists and bloggers busy pandering to the easily excitable demographic.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it does really boil down to politics .
NASA is willing to team with China because the Administration is bullish on China .
NASA is unwilling to team with Russia because Congress does n't want to because of Russia 's violation of various technology transfer treaties .
( Congress is currently making noises about not renewing or canceling the special dispensation that allows NASA astronauts to fly on Soyuz .
) The basic technology for the Chinese program did originally come from Russia , but they 've gone considerably beyond that now .
However , real the problem is that China does n't actually appear to be interested in much more than the " Potemkin village " program they currently have .
They spend just enough and fly just enough and try just enough that they appear to have a space program ( a modern hallmark of a 'Great Nation ' , as battlewagons were back before WWII ) but no more .
Sure , China produces a lot of press releases and Brave Pronunciations Of Grand Goals In Space... But there does n't seem to ever be much in the way of actual progress .
( Though it does keep columnists and bloggers busy pandering to the easily excitable demographic .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it does really boil down to politics.
NASA is willing to team with China because the Administration is bullish on China.
NASA is unwilling to team with Russia because Congress doesn't want to because of Russia's violation of various technology transfer treaties.
(Congress is currently making noises about not renewing or canceling the special dispensation that allows NASA astronauts to fly on Soyuz.
) The basic technology for the Chinese program did originally come from Russia, but they've gone considerably beyond that now.
However, real the problem is that China doesn't actually appear to be interested in much more than the "Potemkin village" program they currently have.
They spend just enough and fly just enough and try just enough that they appear to have a space program (a modern hallmark of a 'Great Nation', as battlewagons were back before WWII) but no more.
Sure, China produces a lot of press releases and Brave Pronunciations Of Grand Goals In Space...  But there doesn't seem to ever be much in the way of actual progress.
(Though it does keep columnists and bloggers busy pandering to the easily excitable demographic.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135270</id>
	<title>Re:we should team up with Canada and Mexico</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1258453800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we did it for the moon landings.</p><p>Our Avro engineers needed a job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we did it for the moon landings.Our Avro engineers needed a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we did it for the moon landings.Our Avro engineers needed a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137922</id>
	<title>Re:We're Never Going to Mars...</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1258465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If Obama cuts NASA's budget by ten percent. No matter where you stand on the issue, we're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.</i></p><p>Obama is giving us change we can believe in!  A big budget cut for NASA, and more soldiers in Afghanistan.  I'm so glad everyone voted for Obama instead of that warmonger McCain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Obama cuts NASA 's budget by ten percent .
No matter where you stand on the issue , we 're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.Obama is giving us change we can believe in !
A big budget cut for NASA , and more soldiers in Afghanistan .
I 'm so glad everyone voted for Obama instead of that warmonger McCain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Obama cuts NASA's budget by ten percent.
No matter where you stand on the issue, we're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.Obama is giving us change we can believe in!
A big budget cut for NASA, and more soldiers in Afghanistan.
I'm so glad everyone voted for Obama instead of that warmonger McCain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134674</id>
	<title>Real Danger is avoiding rockets</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1258451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The quiet truth is that China has the rare opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the US.
<p>
Frankly, their rocket science is not up to our par.  Instead of investing in rocket science they could ignore it and go right to Space Fountain.  Cheaper in the long run.
</p><p>
The scientific basics are sound, they have the tibetan plateau (great place to build most space industries as it is has huge flat areas that are 5,000 meters above sea level), and they don't have to deal with an entrenched existing industry that doesn't want the competition.  Yes, no one has built more than the most rudimentary test version, but the theory says it will work without the scientific advancements in materials that the space elevator needs.
</p><p>
The only thing protecting the US's space advantage is the inherent conservativism that all dictatorships develop.  Their government actively discourages independent thinking so instead of trying to build something new, they will most likely stick with the old style rocket technology that the US has already proven to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The quiet truth is that China has the rare opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the US .
Frankly , their rocket science is not up to our par .
Instead of investing in rocket science they could ignore it and go right to Space Fountain .
Cheaper in the long run .
The scientific basics are sound , they have the tibetan plateau ( great place to build most space industries as it is has huge flat areas that are 5,000 meters above sea level ) , and they do n't have to deal with an entrenched existing industry that does n't want the competition .
Yes , no one has built more than the most rudimentary test version , but the theory says it will work without the scientific advancements in materials that the space elevator needs .
The only thing protecting the US 's space advantage is the inherent conservativism that all dictatorships develop .
Their government actively discourages independent thinking so instead of trying to build something new , they will most likely stick with the old style rocket technology that the US has already proven to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quiet truth is that China has the rare opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the US.
Frankly, their rocket science is not up to our par.
Instead of investing in rocket science they could ignore it and go right to Space Fountain.
Cheaper in the long run.
The scientific basics are sound, they have the tibetan plateau (great place to build most space industries as it is has huge flat areas that are 5,000 meters above sea level), and they don't have to deal with an entrenched existing industry that doesn't want the competition.
Yes, no one has built more than the most rudimentary test version, but the theory says it will work without the scientific advancements in materials that the space elevator needs.
The only thing protecting the US's space advantage is the inherent conservativism that all dictatorships develop.
Their government actively discourages independent thinking so instead of trying to build something new, they will most likely stick with the old style rocket technology that the US has already proven to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136106</id>
	<title>Re:Worst Idea going</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1258457040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>knee-jerk cold war thinking.</p><p>Just because China is nominally communist, doesn't mean they're trying to destroy the west.  Obviously China is more concerned with Chinese growth than US growth, but there <i>is</i> such a thing as win-win.  With all the free-traders around here, I'd think that was a given...</p><p>China can't build modern war planes or modern subs - what makes you think they can build a useful military space station?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>knee-jerk cold war thinking.Just because China is nominally communist , does n't mean they 're trying to destroy the west .
Obviously China is more concerned with Chinese growth than US growth , but there is such a thing as win-win .
With all the free-traders around here , I 'd think that was a given...China ca n't build modern war planes or modern subs - what makes you think they can build a useful military space station ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>knee-jerk cold war thinking.Just because China is nominally communist, doesn't mean they're trying to destroy the west.
Obviously China is more concerned with Chinese growth than US growth, but there is such a thing as win-win.
With all the free-traders around here, I'd think that was a given...China can't build modern war planes or modern subs - what makes you think they can build a useful military space station?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135510</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1258454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on.  China has missiles.  China has advanced guidance systems.  That's in part because of the Soviets and in part because they've done so well at stealing US secrets already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on .
China has missiles .
China has advanced guidance systems .
That 's in part because of the Soviets and in part because they 've done so well at stealing US secrets already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on.
China has missiles.
China has advanced guidance systems.
That's in part because of the Soviets and in part because they've done so well at stealing US secrets already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134488</id>
	<title>Misquote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor.'</p><p>Should read:</p><p>'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a <em>banker</em> in any space endeavor.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'I am perfectly willing , if that 's the direction that comes to me , to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor .
'Should read : 'I am perfectly willing , if that 's the direction that comes to me , to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a banker in any space endeavor .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor.
'Should read:'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a banker in any space endeavor.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135238</id>
	<title>Why is this a surprise? Obama hates space.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad truth is, there was only one candidate out there who liked the idea of NASA. Hillary. If you gave a damn about space, you voted for her. After she was out... NASA was screwed.</p><p>Obama - said early on he'd cut NASA for education funds.<br>McCain could care less one way or another if memory serves.</p><p>Obama heralds the age of no more manned NASA. About the only hope for US manned ambition is Dragon, or a COTS contract.</p><p>About the most optimistic thing I can say about this, is that maybe killing off manned space will free up room for more awesome robotic missions (Terrestial Planet Imager, I'm looking at you!). Who knows? Maybe he'll punt, and we'll abandon the moon for visiting an asteroid (which always sounded more interesting to me anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad truth is , there was only one candidate out there who liked the idea of NASA .
Hillary. If you gave a damn about space , you voted for her .
After she was out... NASA was screwed.Obama - said early on he 'd cut NASA for education funds.McCain could care less one way or another if memory serves.Obama heralds the age of no more manned NASA .
About the only hope for US manned ambition is Dragon , or a COTS contract.About the most optimistic thing I can say about this , is that maybe killing off manned space will free up room for more awesome robotic missions ( Terrestial Planet Imager , I 'm looking at you ! ) .
Who knows ?
Maybe he 'll punt , and we 'll abandon the moon for visiting an asteroid ( which always sounded more interesting to me anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad truth is, there was only one candidate out there who liked the idea of NASA.
Hillary. If you gave a damn about space, you voted for her.
After she was out... NASA was screwed.Obama - said early on he'd cut NASA for education funds.McCain could care less one way or another if memory serves.Obama heralds the age of no more manned NASA.
About the only hope for US manned ambition is Dragon, or a COTS contract.About the most optimistic thing I can say about this, is that maybe killing off manned space will free up room for more awesome robotic missions (Terrestial Planet Imager, I'm looking at you!).
Who knows?
Maybe he'll punt, and we'll abandon the moon for visiting an asteroid (which always sounded more interesting to me anyway).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134974</id>
	<title>Stereotype Obligatory</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258452840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Chinese missions is that you feel like going back up just a few hours after landing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Chinese missions is that you feel like going back up just a few hours after landing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Chinese missions is that you feel like going back up just a few hours after landing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137980</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1258465860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When did we start inventing stuff again?  I thought we ended that fad back in the 60's.  Last I knew we bought our innovations from S. Korea, our cheap from China, and our government mandated U.S. goods from local companies that out-source to Mexico.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When did we start inventing stuff again ?
I thought we ended that fad back in the 60 's .
Last I knew we bought our innovations from S. Korea , our cheap from China , and our government mandated U.S. goods from local companies that out-source to Mexico .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did we start inventing stuff again?
I thought we ended that fad back in the 60's.
Last I knew we bought our innovations from S. Korea, our cheap from China, and our government mandated U.S. goods from local companies that out-source to Mexico.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134586</id>
	<title>Chinese requirements</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1258451520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>Communication with the space ships has to be filtered by the Great Firewall.</li><li>All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rockets</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Communication with the space ships has to be filtered by the Great Firewall.All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rockets</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Communication with the space ships has to be filtered by the Great Firewall.All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rockets</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135336</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People make such a big deal out of China owning the US debt. They do so to act as a currency reserve because historically (meaning over of the last 50 years) the US has had significantly lower inflation and instability than most other nations. But the primary reason the Chinese have purchased US debt is identical to the reason the Japenesse continue to invest billions of Yen in the Debt, and that's to keep the US dollar artificially elevated.</p><p>These governments are intervening and unbalancing currencies to artificially keep the dollar high and cause imports to be cheaper in the US to wipe out US industrial production. Eventually the market will correct, but because of the intervention the correction is going to be much sharper than had it been allowed to happen naturally. Once the dollar drops to reflect the actual real value of the dollar US exports will rise and the system will re-balance but the pain level for the US consumer is going to be very very high. But we can't compete when we allow foreign governments to manipulate the value of currency to keep it high. Currency manipulation is a serious issue with China, it should be the top priority of any negotiations with China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People make such a big deal out of China owning the US debt .
They do so to act as a currency reserve because historically ( meaning over of the last 50 years ) the US has had significantly lower inflation and instability than most other nations .
But the primary reason the Chinese have purchased US debt is identical to the reason the Japenesse continue to invest billions of Yen in the Debt , and that 's to keep the US dollar artificially elevated.These governments are intervening and unbalancing currencies to artificially keep the dollar high and cause imports to be cheaper in the US to wipe out US industrial production .
Eventually the market will correct , but because of the intervention the correction is going to be much sharper than had it been allowed to happen naturally .
Once the dollar drops to reflect the actual real value of the dollar US exports will rise and the system will re-balance but the pain level for the US consumer is going to be very very high .
But we ca n't compete when we allow foreign governments to manipulate the value of currency to keep it high .
Currency manipulation is a serious issue with China , it should be the top priority of any negotiations with China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People make such a big deal out of China owning the US debt.
They do so to act as a currency reserve because historically (meaning over of the last 50 years) the US has had significantly lower inflation and instability than most other nations.
But the primary reason the Chinese have purchased US debt is identical to the reason the Japenesse continue to invest billions of Yen in the Debt, and that's to keep the US dollar artificially elevated.These governments are intervening and unbalancing currencies to artificially keep the dollar high and cause imports to be cheaper in the US to wipe out US industrial production.
Eventually the market will correct, but because of the intervention the correction is going to be much sharper than had it been allowed to happen naturally.
Once the dollar drops to reflect the actual real value of the dollar US exports will rise and the system will re-balance but the pain level for the US consumer is going to be very very high.
But we can't compete when we allow foreign governments to manipulate the value of currency to keep it high.
Currency manipulation is a serious issue with China, it should be the top priority of any negotiations with China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135664</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese requirements</title>
	<author>dtml-try MyNick</author>
	<datestamp>1258455000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ul> <li>All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rockets</li></ul></div><p>Actually I think that is one of the main problems of today's space programs. Especially NASA's.</p><p>They are so hung op on the quadrupal redundant, 99.9999999999\% safe and fail-proof flights that the costs to achieve such goals are way out of balance with the goal that needs to be achieved.</p><p>Fuck the almost 100\% guarantee that nothing can go wrong<br>I'll settle for 90\% if that means 10x more exploration.<br>Yes, rockets will explode, astronauts will die. So what? All in the day's job...</p><p>"there is a small chance you might die on your next mission, sign here please"<br>Not much difference compared to joining the army or something alike.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rocketsActually I think that is one of the main problems of today 's space programs .
Especially NASA 's.They are so hung op on the quadrupal redundant , 99.9999999999 \ % safe and fail-proof flights that the costs to achieve such goals are way out of balance with the goal that needs to be achieved.Fuck the almost 100 \ % guarantee that nothing can go wrongI 'll settle for 90 \ % if that means 10x more exploration.Yes , rockets will explode , astronauts will die .
So what ?
All in the day 's job... " there is a small chance you might die on your next mission , sign here please " Not much difference compared to joining the army or something alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> All flights are done with cheap Chinese copies of NASA rocketsActually I think that is one of the main problems of today's space programs.
Especially NASA's.They are so hung op on the quadrupal redundant, 99.9999999999\% safe and fail-proof flights that the costs to achieve such goals are way out of balance with the goal that needs to be achieved.Fuck the almost 100\% guarantee that nothing can go wrongI'll settle for 90\% if that means 10x more exploration.Yes, rockets will explode, astronauts will die.
So what?
All in the day's job..."there is a small chance you might die on your next mission, sign here please"Not much difference compared to joining the army or something alike.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135032</id>
	<title>Re:Just 10\%?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.</p><p>1\% of the budget to ensure the continued survival of our species is entirely too much to spend. I mean, sure, one fortieth of our current military budget, one twentieths of our human resources budget, or one tenth of our general government budget could easily pay for NASA. But who needs that when we can just gut the program and let someone else take care of the issue!</p><p>Who cares if this is your responsibility, government! Several of my friends, who are currently against this government, fully applaud this decision. Sure, we normally complain about "socialism" and letting other people take care of our responsibilities....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but in this scenario, it's OK. Let the Chinese take care of our responsibility to ensure the long-term survival of our species. We've better things to spend our money on, such as waging a war on personal freedoms and producing guns.</p><p>I'm just saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up.1 \ % of the budget to ensure the continued survival of our species is entirely too much to spend .
I mean , sure , one fortieth of our current military budget , one twentieths of our human resources budget , or one tenth of our general government budget could easily pay for NASA .
But who needs that when we can just gut the program and let someone else take care of the issue ! Who cares if this is your responsibility , government !
Several of my friends , who are currently against this government , fully applaud this decision .
Sure , we normally complain about " socialism " and letting other people take care of our responsibilities.... ... but in this scenario , it 's OK. Let the Chinese take care of our responsibility to ensure the long-term survival of our species .
We 've better things to spend our money on , such as waging a war on personal freedoms and producing guns.I 'm just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.1\% of the budget to ensure the continued survival of our species is entirely too much to spend.
I mean, sure, one fortieth of our current military budget, one twentieths of our human resources budget, or one tenth of our general government budget could easily pay for NASA.
But who needs that when we can just gut the program and let someone else take care of the issue!Who cares if this is your responsibility, government!
Several of my friends, who are currently against this government, fully applaud this decision.
Sure, we normally complain about "socialism" and letting other people take care of our responsibilities.... ... but in this scenario, it's OK. Let the Chinese take care of our responsibility to ensure the long-term survival of our species.
We've better things to spend our money on, such as waging a war on personal freedoms and producing guns.I'm just saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136132</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1258457160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>In the end, the real question is not the cut. The real question is, what will he replace this with? Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct (which COULD get by with less money)?</b></p></div><p>Another major question is whether or not it's truly necessary for NASA to spend tens of billions of dollars developing a new heavy-lift vehicle. For example, this proposal by the ULA uses commercial launchers and propellant depots instead of heavy-lift to create an exploration architecture suitable for NEO, Lunar, and ultimately Martian exploration, at a fraction of the cost:</p><p><a href="http://ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf" title="ulalaunch.com">http://ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf</a> [ulalaunch.com]</p><p>Abstract:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture</p><p>Frank Zegler1, Bernard F. Kutter2, Jon Barr3</p><p>The present ESAS architecture for lunar exploration is dependent on a large launcher. It has<br>been assumed that either the ARES V or something similar, such as the proposed Jupiter<br>"Direct" lifters are mandatory for serious lunar exploration. These launch vehicles require<br>extensive development with costs ranging into the tens of billions of dollars and with first<br>flight likely most of a decade away. In the end they will mimic the Saturn V<br>programmatically: a single-purpose lifter with a single user who must bear all costs. This<br>programmatic structure has not been shown to be effective in the long term. It is<br>characterized by low demonstrated reliability, ballooning costs and a glacial pace of<br>improvements.</p><p>The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a<br>large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as a<br>detriment. However since 75\% of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellant<br>with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch<br>operations. These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatable<br>location, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules. Relieved of the burden of hauling<br>propellants, the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and can<br>also be easily carried on existing launch vehicles. This strategy leads to high infrastructure<br>utilization, economic production rates, high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possible<br>costs.</p><p>This architecture encourages the exploration of the moon to be conducted not in single,<br>disconnected missions, but in a continuous process which builds orbital and surface resources<br>year by year. The architecture and vehicles themselves are directly applicable to Near Earth<br>Object and Mars exploration and the establishment of a functioning depot at earth-moon L2<br>provides a gateway for future high-mass spacecraft venturing to the rest of the solar system.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , the real question is not the cut .
The real question is , what will he replace this with ?
Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct ( which COULD get by with less money ) ? Another major question is whether or not it 's truly necessary for NASA to spend tens of billions of dollars developing a new heavy-lift vehicle .
For example , this proposal by the ULA uses commercial launchers and propellant depots instead of heavy-lift to create an exploration architecture suitable for NEO , Lunar , and ultimately Martian exploration , at a fraction of the cost : http : //ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf [ ulalaunch.com ] Abstract : A Commercially Based Lunar ArchitectureFrank Zegler1 , Bernard F. Kutter2 , Jon Barr3The present ESAS architecture for lunar exploration is dependent on a large launcher .
It hasbeen assumed that either the ARES V or something similar , such as the proposed Jupiter " Direct " lifters are mandatory for serious lunar exploration .
These launch vehicles requireextensive development with costs ranging into the tens of billions of dollars and with firstflight likely most of a decade away .
In the end they will mimic the Saturn Vprogrammatically : a single-purpose lifter with a single user who must bear all costs .
Thisprogrammatic structure has not been shown to be effective in the long term .
It ischaracterized by low demonstrated reliability , ballooning costs and a glacial pace ofimprovements.The use of smaller , commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for alarge launch vehicle .
Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as adetriment .
However since 75 \ % of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellantwith no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost , strictly commercial launchoperations .
These commercial launch vehicles , lifting a simple payload to a repeatablelocation , can be operated on regular , predictable schedules .
Relieved of the burden of haulingpropellants , the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and canalso be easily carried on existing launch vehicles .
This strategy leads to high infrastructureutilization , economic production rates , high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possiblecosts.This architecture encourages the exploration of the moon to be conducted not in single,disconnected missions , but in a continuous process which builds orbital and surface resourcesyear by year .
The architecture and vehicles themselves are directly applicable to Near EarthObject and Mars exploration and the establishment of a functioning depot at earth-moon L2provides a gateway for future high-mass spacecraft venturing to the rest of the solar system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, the real question is not the cut.
The real question is, what will he replace this with?
Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct (which COULD get by with less money)?Another major question is whether or not it's truly necessary for NASA to spend tens of billions of dollars developing a new heavy-lift vehicle.
For example, this proposal by the ULA uses commercial launchers and propellant depots instead of heavy-lift to create an exploration architecture suitable for NEO, Lunar, and ultimately Martian exploration, at a fraction of the cost:http://ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf [ulalaunch.com]Abstract:A Commercially Based Lunar ArchitectureFrank Zegler1, Bernard F. Kutter2, Jon Barr3The present ESAS architecture for lunar exploration is dependent on a large launcher.
It hasbeen assumed that either the ARES V or something similar, such as the proposed Jupiter"Direct" lifters are mandatory for serious lunar exploration.
These launch vehicles requireextensive development with costs ranging into the tens of billions of dollars and with firstflight likely most of a decade away.
In the end they will mimic the Saturn Vprogrammatically: a single-purpose lifter with a single user who must bear all costs.
Thisprogrammatic structure has not been shown to be effective in the long term.
It ischaracterized by low demonstrated reliability, ballooning costs and a glacial pace ofimprovements.The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for alarge launch vehicle.
Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as adetriment.
However since 75\% of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellantwith no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launchoperations.
These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatablelocation, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules.
Relieved of the burden of haulingpropellants, the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and canalso be easily carried on existing launch vehicles.
This strategy leads to high infrastructureutilization, economic production rates, high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possiblecosts.This architecture encourages the exploration of the moon to be conducted not in single,disconnected missions, but in a continuous process which builds orbital and surface resourcesyear by year.
The architecture and vehicles themselves are directly applicable to Near EarthObject and Mars exploration and the establishment of a functioning depot at earth-moon L2provides a gateway for future high-mass spacecraft venturing to the rest of the solar system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138746</id>
	<title>Re:Sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258471980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because Blackwater and such groups have such a good name in the international community for their even-handed techniques. Btw, your average Mercenary makes scads more than your average government owned grunt.</p><p>One of the crazy arguments people were pissed off about Bush (yes I refer to the overwhelmingly liberal fluffwits on slashdot) was that America pays often well in excess of $100,000 per mercenary in the security services, where our average soldier makes less than $30k/year.</p><p>Now here those same people come pissed off that we don't use more mercenaries. Do you people pay attention at all to what your stances were a year ago?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because Blackwater and such groups have such a good name in the international community for their even-handed techniques .
Btw , your average Mercenary makes scads more than your average government owned grunt.One of the crazy arguments people were pissed off about Bush ( yes I refer to the overwhelmingly liberal fluffwits on slashdot ) was that America pays often well in excess of $ 100,000 per mercenary in the security services , where our average soldier makes less than $ 30k/year.Now here those same people come pissed off that we do n't use more mercenaries .
Do you people pay attention at all to what your stances were a year ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because Blackwater and such groups have such a good name in the international community for their even-handed techniques.
Btw, your average Mercenary makes scads more than your average government owned grunt.One of the crazy arguments people were pissed off about Bush (yes I refer to the overwhelmingly liberal fluffwits on slashdot) was that America pays often well in excess of $100,000 per mercenary in the security services, where our average soldier makes less than $30k/year.Now here those same people come pissed off that we don't use more mercenaries.
Do you people pay attention at all to what your stances were a year ago?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137888</id>
	<title>Re:we should team up with Canada and Mexico</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1258465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got to be kidding.  Canada might be able to contribute some things, but Mexico can't contribute anything besides drug cartels.  Teaming up with Mexico on a technological pursuit makes about as much sense as teaming up with Amazon jungle tribes or African bushmen.  The country has no technological ability to speak of; their only technology is foreign owned and operated factories that they use Mexicans as manual labor for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got to be kidding .
Canada might be able to contribute some things , but Mexico ca n't contribute anything besides drug cartels .
Teaming up with Mexico on a technological pursuit makes about as much sense as teaming up with Amazon jungle tribes or African bushmen .
The country has no technological ability to speak of ; their only technology is foreign owned and operated factories that they use Mexicans as manual labor for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got to be kidding.
Canada might be able to contribute some things, but Mexico can't contribute anything besides drug cartels.
Teaming up with Mexico on a technological pursuit makes about as much sense as teaming up with Amazon jungle tribes or African bushmen.
The country has no technological ability to speak of; their only technology is foreign owned and operated factories that they use Mexicans as manual labor for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136716</id>
	<title>Hillary was hardly the only pro-NASA democrat....</title>
	<author>Ellis D. Tripp</author>
	<datestamp>1258459320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dennis Kucinich called for TRIPLING the NASA budget, far better than anything that Clinton proposed:</p><p><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view\_all&amp;address=132x446335" title="democratic...ground.com">http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view\_all&amp;address=132x446335</a> [democratic...ground.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dennis Kucinich called for TRIPLING the NASA budget , far better than anything that Clinton proposed : http : //www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php ? az = view \ _all&amp;address = 132x446335 [ democratic...ground.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dennis Kucinich called for TRIPLING the NASA budget, far better than anything that Clinton proposed:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view\_all&amp;address=132x446335 [democratic...ground.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135654</id>
	<title>More info on budget cut rumors</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1258455000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, it's not a directed budget cut towards NASA -- every single non-military agency has been told by the Obama administration that they may see cuts of 5-10\% in order to reduce the deficit.</p><p><a href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/11/17/sharpening-the-budget-cleaver/" title="spacepolitics.com">http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/11/17/sharpening-the-budget-cleaver/</a> [spacepolitics.com]<br><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBr0LFXMFF1HE6-n\_ZTN1829QS1QD9BUTPVG0" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBr0LFXMFF1HE6-n\_ZTN1829QS1QD9BUTPVG0</a> [google.com]</p><p>On the plus side, if there is in fact a budget cut, it'd hopefully be the cover NASA needs to shut down/reduce its politically well-guarded Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), which uses up a huge part of NASA's budget, but due to its chronically incompetent management has <a href="http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/07/msfc-competency-bleg/" title="selenianboondocks.com">spectacularly failed</a> [selenianboondocks.com] in basically all of its large projects over the past 30 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , it 's not a directed budget cut towards NASA -- every single non-military agency has been told by the Obama administration that they may see cuts of 5-10 \ % in order to reduce the deficit.http : //www.spacepolitics.com/2009/11/17/sharpening-the-budget-cleaver/ [ spacepolitics.com ] http : //www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBr0LFXMFF1HE6-n \ _ZTN1829QS1QD9BUTPVG0 [ google.com ] On the plus side , if there is in fact a budget cut , it 'd hopefully be the cover NASA needs to shut down/reduce its politically well-guarded Marshall Space Flight Center ( MSFC ) , which uses up a huge part of NASA 's budget , but due to its chronically incompetent management has spectacularly failed [ selenianboondocks.com ] in basically all of its large projects over the past 30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, it's not a directed budget cut towards NASA -- every single non-military agency has been told by the Obama administration that they may see cuts of 5-10\% in order to reduce the deficit.http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/11/17/sharpening-the-budget-cleaver/ [spacepolitics.com]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBr0LFXMFF1HE6-n\_ZTN1829QS1QD9BUTPVG0 [google.com]On the plus side, if there is in fact a budget cut, it'd hopefully be the cover NASA needs to shut down/reduce its politically well-guarded Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), which uses up a huge part of NASA's budget, but due to its chronically incompetent management has spectacularly failed [selenianboondocks.com] in basically all of its large projects over the past 30 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135084</id>
	<title>"ending manned spaceflight for a decade?"</title>
	<author>arkham6</author>
	<datestamp>1258453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps it should say "Ending government paid for manned spaceflight for a decade".<br><br>It would be really interesting to see the conservative reaction to this. Will they oppose simply for the sake of opposition, or will they applaud it and call out for the free market to provide for manned space flight.<br><br>Personally, I think stopping goverment funded spaceflight is a bad idea, there is not enough economic benefit yet for corporations to go into space, beyond quick space tourism flights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it should say " Ending government paid for manned spaceflight for a decade " .It would be really interesting to see the conservative reaction to this .
Will they oppose simply for the sake of opposition , or will they applaud it and call out for the free market to provide for manned space flight.Personally , I think stopping goverment funded spaceflight is a bad idea , there is not enough economic benefit yet for corporations to go into space , beyond quick space tourism flights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it should say "Ending government paid for manned spaceflight for a decade".It would be really interesting to see the conservative reaction to this.
Will they oppose simply for the sake of opposition, or will they applaud it and call out for the free market to provide for manned space flight.Personally, I think stopping goverment funded spaceflight is a bad idea, there is not enough economic benefit yet for corporations to go into space, beyond quick space tourism flights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137400</id>
	<title>Attention SpaceX, your opportunity has arrived</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258462560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA problems seem to open the door for SpaceX and others to finally have a shot proving their worth.  I think in the long run, this will be a good thing for the US and spaceflight in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA problems seem to open the door for SpaceX and others to finally have a shot proving their worth .
I think in the long run , this will be a good thing for the US and spaceflight in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA problems seem to open the door for SpaceX and others to finally have a shot proving their worth.
I think in the long run, this will be a good thing for the US and spaceflight in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136160</id>
	<title>Budget Cut</title>
	<author>Game\_Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1258457160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA is only <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">0.6\%</a> [wikipedia.org] of the federal budget, a shadow of its peak at 5.5\%.  Cutting a measly $1.7 billion (10\% of its currently $17 billion budget) a year cuts the $1400 billion budget deficit by 0.12\%, practically nothing.<br> <br>
We should increase NASA's budget by $2.5-$5 billion, so they have the resources to really make progress. We should then get some management that actually has a pair, and can deal with the politics to find practical solutions without worry what congressional district parts are made in or which NASA center does the work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is only 0.6 \ % [ wikipedia.org ] of the federal budget , a shadow of its peak at 5.5 \ % .
Cutting a measly $ 1.7 billion ( 10 \ % of its currently $ 17 billion budget ) a year cuts the $ 1400 billion budget deficit by 0.12 \ % , practically nothing .
We should increase NASA 's budget by $ 2.5- $ 5 billion , so they have the resources to really make progress .
We should then get some management that actually has a pair , and can deal with the politics to find practical solutions without worry what congressional district parts are made in or which NASA center does the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is only 0.6\% [wikipedia.org] of the federal budget, a shadow of its peak at 5.5\%.
Cutting a measly $1.7 billion (10\% of its currently $17 billion budget) a year cuts the $1400 billion budget deficit by 0.12\%, practically nothing.
We should increase NASA's budget by $2.5-$5 billion, so they have the resources to really make progress.
We should then get some management that actually has a pair, and can deal with the politics to find practical solutions without worry what congressional district parts are made in or which NASA center does the work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134860</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1258452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this surprises you, then I would argue that you haven't been paying attention to the state of science in America. At least China isn't wasting its time arguing over evolution or fretting that the LHC will kill us all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this surprises you , then I would argue that you have n't been paying attention to the state of science in America .
At least China is n't wasting its time arguing over evolution or fretting that the LHC will kill us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this surprises you, then I would argue that you haven't been paying attention to the state of science in America.
At least China isn't wasting its time arguing over evolution or fretting that the LHC will kill us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914</id>
	<title>we should team up with Canada and Mexico</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we should team up with Canada and Mexico</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we should team up with Canada and Mexico</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we should team up with Canada and Mexico</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258463040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  A better way would be funding NASA at Apollo levels, continuously.  We most certainly have the money, and always did.  The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things, namely "defense".</p><p>For instance, NASA had several other moon missions planned, which were cut even before the first one flew, because their budget got cut in the mid-60s.  Why?  The Vietnam war.  Where would we be now if we hadn't wasted all that money in Vietnam, and kept NASA properly funded instead?</p><p>Remember, one common figure is that for every $1 spent on Apollo, we got $7 back in our economy due to all the technological spin-offs, like GPS, printed circuit boards, etc.  Spending on space exploration is an <b>investment</b> in the future, not a sinkhole for money like most wars (especially recent ones) are.  If we want to stay ahead technologically, we need to invest a lot of money again.  If we don't, we're going to be surpassed by those who do.  You have to spend money to make money.</p><p>Even now, we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA.  The problem is that we're wasting it all in Iraq, Afghanistan, on "cash for clunkers", on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments, etc.  None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment.  Space exploration will.</p><p>We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars, downsizing our military (such as by closing the 100+ bases in foreign countries), quadrupling NASA's budget, ending the failed "war on drugs", and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes, which will spur more economic activity.  Heck, we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone's health needs, but it would require many things that monied interests won't like: eliminating bad doctors, reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs, eliminating health insurance companies, etc.  The problem is that NONE of these things will be done, because the powers-that-be don't want it, since it would end the gravy train for many people who are living large off our corrupt and bloated system, and our politicians work for them, not for regular Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
A better way would be funding NASA at Apollo levels , continuously .
We most certainly have the money , and always did .
The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things , namely " defense " .For instance , NASA had several other moon missions planned , which were cut even before the first one flew , because their budget got cut in the mid-60s .
Why ? The Vietnam war .
Where would we be now if we had n't wasted all that money in Vietnam , and kept NASA properly funded instead ? Remember , one common figure is that for every $ 1 spent on Apollo , we got $ 7 back in our economy due to all the technological spin-offs , like GPS , printed circuit boards , etc .
Spending on space exploration is an investment in the future , not a sinkhole for money like most wars ( especially recent ones ) are .
If we want to stay ahead technologically , we need to invest a lot of money again .
If we do n't , we 're going to be surpassed by those who do .
You have to spend money to make money.Even now , we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA .
The problem is that we 're wasting it all in Iraq , Afghanistan , on " cash for clunkers " , on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments , etc .
None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment .
Space exploration will.We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars , downsizing our military ( such as by closing the 100 + bases in foreign countries ) , quadrupling NASA 's budget , ending the failed " war on drugs " , and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes , which will spur more economic activity .
Heck , we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone 's health needs , but it would require many things that monied interests wo n't like : eliminating bad doctors , reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs , eliminating health insurance companies , etc .
The problem is that NONE of these things will be done , because the powers-that-be do n't want it , since it would end the gravy train for many people who are living large off our corrupt and bloated system , and our politicians work for them , not for regular Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
A better way would be funding NASA at Apollo levels, continuously.
We most certainly have the money, and always did.
The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things, namely "defense".For instance, NASA had several other moon missions planned, which were cut even before the first one flew, because their budget got cut in the mid-60s.
Why?  The Vietnam war.
Where would we be now if we hadn't wasted all that money in Vietnam, and kept NASA properly funded instead?Remember, one common figure is that for every $1 spent on Apollo, we got $7 back in our economy due to all the technological spin-offs, like GPS, printed circuit boards, etc.
Spending on space exploration is an investment in the future, not a sinkhole for money like most wars (especially recent ones) are.
If we want to stay ahead technologically, we need to invest a lot of money again.
If we don't, we're going to be surpassed by those who do.
You have to spend money to make money.Even now, we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA.
The problem is that we're wasting it all in Iraq, Afghanistan, on "cash for clunkers", on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments, etc.
None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment.
Space exploration will.We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars, downsizing our military (such as by closing the 100+ bases in foreign countries), quadrupling NASA's budget, ending the failed "war on drugs", and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes, which will spur more economic activity.
Heck, we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone's health needs, but it would require many things that monied interests won't like: eliminating bad doctors, reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs, eliminating health insurance companies, etc.
The problem is that NONE of these things will be done, because the powers-that-be don't want it, since it would end the gravy train for many people who are living large off our corrupt and bloated system, and our politicians work for them, not for regular Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137502</id>
	<title>good reason Chinese caught up to US &amp; Russia</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1258463100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are very good at gathering all the information about a technology they can- both above board and below board.  The more, the merrier to me.
<br> <br>
Their program is very low key with a test every three years.  This is an order of magnitude less effort than the space shuttle or Soyez.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are very good at gathering all the information about a technology they can- both above board and below board .
The more , the merrier to me .
Their program is very low key with a test every three years .
This is an order of magnitude less effort than the space shuttle or Soyez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are very good at gathering all the information about a technology they can- both above board and below board.
The more, the merrier to me.
Their program is very low key with a test every three years.
This is an order of magnitude less effort than the space shuttle or Soyez.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135522</id>
	<title>Re:By all means</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1258454580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see any reason to leave out China, Iran or North Korea if they are willing to contribute money and talent.</p></div><p>Iran and North Korea?  Are you fucking serious?  You do realize that space launchers have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM" title="wikipedia.org">other applications</a> [wikipedia.org], right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any reason to leave out China , Iran or North Korea if they are willing to contribute money and talent.Iran and North Korea ?
Are you fucking serious ?
You do realize that space launchers have other applications [ wikipedia.org ] , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any reason to leave out China, Iran or North Korea if they are willing to contribute money and talent.Iran and North Korea?
Are you fucking serious?
You do realize that space launchers have other applications [wikipedia.org], right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135370</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1258454100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A political race is unsustainable.  If we were to enter another 60s style space race, we would spend incredible amounts of money to do more flags and footprints and then sputter around for 40 or 50 years afterwards, again.</p><p>While Apollo was an impressive feat, I can't help but wonder where we would be now if we had stuck to an Eisenhower-esque slow and steady approach, and not gotten drawn into the space race.  It certainly would have taken longer to get to the moon -- we might just be getting there now.  However, we would be doing so in an affordable way, with an eye towards long-term missions, science and development.   I think slow and consistent is better than massive rushes followed by 40 years of sputtering about.</p><p>The problem with Apollo is that it was run at a rate that history has shown is about 4 times higher than is politically sustainable without an external threat.  Since this was the beginning of the Space Age, NASA assumed that the gravy train would go on forever, since there was no evidence otherwise.  They never learned how to do things right within a small budget.  This is why we're currently where we are.  Vehicle design is always seeking an absolute perfection rather than a balance between cost and capability.  The constant rallying cry is 'if only we had Apollo-level money again.'  Perhaps most importantly, efforts to privatize the low-risk parts such as LEO transport is like pulling teeth, since the huge federal cost-plus contracts from the Apollo era are still massive employers.</p><p>Personally, I welcome the idea of cooperation.  Sharing money, technology and development is the best way to make use of limited budgets and speed up frontier development.  Competition is a great short-term motivator for politics, and can encourage efficiency in the long term.  However, cooperative ventures are much more sustainable in the long-term, and competition in the free market sense only makes sense for developed technologies such as LEO transport, not the "Lewis and Clark" role that the government should excel at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A political race is unsustainable .
If we were to enter another 60s style space race , we would spend incredible amounts of money to do more flags and footprints and then sputter around for 40 or 50 years afterwards , again.While Apollo was an impressive feat , I ca n't help but wonder where we would be now if we had stuck to an Eisenhower-esque slow and steady approach , and not gotten drawn into the space race .
It certainly would have taken longer to get to the moon -- we might just be getting there now .
However , we would be doing so in an affordable way , with an eye towards long-term missions , science and development .
I think slow and consistent is better than massive rushes followed by 40 years of sputtering about.The problem with Apollo is that it was run at a rate that history has shown is about 4 times higher than is politically sustainable without an external threat .
Since this was the beginning of the Space Age , NASA assumed that the gravy train would go on forever , since there was no evidence otherwise .
They never learned how to do things right within a small budget .
This is why we 're currently where we are .
Vehicle design is always seeking an absolute perfection rather than a balance between cost and capability .
The constant rallying cry is 'if only we had Apollo-level money again .
' Perhaps most importantly , efforts to privatize the low-risk parts such as LEO transport is like pulling teeth , since the huge federal cost-plus contracts from the Apollo era are still massive employers.Personally , I welcome the idea of cooperation .
Sharing money , technology and development is the best way to make use of limited budgets and speed up frontier development .
Competition is a great short-term motivator for politics , and can encourage efficiency in the long term .
However , cooperative ventures are much more sustainable in the long-term , and competition in the free market sense only makes sense for developed technologies such as LEO transport , not the " Lewis and Clark " role that the government should excel at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A political race is unsustainable.
If we were to enter another 60s style space race, we would spend incredible amounts of money to do more flags and footprints and then sputter around for 40 or 50 years afterwards, again.While Apollo was an impressive feat, I can't help but wonder where we would be now if we had stuck to an Eisenhower-esque slow and steady approach, and not gotten drawn into the space race.
It certainly would have taken longer to get to the moon -- we might just be getting there now.
However, we would be doing so in an affordable way, with an eye towards long-term missions, science and development.
I think slow and consistent is better than massive rushes followed by 40 years of sputtering about.The problem with Apollo is that it was run at a rate that history has shown is about 4 times higher than is politically sustainable without an external threat.
Since this was the beginning of the Space Age, NASA assumed that the gravy train would go on forever, since there was no evidence otherwise.
They never learned how to do things right within a small budget.
This is why we're currently where we are.
Vehicle design is always seeking an absolute perfection rather than a balance between cost and capability.
The constant rallying cry is 'if only we had Apollo-level money again.
'  Perhaps most importantly, efforts to privatize the low-risk parts such as LEO transport is like pulling teeth, since the huge federal cost-plus contracts from the Apollo era are still massive employers.Personally, I welcome the idea of cooperation.
Sharing money, technology and development is the best way to make use of limited budgets and speed up frontier development.
Competition is a great short-term motivator for politics, and can encourage efficiency in the long term.
However, cooperative ventures are much more sustainable in the long-term, and competition in the free market sense only makes sense for developed technologies such as LEO transport, not the "Lewis and Clark" role that the government should excel at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134598</id>
	<title>Why not team up with Russia?</title>
	<author>JoeSchmoe007</author>
	<datestamp>1258451580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to diminish China's achievement, but Russia is definitely way ahead of them or anyone else. Plus AFAIK China's space technology is mostly licensed from Russia. Is politics getting in the way? Well then doesn't it make even more sense to team with Russia since they are now significantly "less communist" than China (even if mass media may not reflect that)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to diminish China 's achievement , but Russia is definitely way ahead of them or anyone else .
Plus AFAIK China 's space technology is mostly licensed from Russia .
Is politics getting in the way ?
Well then does n't it make even more sense to team with Russia since they are now significantly " less communist " than China ( even if mass media may not reflect that ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to diminish China's achievement, but Russia is definitely way ahead of them or anyone else.
Plus AFAIK China's space technology is mostly licensed from Russia.
Is politics getting in the way?
Well then doesn't it make even more sense to team with Russia since they are now significantly "less communist" than China (even if mass media may not reflect that)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030</id>
	<title>Re:we should team up with Canada and Mexico</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canadians are always prepared to give a helping hand in space programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canadians are always prepared to give a helping hand in space programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canadians are always prepared to give a helping hand in space programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136234</id>
	<title>Politics of Rare Earths/Technology</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1258457460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this is a way to use a carrot, rather than a stick, to get China to give up some of some of its Rare Earth Metals for at least scientific research purposes.</p><p>Think about it: China gives easy access to their yttrium-bound rare earths (no one else has these, they're not radioactive when they come out of the ground) while America gives up some technology and in return we can continue research.</p><p>However, the prospect of the Last Frontier getting outsourced to China seems almost hilarious if it weren't so depressing. I realize teaming up with other nations is supposed to be good, but I just don't see how any real good can come of this. China will take all it can get and leave us with sloppy seconds, there's just no two ways about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this is a way to use a carrot , rather than a stick , to get China to give up some of some of its Rare Earth Metals for at least scientific research purposes.Think about it : China gives easy access to their yttrium-bound rare earths ( no one else has these , they 're not radioactive when they come out of the ground ) while America gives up some technology and in return we can continue research.However , the prospect of the Last Frontier getting outsourced to China seems almost hilarious if it were n't so depressing .
I realize teaming up with other nations is supposed to be good , but I just do n't see how any real good can come of this .
China will take all it can get and leave us with sloppy seconds , there 's just no two ways about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this is a way to use a carrot, rather than a stick, to get China to give up some of some of its Rare Earth Metals for at least scientific research purposes.Think about it: China gives easy access to their yttrium-bound rare earths (no one else has these, they're not radioactive when they come out of the ground) while America gives up some technology and in return we can continue research.However, the prospect of the Last Frontier getting outsourced to China seems almost hilarious if it weren't so depressing.
I realize teaming up with other nations is supposed to be good, but I just don't see how any real good can come of this.
China will take all it can get and leave us with sloppy seconds, there's just no two ways about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135166</id>
	<title>Re:We're Never Going to Mars...</title>
	<author>stagg</author>
	<datestamp>1258453380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now while I agree that there MAY not be much direct benefit from a Mars mission, I don't see the reasoning behind cutting it.

They should be funding institutions like NASA. If nothing else it's a massive make work project for the tech industry and creates an environment that's friendly toward the highly educated. It's a fairly harmless and uncontroversial project to center that on, unlike funding educational institutes or healthcare apparently. heh.

It really seems like funding NASA would be a positive thing for the US government, certainly not the best place for budget cuts. But then I think that governments need to increase arts funding and educational funding as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now while I agree that there MAY not be much direct benefit from a Mars mission , I do n't see the reasoning behind cutting it .
They should be funding institutions like NASA .
If nothing else it 's a massive make work project for the tech industry and creates an environment that 's friendly toward the highly educated .
It 's a fairly harmless and uncontroversial project to center that on , unlike funding educational institutes or healthcare apparently .
heh . It really seems like funding NASA would be a positive thing for the US government , certainly not the best place for budget cuts .
But then I think that governments need to increase arts funding and educational funding as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now while I agree that there MAY not be much direct benefit from a Mars mission, I don't see the reasoning behind cutting it.
They should be funding institutions like NASA.
If nothing else it's a massive make work project for the tech industry and creates an environment that's friendly toward the highly educated.
It's a fairly harmless and uncontroversial project to center that on, unlike funding educational institutes or healthcare apparently.
heh.

It really seems like funding NASA would be a positive thing for the US government, certainly not the best place for budget cuts.
But then I think that governments need to increase arts funding and educational funding as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136592</id>
	<title>Armageddon said it best</title>
	<author>krystar</author>
	<datestamp>1258458780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>American components.  Russian components.  ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!</htmltext>
<tokenext>American components .
Russian components .
ALL MADE IN TAIWAN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American components.
Russian components.
ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30143270</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary was hardly the only pro-NASA democrat..</title>
	<author>dtolman</author>
	<datestamp>1257090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry - I should have said - Hillary was the only serious candidate who supported space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry - I should have said - Hillary was the only serious candidate who supported space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry - I should have said - Hillary was the only serious candidate who supported space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137362</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>jwriney</author>
	<datestamp>1258462320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until they stop relying on toxic, storable propellants for their manned launchers, and get a better handle on range safety (referring to the first LM-3B launch which took out a village - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVaXFhu7NE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVaXFhu7NE</a> [youtube.com])... how about *no*.</p><p>The propellant issue alone ought to be a show-stopper. We knew storable propellants were a horrible idea during Gemini, but did it anyway for expediency. There was legitimate question whether, during an abort, the astronauts would manage to escape what was termed the BFRC - Big F-ing Red Cloud - created when the booster's tanks ruptured and burned.</p><p>--riney</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until they stop relying on toxic , storable propellants for their manned launchers , and get a better handle on range safety ( referring to the first LM-3B launch which took out a village - http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 2qVaXFhu7NE [ youtube.com ] ) ... how about * no * .The propellant issue alone ought to be a show-stopper .
We knew storable propellants were a horrible idea during Gemini , but did it anyway for expediency .
There was legitimate question whether , during an abort , the astronauts would manage to escape what was termed the BFRC - Big F-ing Red Cloud - created when the booster 's tanks ruptured and burned.--riney</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until they stop relying on toxic, storable propellants for their manned launchers, and get a better handle on range safety (referring to the first LM-3B launch which took out a village - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVaXFhu7NE [youtube.com])... how about *no*.The propellant issue alone ought to be a show-stopper.
We knew storable propellants were a horrible idea during Gemini, but did it anyway for expediency.
There was legitimate question whether, during an abort, the astronauts would manage to escape what was termed the BFRC - Big F-ing Red Cloud - created when the booster's tanks ruptured and burned.--riney</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540</id>
	<title>Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135506</id>
	<title>Re:FIREFLY</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1258454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>hmmm maybe Josh had it right! Ching-wah tsao duh liou mahng.</i></p><p>So you're suggesting that our space-faring culture will be heavily influenced by our cooperation with the Chinese, but that we'll screw them over somehow before the great migration, so there won't actually be any Chinese <i>people</i> in the new solar system?</p><p>Could happen, could happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hmmm maybe Josh had it right !
Ching-wah tsao duh liou mahng.So you 're suggesting that our space-faring culture will be heavily influenced by our cooperation with the Chinese , but that we 'll screw them over somehow before the great migration , so there wo n't actually be any Chinese people in the new solar system ? Could happen , could happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmmm maybe Josh had it right!
Ching-wah tsao duh liou mahng.So you're suggesting that our space-faring culture will be heavily influenced by our cooperation with the Chinese, but that we'll screw them over somehow before the great migration, so there won't actually be any Chinese people in the new solar system?Could happen, could happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134736</id>
	<title>By all means</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1258452000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space missions are non-contraversial, expensive and a perfect way for a country to show off its might without killing anyone in the process. It's a perfect case to cooperate with any country, friendly or hostile, that has the resources to contribute. Soviet-US joint missions were pretty much the norm during cold war. I don't see any reason to leave out China, Iran or North Korea if they are willing to contribute money and talent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space missions are non-contraversial , expensive and a perfect way for a country to show off its might without killing anyone in the process .
It 's a perfect case to cooperate with any country , friendly or hostile , that has the resources to contribute .
Soviet-US joint missions were pretty much the norm during cold war .
I do n't see any reason to leave out China , Iran or North Korea if they are willing to contribute money and talent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space missions are non-contraversial, expensive and a perfect way for a country to show off its might without killing anyone in the process.
It's a perfect case to cooperate with any country, friendly or hostile, that has the resources to contribute.
Soviet-US joint missions were pretty much the norm during cold war.
I don't see any reason to leave out China, Iran or North Korea if they are willing to contribute money and talent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458</id>
	<title>You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1258451100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need China as <i>competitor</i>, not a partner.  We need some sort of 'gap' to get the ignorant hordes* all worked up so they'll pay for it.<br> <br>
*Congress</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need China as competitor , not a partner .
We need some sort of 'gap ' to get the ignorant hordes * all worked up so they 'll pay for it .
* Congress</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need China as competitor, not a partner.
We need some sort of 'gap' to get the ignorant hordes* all worked up so they'll pay for it.
*Congress</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134758</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology.</p></div></blockquote><p>Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50's. It's not like there's any major secrets, and if there is, we simply don't include those in designs, doing it the older way.  Plus, they probably already have Soviet designs, which have proved <b>more reliable than our stuff</b>. In fact, many of our satellite rockets use engines purchased from Russia.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology.Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50 's .
It 's not like there 's any major secrets , and if there is , we simply do n't include those in designs , doing it the older way .
Plus , they probably already have Soviet designs , which have proved more reliable than our stuff .
In fact , many of our satellite rockets use engines purchased from Russia .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a fantastic way to supply China with even more classified advanced US technology.Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50's.
It's not like there's any major secrets, and if there is, we simply don't include those in designs, doing it the older way.
Plus, they probably already have Soviet designs, which have proved more reliable than our stuff.
In fact, many of our satellite rockets use engines purchased from Russia.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135408</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At this time, 10\% cut is about a 5\% cut of historical levels (which was about 1\% of GDP). Right now, it is about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5\%. The reason is that W/neo-cons effectively cut it 50\% over the 8 years.<br> <br>Do not get me wrong. For the life of me, I do not see this as being the place to cut (like eating our grain seed in late April), BUT, I also do not thing that this particular cut would prevent us from going to Mars. I would place the blame for that on the last 9 years of spending and bad cuts.<br> <br>
In the end, the real question is not the cut. The real question is, what will he replace this with? Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct (which COULD get by with less money)? Or will he do like a neo-con, do a cut, then push the agency to spend money foolishly?
What scares me the most, is that he may do the later, rather than the previous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this time , 10 \ % cut is about a 5 \ % cut of historical levels ( which was about 1 \ % of GDP ) .
Right now , it is about .5 \ % .
The reason is that W/neo-cons effectively cut it 50 \ % over the 8 years .
Do not get me wrong .
For the life of me , I do not see this as being the place to cut ( like eating our grain seed in late April ) , BUT , I also do not thing that this particular cut would prevent us from going to Mars .
I would place the blame for that on the last 9 years of spending and bad cuts .
In the end , the real question is not the cut .
The real question is , what will he replace this with ?
Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct ( which COULD get by with less money ) ?
Or will he do like a neo-con , do a cut , then push the agency to spend money foolishly ?
What scares me the most , is that he may do the later , rather than the previous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this time, 10\% cut is about a 5\% cut of historical levels (which was about 1\% of GDP).
Right now, it is about .5\%.
The reason is that W/neo-cons effectively cut it 50\% over the 8 years.
Do not get me wrong.
For the life of me, I do not see this as being the place to cut (like eating our grain seed in late April), BUT, I also do not thing that this particular cut would prevent us from going to Mars.
I would place the blame for that on the last 9 years of spending and bad cuts.
In the end, the real question is not the cut.
The real question is, what will he replace this with?
Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct (which COULD get by with less money)?
Or will he do like a neo-con, do a cut, then push the agency to spend money foolishly?
What scares me the most, is that he may do the later, rather than the previous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134548</id>
	<title>Worst Idea going</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>China has been leaching the west dry. They have their money fixed against the American dollar and it is designed to take down all of the western nations. Even here, China will only use this technology to improve their <a href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sfn-090309-china-space-lab.html" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">forthcoming multiple military only space station</a> [space.com]. China treats the west in the same fashion that USSR did in 1946-1955; as a place to steal from.<br> <br>Hopefully, Obama is smarter than to do this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has been leaching the west dry .
They have their money fixed against the American dollar and it is designed to take down all of the western nations .
Even here , China will only use this technology to improve their forthcoming multiple military only space station [ space.com ] .
China treats the west in the same fashion that USSR did in 1946-1955 ; as a place to steal from .
Hopefully , Obama is smarter than to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has been leaching the west dry.
They have their money fixed against the American dollar and it is designed to take down all of the western nations.
Even here, China will only use this technology to improve their forthcoming multiple military only space station [space.com].
China treats the west in the same fashion that USSR did in 1946-1955; as a place to steal from.
Hopefully, Obama is smarter than to do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138024</id>
	<title>Re:By all means</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1258466040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy: we can (assuming they actually have any ability to contribute) have them work on things like satellites, robot arms, parts for moon bases, etc., and we can contribute and control the launchers.  We wouldn't give them access to that technology; we'd just let them hitch a ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy : we can ( assuming they actually have any ability to contribute ) have them work on things like satellites , robot arms , parts for moon bases , etc. , and we can contribute and control the launchers .
We would n't give them access to that technology ; we 'd just let them hitch a ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy: we can (assuming they actually have any ability to contribute) have them work on things like satellites, robot arms, parts for moon bases, etc., and we can contribute and control the launchers.
We wouldn't give them access to that technology; we'd just let them hitch a ride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134912</id>
	<title>Ah! China gets tech knowledge for free!</title>
	<author>meburke</author>
	<datestamp>1258452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are going to give away technical knowledge with military and commercial value to China without them having to spend the high costs of research or espionage. Has anyone read, "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin Ning Chu? <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Asian-Mind-Game-Chin-ning-Chu/dp/0892563524" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Asian-Mind-Game-Chin-ning-Chu/dp/0892563524</a> [amazon.com] This, and many similar books show the strategies that China and Japan have been using to create dominant positions internationally. China will never be a "full participant" but will always be glad to accept any knowledge we can give them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are going to give away technical knowledge with military and commercial value to China without them having to spend the high costs of research or espionage .
Has anyone read , " The Asian Mind Game " by Chin Ning Chu ?
http : //www.amazon.com/Asian-Mind-Game-Chin-ning-Chu/dp/0892563524 [ amazon.com ] This , and many similar books show the strategies that China and Japan have been using to create dominant positions internationally .
China will never be a " full participant " but will always be glad to accept any knowledge we can give them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are going to give away technical knowledge with military and commercial value to China without them having to spend the high costs of research or espionage.
Has anyone read, "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin Ning Chu?
http://www.amazon.com/Asian-Mind-Game-Chin-ning-Chu/dp/0892563524 [amazon.com] This, and many similar books show the strategies that China and Japan have been using to create dominant positions internationally.
China will never be a "full participant" but will always be glad to accept any knowledge we can give them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30140414</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258485840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. There is no guarantee that an investment in space would pay off. And frankly, if NASA was to be fully funded, I doubt that the folks working at NASA are as motivated as those working on the Apollo missions-- at least in the numbers that would return 700\%. I'd rather see them scale back NASA (by firing management); strip it back to the core scientists and engineers that it used to be and streamline its operations. Then put the money into science and r&amp;d programs that are best served by many *smaller* companies. (NASA can still coordinate and participate in r&amp;d as well as act as SETAs, system integrators, etc. IF it can afford to do so efficiently.)</p><p> <i>You have to spend money to make money.</i> </p><p>Are you in high-school? (Not meant to be an attack, I'm just asking.) This statement is one of the best ways to trigger "bullshit alarms."</p><p> <i>Spending on space exploration is an investment in the future, not a sinkhole for money like most wars </i> </p><p>Any spending can be a "sinkhole." There is no guarantee that an investment will have positive returns-- even in the loooong run. Warfighters and weapons developers get paid to fight and develop weapons. They then spend the money on Tequila and Xboxes. Sure, it is not contributing to US infrastructure. But the US is not litterally dropping wads of cash on Iraq. And similar to space R&amp;D, defense R&amp;D has commercial applications: GPS, which you mentioned, is one example. It came from defense R&amp;D, not space. </p><p> <i>Even now, we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA. The problem is that we're wasting it all in Iraq, Afghanistan, on "cash for clunkers", on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments, etc. None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment. Space exploration will.</i> </p><p>"We" do *not* have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA. That which is spent on NASA must be carved from tax revenue. And "we" are not all in agreement on how "we" want our taxes dollars spent, or how much "we" want to pay. If the federal governmetn wanted to slash social security and medicare and hand that money over to NASA, I would be all for it. (Both of those programs are projected to be bankrupt by the time I am retirement age. So it's not a very good investment of my tax dollars-- or yours.) But I am absolutely not interested in paying a cent more in federal taxes until they can demonstrate competence, objectivity, and efficiency-- you know, the same things that workers in the private sector have to demonstrate at work.</p><p> <i>We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars, downsizing our military (such as by closing the 100+ bases in foreign countries), quadrupling NASA's budget, ending the failed "war on drugs", and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes, which will spur more economic activity.</i> </p><p>You should google a pie chart displaying how the federal government spends money. The US's economic woes would not be fixed by cutting ALL defense spending. It is the debt and "entitlement" and social security obligations that are going to kill us down the road. Besides, the "war machine" is a large employer of productive people: Scientists, engineering, techs, machininsts, mathematicians, etc. Reducing taxes would probably spur more economic activity according to fiscal conservatives--(I am a fiscal conservative.) With all of the technology that they have now, they should take a survey come tax season, and let people allocate what they have paid in income taxes to "wherever" they want to see the money spent-- just as a survey.</p><p> <i>Heck, we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone's health needs, but it would require many things that monied interests won't like: eliminating bad doctors, reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs, eliminating health insurance companies, etc.</i> </p><p>Bad doctors are already eliminated through</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
There is no guarantee that an investment in space would pay off .
And frankly , if NASA was to be fully funded , I doubt that the folks working at NASA are as motivated as those working on the Apollo missions-- at least in the numbers that would return 700 \ % .
I 'd rather see them scale back NASA ( by firing management ) ; strip it back to the core scientists and engineers that it used to be and streamline its operations .
Then put the money into science and r&amp;d programs that are best served by many * smaller * companies .
( NASA can still coordinate and participate in r&amp;d as well as act as SETAs , system integrators , etc .
IF it can afford to do so efficiently .
) You have to spend money to make money .
Are you in high-school ?
( Not meant to be an attack , I 'm just asking .
) This statement is one of the best ways to trigger " bullshit alarms .
" Spending on space exploration is an investment in the future , not a sinkhole for money like most wars Any spending can be a " sinkhole .
" There is no guarantee that an investment will have positive returns-- even in the loooong run .
Warfighters and weapons developers get paid to fight and develop weapons .
They then spend the money on Tequila and Xboxes .
Sure , it is not contributing to US infrastructure .
But the US is not litterally dropping wads of cash on Iraq .
And similar to space R&amp;D , defense R&amp;D has commercial applications : GPS , which you mentioned , is one example .
It came from defense R&amp;D , not space .
Even now , we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA .
The problem is that we 're wasting it all in Iraq , Afghanistan , on " cash for clunkers " , on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments , etc .
None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment .
Space exploration will .
" We " do * not * have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA .
That which is spent on NASA must be carved from tax revenue .
And " we " are not all in agreement on how " we " want our taxes dollars spent , or how much " we " want to pay .
If the federal governmetn wanted to slash social security and medicare and hand that money over to NASA , I would be all for it .
( Both of those programs are projected to be bankrupt by the time I am retirement age .
So it 's not a very good investment of my tax dollars-- or yours .
) But I am absolutely not interested in paying a cent more in federal taxes until they can demonstrate competence , objectivity , and efficiency-- you know , the same things that workers in the private sector have to demonstrate at work .
We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars , downsizing our military ( such as by closing the 100 + bases in foreign countries ) , quadrupling NASA 's budget , ending the failed " war on drugs " , and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes , which will spur more economic activity .
You should google a pie chart displaying how the federal government spends money .
The US 's economic woes would not be fixed by cutting ALL defense spending .
It is the debt and " entitlement " and social security obligations that are going to kill us down the road .
Besides , the " war machine " is a large employer of productive people : Scientists , engineering , techs , machininsts , mathematicians , etc .
Reducing taxes would probably spur more economic activity according to fiscal conservatives-- ( I am a fiscal conservative .
) With all of the technology that they have now , they should take a survey come tax season , and let people allocate what they have paid in income taxes to " wherever " they want to see the money spent-- just as a survey .
Heck , we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone 's health needs , but it would require many things that monied interests wo n't like : eliminating bad doctors , reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs , eliminating health insurance companies , etc .
Bad doctors are already eliminated through</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
There is no guarantee that an investment in space would pay off.
And frankly, if NASA was to be fully funded, I doubt that the folks working at NASA are as motivated as those working on the Apollo missions-- at least in the numbers that would return 700\%.
I'd rather see them scale back NASA (by firing management); strip it back to the core scientists and engineers that it used to be and streamline its operations.
Then put the money into science and r&amp;d programs that are best served by many *smaller* companies.
(NASA can still coordinate and participate in r&amp;d as well as act as SETAs, system integrators, etc.
IF it can afford to do so efficiently.
) You have to spend money to make money.
Are you in high-school?
(Not meant to be an attack, I'm just asking.
) This statement is one of the best ways to trigger "bullshit alarms.
" Spending on space exploration is an investment in the future, not a sinkhole for money like most wars  Any spending can be a "sinkhole.
" There is no guarantee that an investment will have positive returns-- even in the loooong run.
Warfighters and weapons developers get paid to fight and develop weapons.
They then spend the money on Tequila and Xboxes.
Sure, it is not contributing to US infrastructure.
But the US is not litterally dropping wads of cash on Iraq.
And similar to space R&amp;D, defense R&amp;D has commercial applications: GPS, which you mentioned, is one example.
It came from defense R&amp;D, not space.
Even now, we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA.
The problem is that we're wasting it all in Iraq, Afghanistan, on "cash for clunkers", on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments, etc.
None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment.
Space exploration will.
"We" do *not* have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA.
That which is spent on NASA must be carved from tax revenue.
And "we" are not all in agreement on how "we" want our taxes dollars spent, or how much "we" want to pay.
If the federal governmetn wanted to slash social security and medicare and hand that money over to NASA, I would be all for it.
(Both of those programs are projected to be bankrupt by the time I am retirement age.
So it's not a very good investment of my tax dollars-- or yours.
) But I am absolutely not interested in paying a cent more in federal taxes until they can demonstrate competence, objectivity, and efficiency-- you know, the same things that workers in the private sector have to demonstrate at work.
We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars, downsizing our military (such as by closing the 100+ bases in foreign countries), quadrupling NASA's budget, ending the failed "war on drugs", and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes, which will spur more economic activity.
You should google a pie chart displaying how the federal government spends money.
The US's economic woes would not be fixed by cutting ALL defense spending.
It is the debt and "entitlement" and social security obligations that are going to kill us down the road.
Besides, the "war machine" is a large employer of productive people: Scientists, engineering, techs, machininsts, mathematicians, etc.
Reducing taxes would probably spur more economic activity according to fiscal conservatives--(I am a fiscal conservative.
) With all of the technology that they have now, they should take a survey come tax season, and let people allocate what they have paid in income taxes to "wherever" they want to see the money spent-- just as a survey.
Heck, we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone's health needs, but it would require many things that monied interests won't like: eliminating bad doctors, reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs, eliminating health insurance companies, etc.
Bad doctors are already eliminated through</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988</id>
	<title>We're Never Going to Mars...</title>
	<author>pegasustonans</author>
	<datestamp>1258452900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Obama cuts NASA's budget by ten percent.  No matter where you stand on the issue, we're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.</p><p>While I understand those who advocate robotic-only exploration, a budget cut is truly a sad scenario for all concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Obama cuts NASA 's budget by ten percent .
No matter where you stand on the issue , we 're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.While I understand those who advocate robotic-only exploration , a budget cut is truly a sad scenario for all concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Obama cuts NASA's budget by ten percent.
No matter where you stand on the issue, we're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.While I understand those who advocate robotic-only exploration, a budget cut is truly a sad scenario for all concerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135150</id>
	<title>Re:we should team up with Canada and Mexico</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258453380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we should team up with Canada and Mexico</p></div></blockquote><p>Nah, Canada's only interested in flat icy moons for hockey, and Mexican astronauts keep shifting off to other planets in the middle of the night.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we should team up with Canada and MexicoNah , Canada 's only interested in flat icy moons for hockey , and Mexican astronauts keep shifting off to other planets in the middle of the night .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>we should team up with Canada and MexicoNah, Canada's only interested in flat icy moons for hockey, and Mexican astronauts keep shifting off to other planets in the middle of the night.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30140804</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>damasterwc</author>
	<datestamp>1257108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>cancel the bailout, screw the financial speculators, and invest in the REAL economy!
wallstreet != "growth engine"... whoever invented that needs to be shot. the real growth engine is when we have millions of high paying, blue collar, industrial jobs... we CAN have this, but we need to have a very well funded space program... we basically need to make a declaration that we are going to industrialize the moon, develop fusion power, and colonize mars... make a 50 year plan and fully fund it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for every $1 invested in apollo we made $15 back as of 25 years ago, who knows how much we've made back as of today. but to put it in raw dollar terms like that, even tho it was "profitable" (for those simple minded people who only see dollars) is a disgrace because we have much more value that you cannot put dollar values on... it inspired an entire generation to want to go into science and engineering... it really lifted the human spirit to be able to think in terms of being able to accomplish the impossible.

so in short, f*ck london and wallstreet, the bankers can go to hell, and we want advanced technology to be properly funded!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>cancel the bailout , screw the financial speculators , and invest in the REAL economy !
wallstreet ! = " growth engine " ... whoever invented that needs to be shot .
the real growth engine is when we have millions of high paying , blue collar , industrial jobs... we CAN have this , but we need to have a very well funded space program... we basically need to make a declaration that we are going to industrialize the moon , develop fusion power , and colonize mars... make a 50 year plan and fully fund it .
... for every $ 1 invested in apollo we made $ 15 back as of 25 years ago , who knows how much we 've made back as of today .
but to put it in raw dollar terms like that , even tho it was " profitable " ( for those simple minded people who only see dollars ) is a disgrace because we have much more value that you can not put dollar values on... it inspired an entire generation to want to go into science and engineering... it really lifted the human spirit to be able to think in terms of being able to accomplish the impossible .
so in short , f * ck london and wallstreet , the bankers can go to hell , and we want advanced technology to be properly funded ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cancel the bailout, screw the financial speculators, and invest in the REAL economy!
wallstreet != "growth engine"... whoever invented that needs to be shot.
the real growth engine is when we have millions of high paying, blue collar, industrial jobs... we CAN have this, but we need to have a very well funded space program... we basically need to make a declaration that we are going to industrialize the moon, develop fusion power, and colonize mars... make a 50 year plan and fully fund it.
... for every $1 invested in apollo we made $15 back as of 25 years ago, who knows how much we've made back as of today.
but to put it in raw dollar terms like that, even tho it was "profitable" (for those simple minded people who only see dollars) is a disgrace because we have much more value that you cannot put dollar values on... it inspired an entire generation to want to go into science and engineering... it really lifted the human spirit to be able to think in terms of being able to accomplish the impossible.
so in short, f*ck london and wallstreet, the bankers can go to hell, and we want advanced technology to be properly funded!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30141176</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it is really very easy. Any action that serves a Democrat or liberal agenda is "artificial". Any action that serves a Republican or conservative agenda is "natural". Tadaa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is really very easy .
Any action that serves a Democrat or liberal agenda is " artificial " .
Any action that serves a Republican or conservative agenda is " natural " .
Tadaa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is really very easy.
Any action that serves a Democrat or liberal agenda is "artificial".
Any action that serves a Republican or conservative agenda is "natural".
Tadaa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136882</id>
	<title>Military Dimension</title>
	<author>jcasman</author>
	<datestamp>1258460100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space, unfortunately, is the "next" battlefield. China with its small military budgets and limited means -- currently -- has identified our communications systems as a fatal flaw in our military operations. The modern battlefield includes heavy use of satellite imaging, real-time mapping, communications jamming, coordination with tactical centers often far removed from the front lines. Prestige is important motivation in becoming the third country to put a person in space but getting stronger in space military applications is the key strategic objective. It's the only way to compete with the US militarily in the near-term. This military angle should be an important consideration for the US side regarding any agreement on cooperation in space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space , unfortunately , is the " next " battlefield .
China with its small military budgets and limited means -- currently -- has identified our communications systems as a fatal flaw in our military operations .
The modern battlefield includes heavy use of satellite imaging , real-time mapping , communications jamming , coordination with tactical centers often far removed from the front lines .
Prestige is important motivation in becoming the third country to put a person in space but getting stronger in space military applications is the key strategic objective .
It 's the only way to compete with the US militarily in the near-term .
This military angle should be an important consideration for the US side regarding any agreement on cooperation in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space, unfortunately, is the "next" battlefield.
China with its small military budgets and limited means -- currently -- has identified our communications systems as a fatal flaw in our military operations.
The modern battlefield includes heavy use of satellite imaging, real-time mapping, communications jamming, coordination with tactical centers often far removed from the front lines.
Prestige is important motivation in becoming the third country to put a person in space but getting stronger in space military applications is the key strategic objective.
It's the only way to compete with the US militarily in the near-term.
This military angle should be an important consideration for the US side regarding any agreement on cooperation in space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134844</id>
	<title>Re:Just 10\%?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The unmanned exploration is mostly useless. Nobody other than soil scientists care whether the crust of Mars is 27.6\% silica or 27.7&amp; silica.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hogwash. A good remote-bot sample-return program could cover more areas than humans for roughly 1/4 the cost.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The unmanned exploration is mostly useless .
Nobody other than soil scientists care whether the crust of Mars is 27.6 \ % silica or 27.7&amp; silica.Hogwash .
A good remote-bot sample-return program could cover more areas than humans for roughly 1/4 the cost .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unmanned exploration is mostly useless.
Nobody other than soil scientists care whether the crust of Mars is 27.6\% silica or 27.7&amp; silica.Hogwash.
A good remote-bot sample-return program could cover more areas than humans for roughly 1/4 the cost.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135486</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Compared to how we've helped them by deporting this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsien\_Hsue-shen" title="wikipedia.org">supposed "Communist" rocket scientist</a> [wikipedia.org], this is going to be peanuts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to how we 've helped them by deporting this supposed " Communist " rocket scientist [ wikipedia.org ] , this is going to be peanuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to how we've helped them by deporting this supposed "Communist" rocket scientist [wikipedia.org], this is going to be peanuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134944</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese requirements</title>
	<author>lazylocomotives</author>
	<datestamp>1258452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the Chinese are spending a lot of money on an (extremely interesting) adaption of the RUSSIAN Soyuz. The Soyuz missions have lost 4 Russian cosmonauts over 120 missions while the US has lost, what, 14 astronauts over 120 missions to the ISS? It's a little strange that NASA is suddenly saying this I admit, but I wouldn't be so quick to make fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the Chinese are spending a lot of money on an ( extremely interesting ) adaption of the RUSSIAN Soyuz .
The Soyuz missions have lost 4 Russian cosmonauts over 120 missions while the US has lost , what , 14 astronauts over 120 missions to the ISS ?
It 's a little strange that NASA is suddenly saying this I admit , but I would n't be so quick to make fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the Chinese are spending a lot of money on an (extremely interesting) adaption of the RUSSIAN Soyuz.
The Soyuz missions have lost 4 Russian cosmonauts over 120 missions while the US has lost, what, 14 astronauts over 120 missions to the ISS?
It's a little strange that NASA is suddenly saying this I admit, but I wouldn't be so quick to make fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137688</id>
	<title>Re:we should team up with Canada and Mexico</title>
	<author>Gryle</author>
	<datestamp>1258464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Makes sense. My map shows Canada's farther up than we are, which obviously makes them closer to space, right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes sense .
My map shows Canada 's farther up than we are , which obviously makes them closer to space , right ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes sense.
My map shows Canada's farther up than we are, which obviously makes them closer to space, right?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134958</id>
	<title>Noo....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> But they ARE wasting their time trying to parse the internet so the "loyal" populace don't get any funny ideas about human rights or democracy, sexual freedom, religious freedom,( basically the things the rest of the world believe in).In the end, this will become a VERY bad decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they ARE wasting their time trying to parse the internet so the " loyal " populace do n't get any funny ideas about human rights or democracy , sexual freedom , religious freedom , ( basically the things the rest of the world believe in ) .In the end , this will become a VERY bad decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But they ARE wasting their time trying to parse the internet so the "loyal" populace don't get any funny ideas about human rights or democracy, sexual freedom, religious freedom,( basically the things the rest of the world believe in).In the end, this will become a VERY bad decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135476</id>
	<title>Hopefully America Can Rub Off on Them</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1258454460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of my professors in college that used to work for Boeing explained to our spacecraft design class that Boeing stopped contracting launches with China because China launches their rockets over landmass rather than ocean. While this alone is a very dangerous practice, it important to note that a good amount of the crap pouring out of the back of some launch vehicles is poisonous....especially when hydrazine is added into the mix. As a result, the Chinese launch vehicles were dumping significant amounts of poisonous crap down on some of their towns, villages, and even farms. I hope that if NASA does start partnering with China, NASA can influence China to stop such inhumane practices. It would be sad to see bad habits adopted in the reverse order instead.
<br> <br>
Just a thought...</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my professors in college that used to work for Boeing explained to our spacecraft design class that Boeing stopped contracting launches with China because China launches their rockets over landmass rather than ocean .
While this alone is a very dangerous practice , it important to note that a good amount of the crap pouring out of the back of some launch vehicles is poisonous....especially when hydrazine is added into the mix .
As a result , the Chinese launch vehicles were dumping significant amounts of poisonous crap down on some of their towns , villages , and even farms .
I hope that if NASA does start partnering with China , NASA can influence China to stop such inhumane practices .
It would be sad to see bad habits adopted in the reverse order instead .
Just a thought.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my professors in college that used to work for Boeing explained to our spacecraft design class that Boeing stopped contracting launches with China because China launches their rockets over landmass rather than ocean.
While this alone is a very dangerous practice, it important to note that a good amount of the crap pouring out of the back of some launch vehicles is poisonous....especially when hydrazine is added into the mix.
As a result, the Chinese launch vehicles were dumping significant amounts of poisonous crap down on some of their towns, villages, and even farms.
I hope that if NASA does start partnering with China, NASA can influence China to stop such inhumane practices.
It would be sad to see bad habits adopted in the reverse order instead.
Just a thought...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134632</id>
	<title>Sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's outsource the ****ing space program too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's outsource the * * * * ing space program too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's outsource the ****ing space program too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135566</id>
	<title>Space Shuttle replacement testing.</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1258454700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least China has already tested it for us and we won't need Ares....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least China has already tested it for us and we wo n't need Ares... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least China has already tested it for us and we won't need Ares....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134934</id>
	<title>Re:Sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets outsource national defense! Much higher opportunities to cut costs there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets outsource national defense !
Much higher opportunities to cut costs there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets outsource national defense!
Much higher opportunities to cut costs there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30141822</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully America Can Rub Off on Them</title>
	<author>Shadowmist</author>
	<datestamp>1257078660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I highly suspect that Boeing's cessage of it's  contracts with China (assuming that actually occurred)  had a lot more to do with dollar matters than some sudden concern for the Chinese population.  Another reason to consider this fallacious. We launch spacecraft from Vandenberg Air Force base, including some heavy Titan 3 loads.   Last time I checked the majority of the U.S. landmass is below the launch path.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly suspect that Boeing 's cessage of it 's contracts with China ( assuming that actually occurred ) had a lot more to do with dollar matters than some sudden concern for the Chinese population .
Another reason to consider this fallacious .
We launch spacecraft from Vandenberg Air Force base , including some heavy Titan 3 loads .
Last time I checked the majority of the U.S. landmass is below the launch path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly suspect that Boeing's cessage of it's  contracts with China (assuming that actually occurred)  had a lot more to do with dollar matters than some sudden concern for the Chinese population.
Another reason to consider this fallacious.
We launch spacecraft from Vandenberg Air Force base, including some heavy Titan 3 loads.
Last time I checked the majority of the U.S. landmass is below the launch path.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134800</id>
	<title>Re:Why not team up with Russia?</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, much of China's Russian tech was NOT licensed. Much of it was out and out stolen according to Russia.<br> <br>
However, we are already talking to all of the ISS partners on future space missions. That esp. includes Russia and ESA. <br> <br>
Finally, neither USSR nor China have ever been communist. They were totalitarian states, with command economy. China remains a totalitarian state, but with about a mix of command and capitalist economies. For example, Chinese gov. still tells all of the major companies what they will do with regard to buying and selling lines of business; recently, Chinese gov. was shooting down a company that was to buy GM's Hummer line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , much of China 's Russian tech was NOT licensed .
Much of it was out and out stolen according to Russia .
However , we are already talking to all of the ISS partners on future space missions .
That esp .
includes Russia and ESA .
Finally , neither USSR nor China have ever been communist .
They were totalitarian states , with command economy .
China remains a totalitarian state , but with about a mix of command and capitalist economies .
For example , Chinese gov .
still tells all of the major companies what they will do with regard to buying and selling lines of business ; recently , Chinese gov .
was shooting down a company that was to buy GM 's Hummer line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, much of China's Russian tech was NOT licensed.
Much of it was out and out stolen according to Russia.
However, we are already talking to all of the ISS partners on future space missions.
That esp.
includes Russia and ESA.
Finally, neither USSR nor China have ever been communist.
They were totalitarian states, with command economy.
China remains a totalitarian state, but with about a mix of command and capitalist economies.
For example, Chinese gov.
still tells all of the major companies what they will do with regard to buying and selling lines of business; recently, Chinese gov.
was shooting down a company that was to buy GM's Hummer line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134714</id>
	<title>Really,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What could possibly go wong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What could possibly go wong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What could possibly go wong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134682</id>
	<title>FIREFLY</title>
	<author>cadience</author>
	<datestamp>1258451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hmmm maybe Josh had it right!

Ching-wah tsao duh liou mahng.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hmmm maybe Josh had it right !
Ching-wah tsao duh liou mahng .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmmm maybe Josh had it right!
Ching-wah tsao duh liou mahng.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30148006</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things, namely "defense".</i>
And weren't the original Mercury and Apollo rockets either retrofitted or based on DoD rockets? DoD spending as \% of GDP hasn't really changed must since WWII.
<br>
<br>
Sure there's a balance, but you can't discount the whole in order to promote a piece.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things , namely " defense " .
And were n't the original Mercury and Apollo rockets either retrofitted or based on DoD rockets ?
DoD spending as \ % of GDP has n't really changed must since WWII .
Sure there 's a balance , but you ca n't discount the whole in order to promote a piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things, namely "defense".
And weren't the original Mercury and Apollo rockets either retrofitted or based on DoD rockets?
DoD spending as \% of GDP hasn't really changed must since WWII.
Sure there's a balance, but you can't discount the whole in order to promote a piece.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136342</id>
	<title>Re:Chinese requirements</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258457820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's just marketing, but isn't the fact that the space shuttle can be reused advantageous? Better pre launch testing can make it safer, but AFAIK nothing can be done to the Soyuz to make it reusable. It seams to me that the space shuttle has more of a future to it than Soyuz, but that's just a fealing i can't really justify 10 more deaths just because the shuttle can land again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's just marketing , but is n't the fact that the space shuttle can be reused advantageous ?
Better pre launch testing can make it safer , but AFAIK nothing can be done to the Soyuz to make it reusable .
It seams to me that the space shuttle has more of a future to it than Soyuz , but that 's just a fealing i ca n't really justify 10 more deaths just because the shuttle can land again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's just marketing, but isn't the fact that the space shuttle can be reused advantageous?
Better pre launch testing can make it safer, but AFAIK nothing can be done to the Soyuz to make it reusable.
It seams to me that the space shuttle has more of a future to it than Soyuz, but that's just a fealing i can't really justify 10 more deaths just because the shuttle can land again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1258452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering China owns 10\% of our debt ($800 billion) I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering China owns 10 \ % of our debt ( $ 800 billion ) I wonder if Obama was made an offer he could n't refuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering China owns 10\% of our debt ($800 billion) I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138068</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258466460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And who are you, of such moral superiority, to pass judgement on who deserves access to space or not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And who are you , of such moral superiority , to pass judgement on who deserves access to space or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who are you, of such moral superiority, to pass judgement on who deserves access to space or not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30144702</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1257095400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we want ignorant hordes goaded into spending our money on useless humans-in-space endeavors?
</p><p>Better to spend the money on useful space science than to piss it away on humans-in-space.
</p><p>Anyway, the humans-in-space race was about learning to build decent ICBMs.  I don't think anyone seriously doubted China had the capability to produce decent ICBMs, but having put humans in space proves they do indeed have that capability.  Yay for China. I hope ( for China's sake ) that they don't feel that they must put people on the moon to belabor the point. If they want national pride, spend the money discovering something interesting and cool, and NEW.  Then it will go down in history FOREVER that the Chinese discovered it.  Now there's a monument that will never fall down.  And the best part is the whole world gets the benefit of the knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we want ignorant hordes goaded into spending our money on useless humans-in-space endeavors ?
Better to spend the money on useful space science than to piss it away on humans-in-space .
Anyway , the humans-in-space race was about learning to build decent ICBMs .
I do n't think anyone seriously doubted China had the capability to produce decent ICBMs , but having put humans in space proves they do indeed have that capability .
Yay for China .
I hope ( for China 's sake ) that they do n't feel that they must put people on the moon to belabor the point .
If they want national pride , spend the money discovering something interesting and cool , and NEW .
Then it will go down in history FOREVER that the Chinese discovered it .
Now there 's a monument that will never fall down .
And the best part is the whole world gets the benefit of the knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we want ignorant hordes goaded into spending our money on useless humans-in-space endeavors?
Better to spend the money on useful space science than to piss it away on humans-in-space.
Anyway, the humans-in-space race was about learning to build decent ICBMs.
I don't think anyone seriously doubted China had the capability to produce decent ICBMs, but having put humans in space proves they do indeed have that capability.
Yay for China.
I hope ( for China's sake ) that they don't feel that they must put people on the moon to belabor the point.
If they want national pride, spend the money discovering something interesting and cool, and NEW.
Then it will go down in history FOREVER that the Chinese discovered it.
Now there's a monument that will never fall down.
And the best part is the whole world gets the benefit of the knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135460</id>
	<title>It's About Time, It's About Space</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1258454340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pinning a long term program on a single nation is a bad idea because some time during the program the administration changes and often changes the funding or program. Then things fall apart. When we teamed with Russia things went more slowly than they would otherwise but they kept going when they might have faltered.</p><p>I've always been of the mind that space exploration should be an international endeavor. ESA is a good start. So is the US/Russia team. If we add China, we'll have a 3 country team. At that point there's two international teams. When confronted with a major program, say data indicates the probability of life on Europa and they want to send people to explore, they'll consider then about a consolidation to get the job done.</p><p>I think this should be made easier for them by creating an international organization for them all to join, with administration already in place, but that only handles the cooperation aspect and leaves the program to the people who run the national portions. Such an office could be set up by the UN. A benefit to this is that the charter could be written so that nations unable to have a space program could participate in at least a small way in this.</p><p>When humans land on Mars, I think it would say more that they came from Earth itself in name rather than a particular country, than it would that humans got there at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pinning a long term program on a single nation is a bad idea because some time during the program the administration changes and often changes the funding or program .
Then things fall apart .
When we teamed with Russia things went more slowly than they would otherwise but they kept going when they might have faltered.I 've always been of the mind that space exploration should be an international endeavor .
ESA is a good start .
So is the US/Russia team .
If we add China , we 'll have a 3 country team .
At that point there 's two international teams .
When confronted with a major program , say data indicates the probability of life on Europa and they want to send people to explore , they 'll consider then about a consolidation to get the job done.I think this should be made easier for them by creating an international organization for them all to join , with administration already in place , but that only handles the cooperation aspect and leaves the program to the people who run the national portions .
Such an office could be set up by the UN .
A benefit to this is that the charter could be written so that nations unable to have a space program could participate in at least a small way in this.When humans land on Mars , I think it would say more that they came from Earth itself in name rather than a particular country , than it would that humans got there at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pinning a long term program on a single nation is a bad idea because some time during the program the administration changes and often changes the funding or program.
Then things fall apart.
When we teamed with Russia things went more slowly than they would otherwise but they kept going when they might have faltered.I've always been of the mind that space exploration should be an international endeavor.
ESA is a good start.
So is the US/Russia team.
If we add China, we'll have a 3 country team.
At that point there's two international teams.
When confronted with a major program, say data indicates the probability of life on Europa and they want to send people to explore, they'll consider then about a consolidation to get the job done.I think this should be made easier for them by creating an international organization for them all to join, with administration already in place, but that only handles the cooperation aspect and leaves the program to the people who run the national portions.
Such an office could be set up by the UN.
A benefit to this is that the charter could be written so that nations unable to have a space program could participate in at least a small way in this.When humans land on Mars, I think it would say more that they came from Earth itself in name rather than a particular country, than it would that humans got there at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135190</id>
	<title>Cuts not for certian.</title>
	<author>Waste55</author>
	<datestamp>1258453500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be sad and <a href="http://www.savespace.us/" title="savespace.us" rel="nofollow">somewhat hypocritical</a> [savespace.us] (watch the video) of Obama to kill off the Shuttle's successor. However, keep in mind that these are rumors stir from a blanket statement applied to all agencies.
<br> <br>
FTA:<p><div class="quote"><p>But a senior administration official, who is not authorized to speak on the record, cautioned not to read too much into the proposed reductions. The official said agencies were given "global" instructions to cut their budgets by 5 to 10 percent to help reduce the record $1.4 trillion deficit.<br> <br>

"When the president makes a decision on human spaceflight, he can ignore that," said the official.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be sad and somewhat hypocritical [ savespace.us ] ( watch the video ) of Obama to kill off the Shuttle 's successor .
However , keep in mind that these are rumors stir from a blanket statement applied to all agencies .
FTA : But a senior administration official , who is not authorized to speak on the record , cautioned not to read too much into the proposed reductions .
The official said agencies were given " global " instructions to cut their budgets by 5 to 10 percent to help reduce the record $ 1.4 trillion deficit .
" When the president makes a decision on human spaceflight , he can ignore that , " said the official .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be sad and somewhat hypocritical [savespace.us] (watch the video) of Obama to kill off the Shuttle's successor.
However, keep in mind that these are rumors stir from a blanket statement applied to all agencies.
FTA:But a senior administration official, who is not authorized to speak on the record, cautioned not to read too much into the proposed reductions.
The official said agencies were given "global" instructions to cut their budgets by 5 to 10 percent to help reduce the record $1.4 trillion deficit.
"When the president makes a decision on human spaceflight, he can ignore that," said the official.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136024</id>
	<title>Re:By all means</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258456620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is however a lot of tech that can't be weaponized, the shuttle for example isn't going to be used as a fighter plane any time soon (in fact most of it's design principles are the opposite of those used when designing fighter planes). Cooperation on non-military parts of the space mission wouldn't be hard, let them put a few scientists on the ISS, etc in exchange for funding and cooperation in other areas, try using the carrot instead of just the stick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is however a lot of tech that ca n't be weaponized , the shuttle for example is n't going to be used as a fighter plane any time soon ( in fact most of it 's design principles are the opposite of those used when designing fighter planes ) .
Cooperation on non-military parts of the space mission would n't be hard , let them put a few scientists on the ISS , etc in exchange for funding and cooperation in other areas , try using the carrot instead of just the stick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is however a lot of tech that can't be weaponized, the shuttle for example isn't going to be used as a fighter plane any time soon (in fact most of it's design principles are the opposite of those used when designing fighter planes).
Cooperation on non-military parts of the space mission wouldn't be hard, let them put a few scientists on the ISS, etc in exchange for funding and cooperation in other areas, try using the carrot instead of just the stick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138044</id>
	<title>Re:Budget Cut</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258466160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, W left it at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.55\% of the GDP, while most of NASA life has been around 1\% for dems and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.9\% for republicans. As such, if we really want NASA to get back to where it was prior to W/neo-cons, then we should increase its budget to about 30-32 BILLION.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , W left it at .55 \ % of the GDP , while most of NASA life has been around 1 \ % for dems and .9 \ % for republicans .
As such , if we really want NASA to get back to where it was prior to W/neo-cons , then we should increase its budget to about 30-32 BILLION .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, W left it at .55\% of the GDP, while most of NASA life has been around 1\% for dems and .9\% for republicans.
As such, if we really want NASA to get back to where it was prior to W/neo-cons, then we should increase its budget to about 30-32 BILLION.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134858</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. And the statement that China is trying to be a leader is misleading. So what? They can try all they want. The real question is: do we want them to BE a "leader"?
<br> <br>
And, as long as their government is structured as it is and behaves as it does, I say the answer to that is no. In fact I think a space partnership with China would be disastrous for the United States.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
And the statement that China is trying to be a leader is misleading .
So what ?
They can try all they want .
The real question is : do we want them to BE a " leader " ?
And , as long as their government is structured as it is and behaves as it does , I say the answer to that is no .
In fact I think a space partnership with China would be disastrous for the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
And the statement that China is trying to be a leader is misleading.
So what?
They can try all they want.
The real question is: do we want them to BE a "leader"?
And, as long as their government is structured as it is and behaves as it does, I say the answer to that is no.
In fact I think a space partnership with China would be disastrous for the United States.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135254</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50's. It's not like there's any major secrets</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, there are.  Not so much military type secrets, but trade secrets and proprietary processes.  Rocketry is still very much an art, as everyone from Armadillo to SpaceX is discovering.  We haven't had that many design generations, and total flight experience is pretty low overall.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>they probably already have Soviet designs, which have proved more reliable than our stuff.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's what the urban legend would have you believe - but it's utterly false.  The difference in reliability between American and Russian vehicles is statistically insignificant.  (And the Soyuz capsule in particular has the questionable tendency to break just enough to ride the ragged edge between survival and loss of crew...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50 's .
It 's not like there 's any major secretsActually , there are .
Not so much military type secrets , but trade secrets and proprietary processes .
Rocketry is still very much an art , as everyone from Armadillo to SpaceX is discovering .
We have n't had that many design generations , and total flight experience is pretty low overall .
  they probably already have Soviet designs , which have proved more reliable than our stuff.That 's what the urban legend would have you believe - but it 's utterly false .
The difference in reliability between American and Russian vehicles is statistically insignificant .
( And the Soyuz capsule in particular has the questionable tendency to break just enough to ride the ragged edge between survival and loss of crew... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50's.
It's not like there's any major secretsActually, there are.
Not so much military type secrets, but trade secrets and proprietary processes.
Rocketry is still very much an art, as everyone from Armadillo to SpaceX is discovering.
We haven't had that many design generations, and total flight experience is pretty low overall.
  they probably already have Soviet designs, which have proved more reliable than our stuff.That's what the urban legend would have you believe - but it's utterly false.
The difference in reliability between American and Russian vehicles is statistically insignificant.
(And the Soyuz capsule in particular has the questionable tendency to break just enough to ride the ragged edge between survival and loss of crew...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139000</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Amiga Trombone</author>
	<datestamp>1258474260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering China owns 10\% of our debt ($800 billion) I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.</p></div><p>Heh. That offer would have to be a loan. We sure don't have the money to go anywhere ourselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering China owns 10 \ % of our debt ( $ 800 billion ) I wonder if Obama was made an offer he could n't refuse.Heh .
That offer would have to be a loan .
We sure do n't have the money to go anywhere ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering China owns 10\% of our debt ($800 billion) I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.Heh.
That offer would have to be a loan.
We sure don't have the money to go anywhere ourselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135618</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this a surprise? Obama hates space.</title>
	<author>Waste55</author>
	<datestamp>1258454820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, Obama originally said take away from CxP to fund education. He then changed his tune when he gave <a href="http://www.savespace.us/" title="savespace.us" rel="nofollow">his speech in florida</a> [savespace.us].  ( My thought is why the hell would those two compete for budget when they compliment each other so well.  )
<br> <br>
McCain is no better, he recently voted No in restoring funding that NASA has already lost. It passed anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , Obama originally said take away from CxP to fund education .
He then changed his tune when he gave his speech in florida [ savespace.us ] .
( My thought is why the hell would those two compete for budget when they compliment each other so well .
) McCain is no better , he recently voted No in restoring funding that NASA has already lost .
It passed anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, Obama originally said take away from CxP to fund education.
He then changed his tune when he gave his speech in florida [savespace.us].
( My thought is why the hell would those two compete for budget when they compliment each other so well.
)
 
McCain is no better, he recently voted No in restoring funding that NASA has already lost.
It passed anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134734</id>
	<title>Ummm...?</title>
	<author>PirateBlis</author>
	<datestamp>1258452000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sooooo our shuttles AREN'T going to have "Made in China" on the bottom?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooooo our shuttles ARE N'T going to have " Made in China " on the bottom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooooo our shuttles AREN'T going to have "Made in China" on the bottom?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136276</id>
	<title>At this rate</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1258457640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with budget cuts, our space program will be on par with the UK.</p><p>"Hello, Swindon."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with budget cuts , our space program will be on par with the UK .
" Hello , Swindon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with budget cuts, our space program will be on par with the UK.
"Hello, Swindon.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134592</id>
	<title>Just 10\%?</title>
	<author>glrotate</author>
	<datestamp>1258451520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear ObaMao;</p><p>Please cut the white collar aerospace welfare program by at least 75\%.</p><p>They haven't done anything really interesting in manned flight in almost 40 years, and until we invent warp drives, manned exploration will continue to be a waste of tome and money.</p><p>The unmanned exploration is mostly useless.  Nobody other than soil scientists care whether the crust of Mars is 27.6\% silica or 27.7&amp; silica.</p><p>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear ObaMao ; Please cut the white collar aerospace welfare program by at least 75 \ % .They have n't done anything really interesting in manned flight in almost 40 years , and until we invent warp drives , manned exploration will continue to be a waste of tome and money.The unmanned exploration is mostly useless .
Nobody other than soil scientists care whether the crust of Mars is 27.6 \ % silica or 27.7&amp; silica.Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear ObaMao;Please cut the white collar aerospace welfare program by at least 75\%.They haven't done anything really interesting in manned flight in almost 40 years, and until we invent warp drives, manned exploration will continue to be a waste of tome and money.The unmanned exploration is mostly useless.
Nobody other than soil scientists care whether the crust of Mars is 27.6\% silica or 27.7&amp; silica.Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135342</id>
	<title>Not just space: Joint statement by China/US</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1258453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It actually isn't just space the two countries are planning on cooperating on. Not sure how much beef is behind this statement, but here's a snippet of the joint statement by Presidents Obama and Hu during Obama's visit to China:</p><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/joint-press-statement-president-obama-and-president-hu-china" title="whitehouse.gov">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/joint-press-statement-president-obama-and-president-hu-china</a> [whitehouse.gov]<br><a href="http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/china-and-us-to.html" title="nasawatch.com">http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/china-and-us-to.html</a> [nasawatch.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The complementing departments of China and the United States have already signed a number of cooperation agreements, including the MOU to enhanced cooperation on climate change, energy and environment.  The two sides have also officially launched the initiative of developing a China-U.S. clean energy research center.</p><p>Both President Obama and I said that we are willing to act on the basis of mutual benefit and reciprocity to deepen our cooperation on counterterrorism, law enforcement, science, technology, outer space, civil aviation, and engage in cooperation in space exploration, high-speed railway infrastructure, in agriculture, health, and other fields.  And we also agreed to work together to continue to promote even greater progress in the growth of military-to-military ties.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It actually is n't just space the two countries are planning on cooperating on .
Not sure how much beef is behind this statement , but here 's a snippet of the joint statement by Presidents Obama and Hu during Obama 's visit to China : http : //www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/joint-press-statement-president-obama-and-president-hu-china [ whitehouse.gov ] http : //nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/china-and-us-to.html [ nasawatch.com ] The complementing departments of China and the United States have already signed a number of cooperation agreements , including the MOU to enhanced cooperation on climate change , energy and environment .
The two sides have also officially launched the initiative of developing a China-U.S. clean energy research center.Both President Obama and I said that we are willing to act on the basis of mutual benefit and reciprocity to deepen our cooperation on counterterrorism , law enforcement , science , technology , outer space , civil aviation , and engage in cooperation in space exploration , high-speed railway infrastructure , in agriculture , health , and other fields .
And we also agreed to work together to continue to promote even greater progress in the growth of military-to-military ties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It actually isn't just space the two countries are planning on cooperating on.
Not sure how much beef is behind this statement, but here's a snippet of the joint statement by Presidents Obama and Hu during Obama's visit to China:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/joint-press-statement-president-obama-and-president-hu-china [whitehouse.gov]http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/china-and-us-to.html [nasawatch.com] The complementing departments of China and the United States have already signed a number of cooperation agreements, including the MOU to enhanced cooperation on climate change, energy and environment.
The two sides have also officially launched the initiative of developing a China-U.S. clean energy research center.Both President Obama and I said that we are willing to act on the basis of mutual benefit and reciprocity to deepen our cooperation on counterterrorism, law enforcement, science, technology, outer space, civil aviation, and engage in cooperation in space exploration, high-speed railway infrastructure, in agriculture, health, and other fields.
And we also agreed to work together to continue to promote even greater progress in the growth of military-to-military ties.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136266</id>
	<title>Alliance going into space</title>
	<author>bsupak</author>
	<datestamp>1258457580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to find me a Firefly class ship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to find me a Firefly class ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to find me a Firefly class ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135424</id>
	<title>Re:By all means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Follow up.</p><p>OK, According to NASA, there were <a href="http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/history/h-flights.htm" title="nasa.gov">18 Shuttle/Mir missions</a> [nasa.gov].  However, none of them occurred prior to 1991.  Therefore ASTP was the only Soviet-US joint mission.</p><p>US Manned Space Missions from 1961-1991:<br>* Mercury - 6<br>* Gemini - 10<br>* Apollo - 11<br>* Skylab - 3<br>* ASTP - 1<br>* Shuttle - 44 (per Wikipedia)</p><p>Soviet Space Missions from 1961-1991 (per Wikipiedia, includes ASTP): 66</p><p>That gives 141 missions.  So out of 141 manned missions before the fall of the Soviet Union (your timeframe: "during cold war"), exactly 1 (or 2, depending how many times you count ASTP) were joint.</p><p>Would you care to explain how 1 out of 141 is the norm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Follow up.OK , According to NASA , there were 18 Shuttle/Mir missions [ nasa.gov ] .
However , none of them occurred prior to 1991 .
Therefore ASTP was the only Soviet-US joint mission.US Manned Space Missions from 1961-1991 : * Mercury - 6 * Gemini - 10 * Apollo - 11 * Skylab - 3 * ASTP - 1 * Shuttle - 44 ( per Wikipedia ) Soviet Space Missions from 1961-1991 ( per Wikipiedia , includes ASTP ) : 66That gives 141 missions .
So out of 141 manned missions before the fall of the Soviet Union ( your timeframe : " during cold war " ) , exactly 1 ( or 2 , depending how many times you count ASTP ) were joint.Would you care to explain how 1 out of 141 is the norm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Follow up.OK, According to NASA, there were 18 Shuttle/Mir missions [nasa.gov].
However, none of them occurred prior to 1991.
Therefore ASTP was the only Soviet-US joint mission.US Manned Space Missions from 1961-1991:* Mercury - 6* Gemini - 10* Apollo - 11* Skylab - 3* ASTP - 1* Shuttle - 44 (per Wikipedia)Soviet Space Missions from 1961-1991 (per Wikipiedia, includes ASTP): 66That gives 141 missions.
So out of 141 manned missions before the fall of the Soviet Union (your timeframe: "during cold war"), exactly 1 (or 2, depending how many times you count ASTP) were joint.Would you care to explain how 1 out of 141 is the norm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137762</id>
	<title>Screw Obama</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1258464540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only science they want is the study of how to get more votes.  Geeks cast by the wayside as soon as he had the keys, along with main street</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only science they want is the study of how to get more votes .
Geeks cast by the wayside as soon as he had the keys , along with main street</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only science they want is the study of how to get more votes.
Geeks cast by the wayside as soon as he had the keys, along with main street</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136040</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1258456620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand "natural" and "artificial" in this context.  I mean, it makes sense to talk about an ecosystem's "natural" balance -- i.e. the balance it had/would attain without the influence of post-industrial humans.  But the economy is nothing but the actions of modern humans...  So I don't understand the distinction.  If China buying up debt increases the agreed upon value of the dollar, then isn't that just the value of the dollar?  I mean I understand your point that the coming devaluation of the dollar will be worse because of these actions, but that still just seems like the "natural" market at work.  Is it because they're <i>specifically</i> trying to inflate the dollar, rather than taking actions which just happen to increase the value of our currency?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand " natural " and " artificial " in this context .
I mean , it makes sense to talk about an ecosystem 's " natural " balance -- i.e .
the balance it had/would attain without the influence of post-industrial humans .
But the economy is nothing but the actions of modern humans... So I do n't understand the distinction .
If China buying up debt increases the agreed upon value of the dollar , then is n't that just the value of the dollar ?
I mean I understand your point that the coming devaluation of the dollar will be worse because of these actions , but that still just seems like the " natural " market at work .
Is it because they 're specifically trying to inflate the dollar , rather than taking actions which just happen to increase the value of our currency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand "natural" and "artificial" in this context.
I mean, it makes sense to talk about an ecosystem's "natural" balance -- i.e.
the balance it had/would attain without the influence of post-industrial humans.
But the economy is nothing but the actions of modern humans...  So I don't understand the distinction.
If China buying up debt increases the agreed upon value of the dollar, then isn't that just the value of the dollar?
I mean I understand your point that the coming devaluation of the dollar will be worse because of these actions, but that still just seems like the "natural" market at work.
Is it because they're specifically trying to inflate the dollar, rather than taking actions which just happen to increase the value of our currency?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134918</id>
	<title>There is a solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are NASA engineers which have the solution, which can work even with a reduced budget.  They call it <a href="http://www.directlauncher.com/" title="directlauncher.com">DIRECT</a> [directlauncher.com].  Rather than sink tens of billions into R&amp;D, they adapt the existing Space Shuttles systems into a launch vehicle.  The Shuttles R&amp;D costs were paid for decades ago.  The new systems are well within the realm of "relatively simple" as far as rockets go.  It could be ready within a few years, and can operate within even a reduced budget realm.<br> <br>

The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles, Delta and Atlas, but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are NASA engineers which have the solution , which can work even with a reduced budget .
They call it DIRECT [ directlauncher.com ] .
Rather than sink tens of billions into R&amp;D , they adapt the existing Space Shuttles systems into a launch vehicle .
The Shuttles R&amp;D costs were paid for decades ago .
The new systems are well within the realm of " relatively simple " as far as rockets go .
It could be ready within a few years , and can operate within even a reduced budget realm .
The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles , Delta and Atlas , but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are NASA engineers which have the solution, which can work even with a reduced budget.
They call it DIRECT [directlauncher.com].
Rather than sink tens of billions into R&amp;D, they adapt the existing Space Shuttles systems into a launch vehicle.
The Shuttles R&amp;D costs were paid for decades ago.
The new systems are well within the realm of "relatively simple" as far as rockets go.
It could be ready within a few years, and can operate within even a reduced budget realm.
The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles, Delta and Atlas, but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135472</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1258454400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that China is pretty much four and a half decades behind the US and the USSR.  They're doing what Russia and the US did with the Vostok and Mercury missions.  Now admittedly they should be able to progress at a far greater speed than either the US or the USSR did, because a lot of the groundwork has been laid, but still, even an optimistic estimate would, I think, put them at least ten to fifteen years away from being competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that China is pretty much four and a half decades behind the US and the USSR .
They 're doing what Russia and the US did with the Vostok and Mercury missions .
Now admittedly they should be able to progress at a far greater speed than either the US or the USSR did , because a lot of the groundwork has been laid , but still , even an optimistic estimate would , I think , put them at least ten to fifteen years away from being competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that China is pretty much four and a half decades behind the US and the USSR.
They're doing what Russia and the US did with the Vostok and Mercury missions.
Now admittedly they should be able to progress at a far greater speed than either the US or the USSR did, because a lot of the groundwork has been laid, but still, even an optimistic estimate would, I think, put them at least ten to fifteen years away from being competitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135156</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1258453380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.</p></div><p>Somehow I don't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state.  It would hurt them as much as it would hurt us anyway.  In the long run it might even be worse for them, as it would bring their economic growth to a screeching halt.
</p><p>What pisses me off is that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have on health care "reform" that isn't and hundreds of billions more on invading countries that never attacked us but we can't find the money to fund NASA.  The last round of serious investment into space exploration brought us cheap microchips, GPS, satellite photography, etc.
</p><p>Fucking shortsighted stupidity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Obama was made an offer he could n't refuse.Somehow I do n't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state .
It would hurt them as much as it would hurt us anyway .
In the long run it might even be worse for them , as it would bring their economic growth to a screeching halt .
What pisses me off is that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars we do n't have on health care " reform " that is n't and hundreds of billions more on invading countries that never attacked us but we ca n't find the money to fund NASA .
The last round of serious investment into space exploration brought us cheap microchips , GPS , satellite photography , etc .
Fucking shortsighted stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.Somehow I don't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state.
It would hurt them as much as it would hurt us anyway.
In the long run it might even be worse for them, as it would bring their economic growth to a screeching halt.
What pisses me off is that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have on health care "reform" that isn't and hundreds of billions more on invading countries that never attacked us but we can't find the money to fund NASA.
The last round of serious investment into space exploration brought us cheap microchips, GPS, satellite photography, etc.
Fucking shortsighted stupidity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30143898</id>
	<title>Actually, they're doing it right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since we're basically all indentured servants to China, this was only the next logical step.  The next logical step after that is to just disband our entire government and hand it over to the Chinese.  Face it - we couldn't say no to vote-purchasing through pork, and no one left in our government has any balls to tell their constituents the truth about the state of things (that we ALL need to re-learn to live within our means, including the Federal and local governments), and so now we have to pay the piper.  Suck it up, you whiny bitches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we 're basically all indentured servants to China , this was only the next logical step .
The next logical step after that is to just disband our entire government and hand it over to the Chinese .
Face it - we could n't say no to vote-purchasing through pork , and no one left in our government has any balls to tell their constituents the truth about the state of things ( that we ALL need to re-learn to live within our means , including the Federal and local governments ) , and so now we have to pay the piper .
Suck it up , you whiny bitches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we're basically all indentured servants to China, this was only the next logical step.
The next logical step after that is to just disband our entire government and hand it over to the Chinese.
Face it - we couldn't say no to vote-purchasing through pork, and no one left in our government has any balls to tell their constituents the truth about the state of things (that we ALL need to re-learn to live within our means, including the Federal and local governments), and so now we have to pay the piper.
Suck it up, you whiny bitches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30140804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30144702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30148006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30141822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30141176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30140414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30143270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30143898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_205205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135156
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136040
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30141176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30144702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30143898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30148006
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30140414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30140804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30141822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30143270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30139852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30137502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30135032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30134918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_205205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30136160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_205205.30138044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
