<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_29_1629211</id>
	<title>NASA Campaigns For Safer Launch Requirements</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259514240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NASA officials will speak before members of Congress this week in an effort to gain support for <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20091129/NEWS02/911290320/1006/news01/NASA+clamors+for+safer+launches">more stringent launch safety considerations for the space shuttle's successor</a>. Crew safety remains a major concern for lawmakers while they debate NASA's future and the potential <a href="https://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/23/180257/NASA-May-Outsource">integration of private companies</a> into US space flight plans.
<i>"The demonstrated probability of a shuttle launch disaster is 1 in 129. NASA's 83 astronauts think those odds can be improved to 1 in 1,000. Independent safety experts agree. 'None of us want to repeat the accident history of the shuttle,' said retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Dyer, chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, a group organized to oversee NASA programs after three astronauts died in the 1967 Apollo 1 launch pad fire. ... NASA's Astronaut Office began a re-evaluation of next-generation launch vehicle safety after <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/02/01/1442213/Space-Shuttle-Columbia-Breaks-Up-Over-Texas">the loss of Columbia's crew</a>. The guiding principles laid out in a May 2004 report remain current, astronauts said. Launching astronauts into low Earth orbit is dangerous. But an order-of-magnitude reduction of risk is achievable 'and should therefore represent a minimum safety benchmark for future systems,' the report says."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA officials will speak before members of Congress this week in an effort to gain support for more stringent launch safety considerations for the space shuttle 's successor .
Crew safety remains a major concern for lawmakers while they debate NASA 's future and the potential integration of private companies into US space flight plans .
" The demonstrated probability of a shuttle launch disaster is 1 in 129 .
NASA 's 83 astronauts think those odds can be improved to 1 in 1,000 .
Independent safety experts agree .
'None of us want to repeat the accident history of the shuttle, ' said retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Dyer , chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel , a group organized to oversee NASA programs after three astronauts died in the 1967 Apollo 1 launch pad fire .
... NASA 's Astronaut Office began a re-evaluation of next-generation launch vehicle safety after the loss of Columbia 's crew .
The guiding principles laid out in a May 2004 report remain current , astronauts said .
Launching astronauts into low Earth orbit is dangerous .
But an order-of-magnitude reduction of risk is achievable 'and should therefore represent a minimum safety benchmark for future systems, ' the report says .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA officials will speak before members of Congress this week in an effort to gain support for more stringent launch safety considerations for the space shuttle's successor.
Crew safety remains a major concern for lawmakers while they debate NASA's future and the potential integration of private companies into US space flight plans.
"The demonstrated probability of a shuttle launch disaster is 1 in 129.
NASA's 83 astronauts think those odds can be improved to 1 in 1,000.
Independent safety experts agree.
'None of us want to repeat the accident history of the shuttle,' said retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Dyer, chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, a group organized to oversee NASA programs after three astronauts died in the 1967 Apollo 1 launch pad fire.
... NASA's Astronaut Office began a re-evaluation of next-generation launch vehicle safety after the loss of Columbia's crew.
The guiding principles laid out in a May 2004 report remain current, astronauts said.
Launching astronauts into low Earth orbit is dangerous.
But an order-of-magnitude reduction of risk is achievable 'and should therefore represent a minimum safety benchmark for future systems,' the report says.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262412</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1259519460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more money</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more money</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265186</id>
	<title>Re:10x safer = easy</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1259503020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just switching from a fragile tile-covered aircraft strapped to the side of a flaking-foam-covered hydrogen tank to an inherently ballistically stable capsule placed as far from the flaming end of the rocket as possible (i.e., on top of it) will achieve the desired 10x safety factor improvement.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except, there's no such thing as an 'inherently ballistically stable capsule'.  It takes considerable engineering effort, aerodynamic analysis, CP/CG managment, etc., to make the capsule stable.  Consider this:  An ICBM re entry vehicle is the (roughly) the same shape as a capsule, but re enters pointy end *forward*.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>And if they want to do all this at minimum cost, they could just buy Soyuz vehicles, the world's safest, most reliable manned space transportation system.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's worth noting that Soyuz's demonstrated safety/reliability rate, is actually slightly <i>lower</i> than that of the Shuttle.  (I.E. nowhere near the automagic 10x improvement you believe will occur if we switch to capsules.)  The Soyuz has also demonstrated an annoying propensity to significant failures that ride the ragged edge of disaster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just switching from a fragile tile-covered aircraft strapped to the side of a flaking-foam-covered hydrogen tank to an inherently ballistically stable capsule placed as far from the flaming end of the rocket as possible ( i.e. , on top of it ) will achieve the desired 10x safety factor improvement.Except , there 's no such thing as an 'inherently ballistically stable capsule' .
It takes considerable engineering effort , aerodynamic analysis , CP/CG managment , etc. , to make the capsule stable .
Consider this : An ICBM re entry vehicle is the ( roughly ) the same shape as a capsule , but re enters pointy end * forward * .
  And if they want to do all this at minimum cost , they could just buy Soyuz vehicles , the world 's safest , most reliable manned space transportation system.It 's worth noting that Soyuz 's demonstrated safety/reliability rate , is actually slightly lower than that of the Shuttle .
( I.E. nowhere near the automagic 10x improvement you believe will occur if we switch to capsules .
) The Soyuz has also demonstrated an annoying propensity to significant failures that ride the ragged edge of disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just switching from a fragile tile-covered aircraft strapped to the side of a flaking-foam-covered hydrogen tank to an inherently ballistically stable capsule placed as far from the flaming end of the rocket as possible (i.e., on top of it) will achieve the desired 10x safety factor improvement.Except, there's no such thing as an 'inherently ballistically stable capsule'.
It takes considerable engineering effort, aerodynamic analysis, CP/CG managment, etc., to make the capsule stable.
Consider this:  An ICBM re entry vehicle is the (roughly) the same shape as a capsule, but re enters pointy end *forward*.
  And if they want to do all this at minimum cost, they could just buy Soyuz vehicles, the world's safest, most reliable manned space transportation system.It's worth noting that Soyuz's demonstrated safety/reliability rate, is actually slightly lower than that of the Shuttle.
(I.E. nowhere near the automagic 10x improvement you believe will occur if we switch to capsules.
)  The Soyuz has also demonstrated an annoying propensity to significant failures that ride the ragged edge of disaster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262548</id>
	<title>2/129?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259520300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that we're not counting Columbia as a "launch" disaster. The foam that broke off and hit the orbiter wing happened on launch, so in my mind we're at 2/129, not 1/129. That particular failure mode is directly attributable to the questionable decision to mount the orbiter to the side of the stack, rather than on top: switching back to the "astronauts at the top of the stack" seems like a clear way to remove a bunch of that type of failure modes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that we 're not counting Columbia as a " launch " disaster .
The foam that broke off and hit the orbiter wing happened on launch , so in my mind we 're at 2/129 , not 1/129 .
That particular failure mode is directly attributable to the questionable decision to mount the orbiter to the side of the stack , rather than on top : switching back to the " astronauts at the top of the stack " seems like a clear way to remove a bunch of that type of failure modes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that we're not counting Columbia as a "launch" disaster.
The foam that broke off and hit the orbiter wing happened on launch, so in my mind we're at 2/129, not 1/129.
That particular failure mode is directly attributable to the questionable decision to mount the orbiter to the side of the stack, rather than on top: switching back to the "astronauts at the top of the stack" seems like a clear way to remove a bunch of that type of failure modes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263084</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259525280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why NASA?  Why not reduce Defense which is $650B this year.  Do you believe that money spent killing Iraqis is doing more good than money spent by NASA?  Any good at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why NASA ?
Why not reduce Defense which is $ 650B this year .
Do you believe that money spent killing Iraqis is doing more good than money spent by NASA ?
Any good at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why NASA?
Why not reduce Defense which is $650B this year.
Do you believe that money spent killing Iraqis is doing more good than money spent by NASA?
Any good at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263938</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259490960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you come back here after comparing the NASA budget with the defense budget and reconsidering which should be cut? Then we'll talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you come back here after comparing the NASA budget with the defense budget and reconsidering which should be cut ?
Then we 'll talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you come back here after comparing the NASA budget with the defense budget and reconsidering which should be cut?
Then we'll talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264404</id>
	<title>Re:Make it safer?</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1259495220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some things are more prone to going sideways than others though. Soyuz is simple... kerosene and LOX, with the crew being on the farthest point from the engine.<br> <br> There's no kill switch on solid fuel rockets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some things are more prone to going sideways than others though .
Soyuz is simple... kerosene and LOX , with the crew being on the farthest point from the engine .
There 's no kill switch on solid fuel rockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some things are more prone to going sideways than others though.
Soyuz is simple... kerosene and LOX, with the crew being on the farthest point from the engine.
There's no kill switch on solid fuel rockets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268798</id>
	<title>Re:Not very Agile</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1259586000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with applying agile to spaceflights is that you kill people when you fail a unit test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with applying agile to spaceflights is that you kill people when you fail a unit test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with applying agile to spaceflights is that you kill people when you fail a unit test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263524</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an incredibly short sighted and uneducated statement! Your suggestion is akin to saying that your shrinking household budget requires changing how you spend your money, so you going to cut your food budget from $100 a week to $40 a week, BUT you will continue to burn a stack of $100 bills once an hour yo heat your house rather than use gas or electric heat. NASA's budget is miniscule compared to other portions of the budget. You could combine NASA's, NOAA's, NSF's and NIH's total budget for a year and it wouldn't equal what we spend in a month on bribes to the Taliban. Yet NASA's, NOAA's, NSF's and NIH's  budgets contributes more to the economy and its continued health than any other portion of the budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an incredibly short sighted and uneducated statement !
Your suggestion is akin to saying that your shrinking household budget requires changing how you spend your money , so you going to cut your food budget from $ 100 a week to $ 40 a week , BUT you will continue to burn a stack of $ 100 bills once an hour yo heat your house rather than use gas or electric heat .
NASA 's budget is miniscule compared to other portions of the budget .
You could combine NASA 's , NOAA 's , NSF 's and NIH 's total budget for a year and it would n't equal what we spend in a month on bribes to the Taliban .
Yet NASA 's , NOAA 's , NSF 's and NIH 's budgets contributes more to the economy and its continued health than any other portion of the budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an incredibly short sighted and uneducated statement!
Your suggestion is akin to saying that your shrinking household budget requires changing how you spend your money, so you going to cut your food budget from $100 a week to $40 a week, BUT you will continue to burn a stack of $100 bills once an hour yo heat your house rather than use gas or electric heat.
NASA's budget is miniscule compared to other portions of the budget.
You could combine NASA's, NOAA's, NSF's and NIH's total budget for a year and it wouldn't equal what we spend in a month on bribes to the Taliban.
Yet NASA's, NOAA's, NSF's and NIH's  budgets contributes more to the economy and its continued health than any other portion of the budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</id>
	<title>Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259518500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realize this view is mighty unpopular, yet I am going to express it.  While science is very important, so are social issues.  I would like to see the NASA budget considerably shrunk but for only a short period of time, say 12 - 18 months.  We have to get our country healthy again and space flight really only effects a small sector of the economy.  It will create jobs but only at the most educated levels.  A healthy country is a more efficient and productive one.  Now, you may feel free to mod me but are you willing to join the censors?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize this view is mighty unpopular , yet I am going to express it .
While science is very important , so are social issues .
I would like to see the NASA budget considerably shrunk but for only a short period of time , say 12 - 18 months .
We have to get our country healthy again and space flight really only effects a small sector of the economy .
It will create jobs but only at the most educated levels .
A healthy country is a more efficient and productive one .
Now , you may feel free to mod me but are you willing to join the censors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize this view is mighty unpopular, yet I am going to express it.
While science is very important, so are social issues.
I would like to see the NASA budget considerably shrunk but for only a short period of time, say 12 - 18 months.
We have to get our country healthy again and space flight really only effects a small sector of the economy.
It will create jobs but only at the most educated levels.
A healthy country is a more efficient and productive one.
Now, you may feel free to mod me but are you willing to join the censors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262988</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259524500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. I'm sure there are many astronauts who are willing to take even a 5\% risk of dying just for the opportunity to go into space. The few million dollars of wasted training pale in comparison to the loss of the equipment, so there's really no reason why we (as in humanity as a whole, not as in a space organization which needs to maintain PR) should worry this much about safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I 'm sure there are many astronauts who are willing to take even a 5 \ % risk of dying just for the opportunity to go into space .
The few million dollars of wasted training pale in comparison to the loss of the equipment , so there 's really no reason why we ( as in humanity as a whole , not as in a space organization which needs to maintain PR ) should worry this much about safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I'm sure there are many astronauts who are willing to take even a 5\% risk of dying just for the opportunity to go into space.
The few million dollars of wasted training pale in comparison to the loss of the equipment, so there's really no reason why we (as in humanity as a whole, not as in a space organization which needs to maintain PR) should worry this much about safety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264352</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1259494800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards? Why can't they implement them without the "politicians" approval?</b></p><p>Because unfortunately, it's quite likely that the main reason this is being done is to shut out competitors in private spaceflight. It goes something like this:</p><p>* Although the Astronaut Corps is full of brave and intelligent individuals, the fact of the matter is that they have a huge revolving door with ATK, an aerospace/defense contractor which specializes in solid motors. Astronauts know it's quite likely that they'll become an executive at ATK after their astronaut gig is up, and quite a few gigs will be up once the Space Shuttle is retired.</p><p>* ATK is a major contractor on the Ares I rocket, which has claims of being 100x-1000x safer than the alternatives, due to the fact that it uses a single large ATK solid motor as its first stage. Of course, quite a few aerospace engineers believe that these claims are total bullshit, and it's quite possible that despite NASA and ATK's publicized calculations, in practice the Ares I will actually be more dangerous than the alternatives (EELVs, DIRECT, SpaceX, etc.). There's a number of potential problems with the Ares I which aren't accounted for in the calculations: thrust oscillation, solid propellant debris clouds, the added difficulty of escaping from a solid rocket, the fact that safety systems have had to be cut out due to mass constraints, etc. Also, the sort of accident factors which go into the Ares I's supposed super-safe accident probability calculations actually only account for an absurdly small percentage of launch accidents in practice.</p><p>* Recently the fate of the Ares I has become uncertain, as people are questioning if its wise for NASA to spend $35 billion of its limited funding to develop a new medium-lift rocket which won't be ready until 2017-2019, when plenty of other medium-lift rockets already exist and could become equipped for manned launch for prices ranging from a few hundred million to $3 billion.</p><p>* It remains to be seen what'll happen at the hearing, but my guess is that a number of those testifying from NASA will claim that Ares I will be dramatically safer than commercial alternatives, and therefore Ares should continue getting funding instead of looking at alternatives. They'll probably cite the bullshit safety figures again to try to bolster their case. I believe there's <a href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/11/24/double-jeopardy-for-commercial-space-next-wednesday/#comments" title="spacepolitics.com">one person testifying</a> [spacepolitics.com] who's a proponent of commercial spaceflight, and I suspect he'll be beaten down by Congress.</p><p>* It's looking like Rep. Jim Oberstar might be heading the hearing. Back in 2004 Oberstar tried (in the interest of safety, of course) to <a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/749/1" title="thespacereview.com">kill off commercial suborbital spaceflight companies</a> [thespacereview.com] like Virgin Galactic by having them regulated at the same sort of levels that mature commercial airlines are regulated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards ?
Why ca n't they implement them without the " politicians " approval ? Because unfortunately , it 's quite likely that the main reason this is being done is to shut out competitors in private spaceflight .
It goes something like this : * Although the Astronaut Corps is full of brave and intelligent individuals , the fact of the matter is that they have a huge revolving door with ATK , an aerospace/defense contractor which specializes in solid motors .
Astronauts know it 's quite likely that they 'll become an executive at ATK after their astronaut gig is up , and quite a few gigs will be up once the Space Shuttle is retired .
* ATK is a major contractor on the Ares I rocket , which has claims of being 100x-1000x safer than the alternatives , due to the fact that it uses a single large ATK solid motor as its first stage .
Of course , quite a few aerospace engineers believe that these claims are total bullshit , and it 's quite possible that despite NASA and ATK 's publicized calculations , in practice the Ares I will actually be more dangerous than the alternatives ( EELVs , DIRECT , SpaceX , etc. ) .
There 's a number of potential problems with the Ares I which are n't accounted for in the calculations : thrust oscillation , solid propellant debris clouds , the added difficulty of escaping from a solid rocket , the fact that safety systems have had to be cut out due to mass constraints , etc .
Also , the sort of accident factors which go into the Ares I 's supposed super-safe accident probability calculations actually only account for an absurdly small percentage of launch accidents in practice .
* Recently the fate of the Ares I has become uncertain , as people are questioning if its wise for NASA to spend $ 35 billion of its limited funding to develop a new medium-lift rocket which wo n't be ready until 2017-2019 , when plenty of other medium-lift rockets already exist and could become equipped for manned launch for prices ranging from a few hundred million to $ 3 billion .
* It remains to be seen what 'll happen at the hearing , but my guess is that a number of those testifying from NASA will claim that Ares I will be dramatically safer than commercial alternatives , and therefore Ares should continue getting funding instead of looking at alternatives .
They 'll probably cite the bullshit safety figures again to try to bolster their case .
I believe there 's one person testifying [ spacepolitics.com ] who 's a proponent of commercial spaceflight , and I suspect he 'll be beaten down by Congress .
* It 's looking like Rep. Jim Oberstar might be heading the hearing .
Back in 2004 Oberstar tried ( in the interest of safety , of course ) to kill off commercial suborbital spaceflight companies [ thespacereview.com ] like Virgin Galactic by having them regulated at the same sort of levels that mature commercial airlines are regulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards?
Why can't they implement them without the "politicians" approval?Because unfortunately, it's quite likely that the main reason this is being done is to shut out competitors in private spaceflight.
It goes something like this:* Although the Astronaut Corps is full of brave and intelligent individuals, the fact of the matter is that they have a huge revolving door with ATK, an aerospace/defense contractor which specializes in solid motors.
Astronauts know it's quite likely that they'll become an executive at ATK after their astronaut gig is up, and quite a few gigs will be up once the Space Shuttle is retired.
* ATK is a major contractor on the Ares I rocket, which has claims of being 100x-1000x safer than the alternatives, due to the fact that it uses a single large ATK solid motor as its first stage.
Of course, quite a few aerospace engineers believe that these claims are total bullshit, and it's quite possible that despite NASA and ATK's publicized calculations, in practice the Ares I will actually be more dangerous than the alternatives (EELVs, DIRECT, SpaceX, etc.).
There's a number of potential problems with the Ares I which aren't accounted for in the calculations: thrust oscillation, solid propellant debris clouds, the added difficulty of escaping from a solid rocket, the fact that safety systems have had to be cut out due to mass constraints, etc.
Also, the sort of accident factors which go into the Ares I's supposed super-safe accident probability calculations actually only account for an absurdly small percentage of launch accidents in practice.
* Recently the fate of the Ares I has become uncertain, as people are questioning if its wise for NASA to spend $35 billion of its limited funding to develop a new medium-lift rocket which won't be ready until 2017-2019, when plenty of other medium-lift rockets already exist and could become equipped for manned launch for prices ranging from a few hundred million to $3 billion.
* It remains to be seen what'll happen at the hearing, but my guess is that a number of those testifying from NASA will claim that Ares I will be dramatically safer than commercial alternatives, and therefore Ares should continue getting funding instead of looking at alternatives.
They'll probably cite the bullshit safety figures again to try to bolster their case.
I believe there's one person testifying [spacepolitics.com] who's a proponent of commercial spaceflight, and I suspect he'll be beaten down by Congress.
* It's looking like Rep. Jim Oberstar might be heading the hearing.
Back in 2004 Oberstar tried (in the interest of safety, of course) to kill off commercial suborbital spaceflight companies [thespacereview.com] like Virgin Galactic by having them regulated at the same sort of levels that mature commercial airlines are regulated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263886</id>
	<title>Re:Waaaaahhhh</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259490600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine. Let them pay for it.<br>If they do it first that doesn't mean we won't eventually benefit.<br>The US has paid dearly for the burden of prideful leadership while others profit from our effort. Why not flip the situation and<br>let someone else foot the bill?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine .
Let them pay for it.If they do it first that does n't mean we wo n't eventually benefit.The US has paid dearly for the burden of prideful leadership while others profit from our effort .
Why not flip the situation andlet someone else foot the bill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine.
Let them pay for it.If they do it first that doesn't mean we won't eventually benefit.The US has paid dearly for the burden of prideful leadership while others profit from our effort.
Why not flip the situation andlet someone else foot the bill?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263816</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259490000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without even addressing the infeasibility of simply shrinking NASA's already tiny budget, the most egregious issue here is the idea that shrinking NASA's budget will do anything at all to the economy as a whole. NASA consumes a whole 0.58\% of the national budget. Even if you removed NASA entirely you've had effectively 0 on the economy as a whole. Of all the things to get rid of (and a reduction effectively would) in the US budget, NASA is one of the dumbest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without even addressing the infeasibility of simply shrinking NASA 's already tiny budget , the most egregious issue here is the idea that shrinking NASA 's budget will do anything at all to the economy as a whole .
NASA consumes a whole 0.58 \ % of the national budget .
Even if you removed NASA entirely you 've had effectively 0 on the economy as a whole .
Of all the things to get rid of ( and a reduction effectively would ) in the US budget , NASA is one of the dumbest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without even addressing the infeasibility of simply shrinking NASA's already tiny budget, the most egregious issue here is the idea that shrinking NASA's budget will do anything at all to the economy as a whole.
NASA consumes a whole 0.58\% of the national budget.
Even if you removed NASA entirely you've had effectively 0 on the economy as a whole.
Of all the things to get rid of (and a reduction effectively would) in the US budget, NASA is one of the dumbest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268194</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> STS design went for capacity and payload, at great risk to safety.</p></div><p>Wrong.<br>Ultimately the issue was a crossrange requirement driven by the Congressional mandate that only a single launch system would be funded, and would be used to support civilian, science, and military payloads.<br>Only a winged design could launch polar from Vandenberg, take some pictures of an "event", and land back at Vandenberg.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>STS design went for capacity and payload , at great risk to safety.Wrong.Ultimately the issue was a crossrange requirement driven by the Congressional mandate that only a single launch system would be funded , and would be used to support civilian , science , and military payloads.Only a winged design could launch polar from Vandenberg , take some pictures of an " event " , and land back at Vandenberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> STS design went for capacity and payload, at great risk to safety.Wrong.Ultimately the issue was a crossrange requirement driven by the Congressional mandate that only a single launch system would be funded, and would be used to support civilian, science, and military payloads.Only a winged design could launch polar from Vandenberg, take some pictures of an "event", and land back at Vandenberg.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262958</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>dmartin</author>
	<datestamp>1259524320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does the number 2:1 come from (I take it we are just looking at the shuttle budget, not NASAs entire budget)?</p><p>As you rightly point out, if 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it would be evil not to do it.</p><p>What if it cost an extra $10 to go from 1:129 to 1:1000? How about $10,000? Or $10,000,000?</p><p>I agree that at some point it is no longer worth it, and that implicitly we do place value on a humans lives. But how much is it worth? That is maybe a better question than the ratio of "2:1", as I don't even know what quantity you are doubling.</p><p>(Possibilities are the entire NASA budget, the shuttle budget, or the actual budget for the launch. For the last of these, 2:1 does not seem particularly outrageous.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does the number 2 : 1 come from ( I take it we are just looking at the shuttle budget , not NASAs entire budget ) ? As you rightly point out , if 1 : 1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1 : 129 then it would be evil not to do it.What if it cost an extra $ 10 to go from 1 : 129 to 1 : 1000 ?
How about $ 10,000 ?
Or $ 10,000,000 ? I agree that at some point it is no longer worth it , and that implicitly we do place value on a humans lives .
But how much is it worth ?
That is maybe a better question than the ratio of " 2 : 1 " , as I do n't even know what quantity you are doubling .
( Possibilities are the entire NASA budget , the shuttle budget , or the actual budget for the launch .
For the last of these , 2 : 1 does not seem particularly outrageous .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does the number 2:1 come from (I take it we are just looking at the shuttle budget, not NASAs entire budget)?As you rightly point out, if 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it would be evil not to do it.What if it cost an extra $10 to go from 1:129 to 1:1000?
How about $10,000?
Or $10,000,000?I agree that at some point it is no longer worth it, and that implicitly we do place value on a humans lives.
But how much is it worth?
That is maybe a better question than the ratio of "2:1", as I don't even know what quantity you are doubling.
(Possibilities are the entire NASA budget, the shuttle budget, or the actual budget for the launch.
For the last of these, 2:1 does not seem particularly outrageous.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263974</id>
	<title>Management</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1259491500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CAIB report directly pointed it's finger at management "converting a memory of failure into a memory of success" and that Nasa management had learned nothing from the Challenger accident where poor management decisions led to the loss of both launch vehicles.</p><p>
The U.S Navy criticised Nasa heavily, citing that it had assigned 5000 Navy staff to study the loss of the Challenger so it could improve practices in it Nuclear submarine fleet, Nasa assigned none. 14 of the 17 astronauts lost were due to management failure. Seems to me that to increase launch safety Nasa Management is a fairly obvious place to start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CAIB report directly pointed it 's finger at management " converting a memory of failure into a memory of success " and that Nasa management had learned nothing from the Challenger accident where poor management decisions led to the loss of both launch vehicles .
The U.S Navy criticised Nasa heavily , citing that it had assigned 5000 Navy staff to study the loss of the Challenger so it could improve practices in it Nuclear submarine fleet , Nasa assigned none .
14 of the 17 astronauts lost were due to management failure .
Seems to me that to increase launch safety Nasa Management is a fairly obvious place to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CAIB report directly pointed it's finger at management "converting a memory of failure into a memory of success" and that Nasa management had learned nothing from the Challenger accident where poor management decisions led to the loss of both launch vehicles.
The U.S Navy criticised Nasa heavily, citing that it had assigned 5000 Navy staff to study the loss of the Challenger so it could improve practices in it Nuclear submarine fleet, Nasa assigned none.
14 of the 17 astronauts lost were due to management failure.
Seems to me that to increase launch safety Nasa Management is a fairly obvious place to start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30273034</id>
	<title>Re:BS numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The failure rate has been misquoted in this article. There has been two failures in 127 flights. I consider the Columbia accident to be an ascend failure that revealed itself upon descend.</p><p>This is in line with a historic failure rate of ~2\% for ALL launch systems. The Orion launch system will be no different. Going into space has been and will remain a risky business until we change the basic fundamentals of how our launch systems work. Thousands of parts have to work under enormous conditions and even a small malfunction can be catastrophic. Space flight will never be "routine", like flying in a commercial airliner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The failure rate has been misquoted in this article .
There has been two failures in 127 flights .
I consider the Columbia accident to be an ascend failure that revealed itself upon descend.This is in line with a historic failure rate of ~ 2 \ % for ALL launch systems .
The Orion launch system will be no different .
Going into space has been and will remain a risky business until we change the basic fundamentals of how our launch systems work .
Thousands of parts have to work under enormous conditions and even a small malfunction can be catastrophic .
Space flight will never be " routine " , like flying in a commercial airliner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The failure rate has been misquoted in this article.
There has been two failures in 127 flights.
I consider the Columbia accident to be an ascend failure that revealed itself upon descend.This is in line with a historic failure rate of ~2\% for ALL launch systems.
The Orion launch system will be no different.
Going into space has been and will remain a risky business until we change the basic fundamentals of how our launch systems work.
Thousands of parts have to work under enormous conditions and even a small malfunction can be catastrophic.
Space flight will never be "routine", like flying in a commercial airliner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262766</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1259522520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unpopular?  No, it's simply idiotic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unpopular ?
No , it 's simply idiotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unpopular?
No, it's simply idiotic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262364</id>
	<title>reality</title>
	<author>heptapod</author>
	<datestamp>1259519160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sincerely hope that people understand such legislation has its foundations in the fact that launch vehicles are very expensive and nothing to do with the pilots and passengers.<br>Even taking into account the investment made in people while training astronauts can be sizeable it still pales in comparison to the expense of using a chemical rocket to boost a tiny payload into low earth orbit. $10,000 per pound in 2001 dollars.<br>Once the price of lobbing things into space becomes reasonable, there will be deaths, once again nobody will care in the same measure nobody other than relatives of the victims bats an eye when a plane crashes today.<br>What does NASA expect of all of the space programs? To have an unrealistic safety record which would put General Products to shame? Sometimes the tree of science needs to be watered with the blood of the brave and the bold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely hope that people understand such legislation has its foundations in the fact that launch vehicles are very expensive and nothing to do with the pilots and passengers.Even taking into account the investment made in people while training astronauts can be sizeable it still pales in comparison to the expense of using a chemical rocket to boost a tiny payload into low earth orbit .
$ 10,000 per pound in 2001 dollars.Once the price of lobbing things into space becomes reasonable , there will be deaths , once again nobody will care in the same measure nobody other than relatives of the victims bats an eye when a plane crashes today.What does NASA expect of all of the space programs ?
To have an unrealistic safety record which would put General Products to shame ?
Sometimes the tree of science needs to be watered with the blood of the brave and the bold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sincerely hope that people understand such legislation has its foundations in the fact that launch vehicles are very expensive and nothing to do with the pilots and passengers.Even taking into account the investment made in people while training astronauts can be sizeable it still pales in comparison to the expense of using a chemical rocket to boost a tiny payload into low earth orbit.
$10,000 per pound in 2001 dollars.Once the price of lobbing things into space becomes reasonable, there will be deaths, once again nobody will care in the same measure nobody other than relatives of the victims bats an eye when a plane crashes today.What does NASA expect of all of the space programs?
To have an unrealistic safety record which would put General Products to shame?
Sometimes the tree of science needs to be watered with the blood of the brave and the bold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30272952</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1259612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pure guesswork here, but perhaps the commercial alternatives to Ares suggested by the Augustine commission can't reach the safety standard NASA is asking for?  Or can't do so profitably, which for anyone but NASA is the same as being unable to do it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pure guesswork here , but perhaps the commercial alternatives to Ares suggested by the Augustine commission ca n't reach the safety standard NASA is asking for ?
Or ca n't do so profitably , which for anyone but NASA is the same as being unable to do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pure guesswork here, but perhaps the commercial alternatives to Ares suggested by the Augustine commission can't reach the safety standard NASA is asking for?
Or can't do so profitably, which for anyone but NASA is the same as being unable to do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30269578</id>
	<title>Statistics</title>
	<author>yamfry</author>
	<datestamp>1259594040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, so the odds of dying are 1 in 129 and there are only 83 astronauts. As long as they never get more than 128 astronauts I don't see what the big deal is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so the odds of dying are 1 in 129 and there are only 83 astronauts .
As long as they never get more than 128 astronauts I do n't see what the big deal is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so the odds of dying are 1 in 129 and there are only 83 astronauts.
As long as they never get more than 128 astronauts I don't see what the big deal is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262972</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1259524380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards? Why can't they implement them without the "politicians" approval?</p></div><p>Perhaps they wish to hobble private competitors, like SpaceX, with so many onerous restrictions and regulations that they exit the launch business and leave NASA with a government funded monopoly. NASA doesn't really care about how much launches cost, up to a point, but they do care about having to compete with a private agency for their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison\_d'\%C3\%AAtre" title="wikipedia.org">Raison d'&#234;tre</a> [wikipedia.org]. This is about using the power of government to eliminate or at least severely restrict the marketplace for private launches. One has to know how federal government bureaucrats think to understand this. Federal bureaucrats generally want three things:</p><ul>
<li>Their first priority is to ensure that their budget is never cut or that if it is cut then it is cut as little as possible and increased again as soon as possible (generally during the next budget cycle).</li><li>Their second priority, if possible, is to have their budget increased in each budget cycle.</li><li>Finally, their third priority is to have the scope and powers of their agency increased so that the first two priorities become ever easier to achieve in subsequent budget cycles.</li></ul><p>In this way the successful bureaucrat becomes lord of their of political fiefdom within the vast domain of government; protected from competition, indispensable,  and mandated to exist for all eternity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards ?
Why ca n't they implement them without the " politicians " approval ? Perhaps they wish to hobble private competitors , like SpaceX , with so many onerous restrictions and regulations that they exit the launch business and leave NASA with a government funded monopoly .
NASA does n't really care about how much launches cost , up to a point , but they do care about having to compete with a private agency for their Raison d '   tre [ wikipedia.org ] .
This is about using the power of government to eliminate or at least severely restrict the marketplace for private launches .
One has to know how federal government bureaucrats think to understand this .
Federal bureaucrats generally want three things : Their first priority is to ensure that their budget is never cut or that if it is cut then it is cut as little as possible and increased again as soon as possible ( generally during the next budget cycle ) .Their second priority , if possible , is to have their budget increased in each budget cycle.Finally , their third priority is to have the scope and powers of their agency increased so that the first two priorities become ever easier to achieve in subsequent budget cycles.In this way the successful bureaucrat becomes lord of their of political fiefdom within the vast domain of government ; protected from competition , indispensable , and mandated to exist for all eternity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards?
Why can't they implement them without the "politicians" approval?Perhaps they wish to hobble private competitors, like SpaceX, with so many onerous restrictions and regulations that they exit the launch business and leave NASA with a government funded monopoly.
NASA doesn't really care about how much launches cost, up to a point, but they do care about having to compete with a private agency for their Raison d'être [wikipedia.org].
This is about using the power of government to eliminate or at least severely restrict the marketplace for private launches.
One has to know how federal government bureaucrats think to understand this.
Federal bureaucrats generally want three things:
Their first priority is to ensure that their budget is never cut or that if it is cut then it is cut as little as possible and increased again as soon as possible (generally during the next budget cycle).Their second priority, if possible, is to have their budget increased in each budget cycle.Finally, their third priority is to have the scope and powers of their agency increased so that the first two priorities become ever easier to achieve in subsequent budget cycles.In this way the successful bureaucrat becomes lord of their of political fiefdom within the vast domain of government; protected from competition, indispensable,  and mandated to exist for all eternity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262516</id>
	<title>Launches would be "safer" minus a human crew.</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259520060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their launches would be much "safer" if they concentrated on useful research instead of the absurd focus on sending people into space.<br>There is no reason to rush the process, and we need to improve robots (which are expendable and can serve us everywhere) more then we need to send tourists for a ride.</p><p>If there is something that an automaton cannnot currently do, it is better to improve the machine than send humans. Humans are delicate, burdensome to support, require excessive safety precautions because society overvalues them (compare to the vigorous level of Terran exploration that used expendable ships and crews) and are a limiting factor rather than an enhancement.</p><p>We should dump tourism on the for-profit commercial space community and on foreign countries. We don't have to lead to benefit from technology any more than did the current beneficiaries of OUR technology. The Cold War is over and the penis-waving that drove manned missions can end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their launches would be much " safer " if they concentrated on useful research instead of the absurd focus on sending people into space.There is no reason to rush the process , and we need to improve robots ( which are expendable and can serve us everywhere ) more then we need to send tourists for a ride.If there is something that an automaton cannnot currently do , it is better to improve the machine than send humans .
Humans are delicate , burdensome to support , require excessive safety precautions because society overvalues them ( compare to the vigorous level of Terran exploration that used expendable ships and crews ) and are a limiting factor rather than an enhancement.We should dump tourism on the for-profit commercial space community and on foreign countries .
We do n't have to lead to benefit from technology any more than did the current beneficiaries of OUR technology .
The Cold War is over and the penis-waving that drove manned missions can end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their launches would be much "safer" if they concentrated on useful research instead of the absurd focus on sending people into space.There is no reason to rush the process, and we need to improve robots (which are expendable and can serve us everywhere) more then we need to send tourists for a ride.If there is something that an automaton cannnot currently do, it is better to improve the machine than send humans.
Humans are delicate, burdensome to support, require excessive safety precautions because society overvalues them (compare to the vigorous level of Terran exploration that used expendable ships and crews) and are a limiting factor rather than an enhancement.We should dump tourism on the for-profit commercial space community and on foreign countries.
We don't have to lead to benefit from technology any more than did the current beneficiaries of OUR technology.
The Cold War is over and the penis-waving that drove manned missions can end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262676</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Gazoogleheimer</author>
	<datestamp>1259521380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of that, it is very disappointing to note the risk/benefit or even pure--dare I say it--romanticism of spaceflight. It's been nearly half a century since we went to the Moon, and our technology since then has advanced almost immeasurably.

Yet--has our engineering talent, scientific motivation, and will to discover followed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of that , it is very disappointing to note the risk/benefit or even pure--dare I say it--romanticism of spaceflight .
It 's been nearly half a century since we went to the Moon , and our technology since then has advanced almost immeasurably .
Yet--has our engineering talent , scientific motivation , and will to discover followed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of that, it is very disappointing to note the risk/benefit or even pure--dare I say it--romanticism of spaceflight.
It's been nearly half a century since we went to the Moon, and our technology since then has advanced almost immeasurably.
Yet--has our engineering talent, scientific motivation, and will to discover followed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262606</id>
	<title>This might be an attempt to kill commercial space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259520780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you show that your launcher has a 1/1000 failure rate?  Launch it thousands of times without failures.  Anything less and you risk fooling yourself.  Recall Feynman's discussions with Shuttle management, who predicted a 1/100000 failure rate until events proved otherwise.</p><p>So how will NASA show that their own launcher has a 1/1000 failure rate?  The same way they showed that the NASP and VentureStar were great ideas: viewgraphs.  Although reality has a nasty habit of disagreeing with viewgraphs, that doesn't matter if you don't give reality a chance to have its say - and how can we justify buying thousands of launches on a commercial launcher when their viewgraphs clearly aren't up to spec?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you show that your launcher has a 1/1000 failure rate ?
Launch it thousands of times without failures .
Anything less and you risk fooling yourself .
Recall Feynman 's discussions with Shuttle management , who predicted a 1/100000 failure rate until events proved otherwise.So how will NASA show that their own launcher has a 1/1000 failure rate ?
The same way they showed that the NASP and VentureStar were great ideas : viewgraphs .
Although reality has a nasty habit of disagreeing with viewgraphs , that does n't matter if you do n't give reality a chance to have its say - and how can we justify buying thousands of launches on a commercial launcher when their viewgraphs clearly are n't up to spec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you show that your launcher has a 1/1000 failure rate?
Launch it thousands of times without failures.
Anything less and you risk fooling yourself.
Recall Feynman's discussions with Shuttle management, who predicted a 1/100000 failure rate until events proved otherwise.So how will NASA show that their own launcher has a 1/1000 failure rate?
The same way they showed that the NASP and VentureStar were great ideas: viewgraphs.
Although reality has a nasty habit of disagreeing with viewgraphs, that doesn't matter if you don't give reality a chance to have its say - and how can we justify buying thousands of launches on a commercial launcher when their viewgraphs clearly aren't up to spec?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263202</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259526480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, technically to be on the cutting edge is to be at the forefront of something. If nobody were risking any life in space exploration, then that would still be the cutting edge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , technically to be on the cutting edge is to be at the forefront of something .
If nobody were risking any life in space exploration , then that would still be the cutting edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, technically to be on the cutting edge is to be at the forefront of something.
If nobody were risking any life in space exploration, then that would still be the cutting edge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263302</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259527620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cut their budget for 1-2 years and it'll never be uncut. That's the way the government works, which is why you have the 'we got it, we got to spend it or else' mentality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut their budget for 1-2 years and it 'll never be uncut .
That 's the way the government works , which is why you have the 'we got it , we got to spend it or else ' mentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut their budget for 1-2 years and it'll never be uncut.
That's the way the government works, which is why you have the 'we got it, we got to spend it or else' mentality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263652</id>
	<title>Safety third</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1259488200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dirty Jobs just aired a special episode that I think is on point. The episode introduced the mantra, "Safety third." This is not to say that Safety is unimportant, but that in every case, the safest course is to <i>not</i> engage in an activity with risk. If you put safety first, you won't get anything done at all.</p><p>Now, the reason Mike Rowe had safety 3rd was that first was getting the job done (or at least, making a decent attempt) and second was making entertaining television. In most cases, I dare say the 2nd qualification doesn't apply, so Safety coming in second is a better expectation. I actually think Mike was being cavalier by suggesting that Safety is always in the top ten and often the top five. I'd hesitate to keep it out of the top 3 on any occasion, but life wouldn't be worth living if safety truly always came first.</p><p>It's doubly ironic that I bring up Dirty Jobs in combination with a discussion about NASA. One of the segments in this very episode lambasted NASA for putting the Dirty Jobs crew through a safety briefing about confined space safety concerns that they were in no way going to actually encounter doing the work that they were going to film. Your tax dollars at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dirty Jobs just aired a special episode that I think is on point .
The episode introduced the mantra , " Safety third .
" This is not to say that Safety is unimportant , but that in every case , the safest course is to not engage in an activity with risk .
If you put safety first , you wo n't get anything done at all.Now , the reason Mike Rowe had safety 3rd was that first was getting the job done ( or at least , making a decent attempt ) and second was making entertaining television .
In most cases , I dare say the 2nd qualification does n't apply , so Safety coming in second is a better expectation .
I actually think Mike was being cavalier by suggesting that Safety is always in the top ten and often the top five .
I 'd hesitate to keep it out of the top 3 on any occasion , but life would n't be worth living if safety truly always came first.It 's doubly ironic that I bring up Dirty Jobs in combination with a discussion about NASA .
One of the segments in this very episode lambasted NASA for putting the Dirty Jobs crew through a safety briefing about confined space safety concerns that they were in no way going to actually encounter doing the work that they were going to film .
Your tax dollars at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dirty Jobs just aired a special episode that I think is on point.
The episode introduced the mantra, "Safety third.
" This is not to say that Safety is unimportant, but that in every case, the safest course is to not engage in an activity with risk.
If you put safety first, you won't get anything done at all.Now, the reason Mike Rowe had safety 3rd was that first was getting the job done (or at least, making a decent attempt) and second was making entertaining television.
In most cases, I dare say the 2nd qualification doesn't apply, so Safety coming in second is a better expectation.
I actually think Mike was being cavalier by suggesting that Safety is always in the top ten and often the top five.
I'd hesitate to keep it out of the top 3 on any occasion, but life wouldn't be worth living if safety truly always came first.It's doubly ironic that I bring up Dirty Jobs in combination with a discussion about NASA.
One of the segments in this very episode lambasted NASA for putting the Dirty Jobs crew through a safety briefing about confined space safety concerns that they were in no way going to actually encounter doing the work that they were going to film.
Your tax dollars at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264136</id>
	<title>1 in how many ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259493180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the almighty Google, there have been 134 missions, 2 of which have resulted in fatal explosions (one on take off and one on re-entry).</p><p>2:134 = 1:67<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or are they "tweaking" the figures based on number of astronauts dead / alive over the whole shuttle history ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the almighty Google , there have been 134 missions , 2 of which have resulted in fatal explosions ( one on take off and one on re-entry ) .2 : 134 = 1 : 67 ... or are they " tweaking " the figures based on number of astronauts dead / alive over the whole shuttle history ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the almighty Google, there have been 134 missions, 2 of which have resulted in fatal explosions (one on take off and one on re-entry).2:134 = 1:67 ... or are they "tweaking" the figures based on number of astronauts dead / alive over the whole shuttle history ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262470</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259519760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA's budget hovers at just over 0.5\% of the federal budget. Redirecting that, especially given the drunken spending that's already occurred to stimulate the economy and the massive social entitlement programs currently in place, will have no noticeable impact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA 's budget hovers at just over 0.5 \ % of the federal budget .
Redirecting that , especially given the drunken spending that 's already occurred to stimulate the economy and the massive social entitlement programs currently in place , will have no noticeable impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA's budget hovers at just over 0.5\% of the federal budget.
Redirecting that, especially given the drunken spending that's already occurred to stimulate the economy and the massive social entitlement programs currently in place, will have no noticeable impact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262382</id>
	<title>Waaaaahhhh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259519280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG NASA call the WAAAAAAMBULANCE!</p><p>While the USA frets about crew safety, China will take the risks, spend the money, and colonize the Moon, Mars, Europa, the Lagrange points...</p><p>The future of space exploration is Made in China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG NASA call the WAAAAAAMBULANCE ! While the USA frets about crew safety , China will take the risks , spend the money , and colonize the Moon , Mars , Europa , the Lagrange points...The future of space exploration is Made in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG NASA call the WAAAAAAMBULANCE!While the USA frets about crew safety, China will take the risks, spend the money, and colonize the Moon, Mars, Europa, the Lagrange points...The future of space exploration is Made in China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262530</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259520120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Likewise, Wall Street brokers say "if you haven't been sued yet, it's because you haven't been trying hard enough".</p><p>It's great to push the envelope in science and technology, but one shouldn't cut corners at the expense of human lives. It is possible to do responsible engineering -- it definitely is more expensive and slower, but it's the only option I find morally acceptable.</p><p>And besides, it has always been painfully obvious that one can only go so far using chemical rockets, and that there's only so much one can gain by improving this technology. It will require a more elegant solution to make space flight affordable and safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , Wall Street brokers say " if you have n't been sued yet , it 's because you have n't been trying hard enough " .It 's great to push the envelope in science and technology , but one should n't cut corners at the expense of human lives .
It is possible to do responsible engineering -- it definitely is more expensive and slower , but it 's the only option I find morally acceptable.And besides , it has always been painfully obvious that one can only go so far using chemical rockets , and that there 's only so much one can gain by improving this technology .
It will require a more elegant solution to make space flight affordable and safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise, Wall Street brokers say "if you haven't been sued yet, it's because you haven't been trying hard enough".It's great to push the envelope in science and technology, but one shouldn't cut corners at the expense of human lives.
It is possible to do responsible engineering -- it definitely is more expensive and slower, but it's the only option I find morally acceptable.And besides, it has always been painfully obvious that one can only go so far using chemical rockets, and that there's only so much one can gain by improving this technology.
It will require a more elegant solution to make space flight affordable and safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266260</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...Christmas sale, free shipping discounts</title>
	<author>coolforsale134</author>
	<datestamp>1259513040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]   Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]   (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]   Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]   (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262902</id>
	<title>Weight reduction is the problem.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1259523660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The real problem is the need for excessive weight reduction.  This makes big spacecraft too fragile.  If the Shuttle could afford the weight of a titanium skin, instead of fragile foam and tiles, it would be far less troublesome.
</p><p>
The best US spacecraft was probably the Gemini, which was Gus Grissom's baby, the Gusmobile.  He designed the fighter pilot's spacecraft, the most maneuverable spacecraft to date. A <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm" title="astronautix.com">Big Gemini</a> [astronautix.com], a 9-passenger version, made it to the mockup stage.  If that had been built, the US would have had something comparable to Soyuz. Better, probably.  It's striking that the US hasn't had a little spacecraft to send to orbit since the 1960s.
</p><p>
Grissom died in the 1967 pad fire, and nobody else had the clout to push the Gemini program forward after that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is the need for excessive weight reduction .
This makes big spacecraft too fragile .
If the Shuttle could afford the weight of a titanium skin , instead of fragile foam and tiles , it would be far less troublesome .
The best US spacecraft was probably the Gemini , which was Gus Grissom 's baby , the Gusmobile .
He designed the fighter pilot 's spacecraft , the most maneuverable spacecraft to date .
A Big Gemini [ astronautix.com ] , a 9-passenger version , made it to the mockup stage .
If that had been built , the US would have had something comparable to Soyuz .
Better , probably .
It 's striking that the US has n't had a little spacecraft to send to orbit since the 1960s .
Grissom died in the 1967 pad fire , and nobody else had the clout to push the Gemini program forward after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The real problem is the need for excessive weight reduction.
This makes big spacecraft too fragile.
If the Shuttle could afford the weight of a titanium skin, instead of fragile foam and tiles, it would be far less troublesome.
The best US spacecraft was probably the Gemini, which was Gus Grissom's baby, the Gusmobile.
He designed the fighter pilot's spacecraft, the most maneuverable spacecraft to date.
A Big Gemini [astronautix.com], a 9-passenger version, made it to the mockup stage.
If that had been built, the US would have had something comparable to Soyuz.
Better, probably.
It's striking that the US hasn't had a little spacecraft to send to orbit since the 1960s.
Grissom died in the 1967 pad fire, and nobody else had the clout to push the Gemini program forward after that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262578</id>
	<title>10x safer = easy</title>
	<author>spikeham</author>
	<datestamp>1259520540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just switching from a fragile tile-covered aircraft strapped to the side of a flaking-foam-covered hydrogen tank to an inherently ballistically stable capsule placed as far from the flaming end of the rocket as possible (i.e., on top of it) will achieve the desired 10x safety factor improvement. NASA has been tied to its delta-winged boondoggle for several decades too long. If they would eliminate the segmented, non-throttleable solid rocket boosters (currently still in the plan thanks to Morton Thiokol's lobbyists) they could improve safety another 10x. And if they want to do all this at minimum cost, they could just buy Soyuz vehicles, the world's safest, most reliable manned space transportation system. Of course, national pride would allow this to happen only sometime after Putin declares his undying love for country music and Harley-Davidsons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just switching from a fragile tile-covered aircraft strapped to the side of a flaking-foam-covered hydrogen tank to an inherently ballistically stable capsule placed as far from the flaming end of the rocket as possible ( i.e. , on top of it ) will achieve the desired 10x safety factor improvement .
NASA has been tied to its delta-winged boondoggle for several decades too long .
If they would eliminate the segmented , non-throttleable solid rocket boosters ( currently still in the plan thanks to Morton Thiokol 's lobbyists ) they could improve safety another 10x .
And if they want to do all this at minimum cost , they could just buy Soyuz vehicles , the world 's safest , most reliable manned space transportation system .
Of course , national pride would allow this to happen only sometime after Putin declares his undying love for country music and Harley-Davidsons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just switching from a fragile tile-covered aircraft strapped to the side of a flaking-foam-covered hydrogen tank to an inherently ballistically stable capsule placed as far from the flaming end of the rocket as possible (i.e., on top of it) will achieve the desired 10x safety factor improvement.
NASA has been tied to its delta-winged boondoggle for several decades too long.
If they would eliminate the segmented, non-throttleable solid rocket boosters (currently still in the plan thanks to Morton Thiokol's lobbyists) they could improve safety another 10x.
And if they want to do all this at minimum cost, they could just buy Soyuz vehicles, the world's safest, most reliable manned space transportation system.
Of course, national pride would allow this to happen only sometime after Putin declares his undying love for country music and Harley-Davidsons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262300</id>
	<title>I read this as..</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1259518620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"NASA Campaigns For Safer Lunch Requirements".</p><p>No idea what those guys have been eating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" NASA Campaigns For Safer Lunch Requirements " .No idea what those guys have been eating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"NASA Campaigns For Safer Lunch Requirements".No idea what those guys have been eating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262390</id>
	<title>Re:Not very Agile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259519280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agile works for software because it is cheap to redesign software and also cheap to do a few test runs. Building a rocket, filling it with fuel and then see whether it flies or explodes is expensive when you talk about the size needed for manned spacecraft. It is more or less the same for Boeing and Airbus who spend years and years designing before they start building their first full scale planes for test flights. We're talking planes that cost over $100 million each, not something you like to throw away on a test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agile works for software because it is cheap to redesign software and also cheap to do a few test runs .
Building a rocket , filling it with fuel and then see whether it flies or explodes is expensive when you talk about the size needed for manned spacecraft .
It is more or less the same for Boeing and Airbus who spend years and years designing before they start building their first full scale planes for test flights .
We 're talking planes that cost over $ 100 million each , not something you like to throw away on a test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agile works for software because it is cheap to redesign software and also cheap to do a few test runs.
Building a rocket, filling it with fuel and then see whether it flies or explodes is expensive when you talk about the size needed for manned spacecraft.
It is more or less the same for Boeing and Airbus who spend years and years designing before they start building their first full scale planes for test flights.
We're talking planes that cost over $100 million each, not something you like to throw away on a test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262358</id>
	<title>Why the need to campaign?</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1259519160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't NASA administrators have the power to require certain safety levels in any grants or contracts they award?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't NASA administrators have the power to require certain safety levels in any grants or contracts they award ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't NASA administrators have the power to require certain safety levels in any grants or contracts they award?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263776</id>
	<title>Just A Political Stunt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259489700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just political theater to<br>1) Stay the course on Ares I<br>2) Kill any other crew transfer methods (SpaceX, Orbital, EELVs...)</p><p>Of course, Ares I is quite unsafe since it uses a huge solid rocket that can explode very quickly AND that accelerates quickly low in the atmosphere, meaning escape is hard at places (you need a huge launch escape rocket). It also lacks performance and hence some safety features like redundancy have been removed in some places in Orion (the spacecraft) or Ares I. But most importantly, it doesn't have a demonstrated flight record, unlike the EELV:s which have been flying succesfully since 2002.<br>No launcher/spacecraft system probably fills all the demands from 2004. NASA can use the "man rating" to mean whatever it wants. It's not a defined or accepted science or engineering term</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just political theater to1 ) Stay the course on Ares I2 ) Kill any other crew transfer methods ( SpaceX , Orbital , EELVs... ) Of course , Ares I is quite unsafe since it uses a huge solid rocket that can explode very quickly AND that accelerates quickly low in the atmosphere , meaning escape is hard at places ( you need a huge launch escape rocket ) .
It also lacks performance and hence some safety features like redundancy have been removed in some places in Orion ( the spacecraft ) or Ares I. But most importantly , it does n't have a demonstrated flight record , unlike the EELV : s which have been flying succesfully since 2002.No launcher/spacecraft system probably fills all the demands from 2004 .
NASA can use the " man rating " to mean whatever it wants .
It 's not a defined or accepted science or engineering term</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just political theater to1) Stay the course on Ares I2) Kill any other crew transfer methods (SpaceX, Orbital, EELVs...)Of course, Ares I is quite unsafe since it uses a huge solid rocket that can explode very quickly AND that accelerates quickly low in the atmosphere, meaning escape is hard at places (you need a huge launch escape rocket).
It also lacks performance and hence some safety features like redundancy have been removed in some places in Orion (the spacecraft) or Ares I. But most importantly, it doesn't have a demonstrated flight record, unlike the EELV:s which have been flying succesfully since 2002.No launcher/spacecraft system probably fills all the demands from 2004.
NASA can use the "man rating" to mean whatever it wants.
It's not a defined or accepted science or engineering term</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30274362</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259574180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Troll.<br>
10/10</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Troll .
10/10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Troll.
10/10</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264170</id>
	<title>Looking for money in the wrong place</title>
	<author>Esteanil</author>
	<datestamp>1259493480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, of course, that the AIG bailout alone would pay for 10 years of running NASA at current budget levels?<br>
That the Iraq war would pay for 41 years, and the Afghanistan one for an additional 17?<br> <br>
The 17.6 billion NASA got this year wouldn't pay for much, much less the 9 billion you want to take. <br>Removing NASA (as a halving of the budget effectively would do, as written by posters above) would reduce US prestige quite a bit, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , of course , that the AIG bailout alone would pay for 10 years of running NASA at current budget levels ?
That the Iraq war would pay for 41 years , and the Afghanistan one for an additional 17 ?
The 17.6 billion NASA got this year would n't pay for much , much less the 9 billion you want to take .
Removing NASA ( as a halving of the budget effectively would do , as written by posters above ) would reduce US prestige quite a bit , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, of course, that the AIG bailout alone would pay for 10 years of running NASA at current budget levels?
That the Iraq war would pay for 41 years, and the Afghanistan one for an additional 17?
The 17.6 billion NASA got this year wouldn't pay for much, much less the 9 billion you want to take.
Removing NASA (as a halving of the budget effectively would do, as written by posters above) would reduce US prestige quite a bit, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262772</id>
	<title>1 in 129... it was avoidable</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1259522580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if the managers had listened to the engineers and not had an attack of press-on-itis... in fact, if I'm not mistaken the other disaster was avoidable as well... they had evidence of serious tile damage on previous flights and should have re-engineered the critical areas so that hot gas ingress could not do so much damage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if the managers had listened to the engineers and not had an attack of press-on-itis... in fact , if I 'm not mistaken the other disaster was avoidable as well... they had evidence of serious tile damage on previous flights and should have re-engineered the critical areas so that hot gas ingress could not do so much damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the managers had listened to the engineers and not had an attack of press-on-itis... in fact, if I'm not mistaken the other disaster was avoidable as well... they had evidence of serious tile damage on previous flights and should have re-engineered the critical areas so that hot gas ingress could not do so much damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263724</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>FSWKU</author>
	<datestamp>1259489220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I realize this view is mighty unpopular, yet I am going to express it. While science is very important, so are social issues. I would like to see the NASA budget considerably shrunk but for only a short period of time, say 12 - 18 months. We have to get our country healthy again and space flight really only effects a small sector of the economy. It will create jobs but only at the most educated levels. A healthy country is a more efficient and productive one. Now, you may feel free to mod me but are you willing to join the censors?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Cutting NASA's budget in half will do nothing to solve the numerous social issues faced by this country. Government spending needs to be adjusted, but there are many places spending much, MUCH more than NASA does on an annual basis.
<br> <br>
Let's do some quick Googling to compare some annual budget figures here:
</p><ul> <li> <strong>NASA FY09:</strong> $17.6 billion</li>
<li> <strong>US Military Operations FY09:</strong> $179.8 billion</li>
<li> <strong>US Military Personnel FY09:</strong> $125.2 billion</li>
<li> <strong>US Military Procurement FY09:</strong> $104.2 Billion</li>
<li> <strong>US Military Research, Development, Testing, &amp; Evaluation FY09:</strong> $79.6 billion</li>
<li> <strong>US Welfare Spending FY09:</strong> $395.43 billion</li></ul><p>
Of special note are the Procurement and RDT&amp;E budgets for FY09 totalling around $183.8 billion dollars. This is how much money the military spends buying and testing new equipment. Within those figures, you see a FY09 budget of $6.9 billion for the F-35 program, and $4.1 billion for the F-22. $11 billion dollars for two aircraft programs. The military spends 62\% of what NASA uses to run its entire operation on <em>TWO AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS</em>.
<br> <br>
To put it another way, for less than twice what the military spends on the next generation of combat aircraft, NASA has to fund; the remainder of the Space Shuttle Program, the Orion/Ares program, the ISS, Ames Research Center, JPL, The Goddard Institute, Dryden Flight Research Center, KSC, Johnson Space Center, White Sands Test Facility, Deep Space Network, and the United States Space &amp; Rocket Center. This includes research on ozone depletion, energy management, and medicine, along with several Earth-science projects dedicated to improving severe weather prediction and environmental conservation. They do this on <em>less than 1/4</em> of what the military spends on buying new equipment. As another poster said, cutting their budget would cost them manpower that they may never get back. You don't want to do that when you're operating on what is essentially a shoestring budget.
<br> <br>
Finally, we come to the reason I included the welfare spending figures above. If you slash the budget for NASA (say by the 50\% I threw around earlier), you're saving a grand total of $8.8 to $13.2 billion for the 12-18 months you suggested. That adds 2.2 to 3.3\% to the bottom line for welfare spending, which is almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. And what happens at the end of that period? Do you take the money away from welfare? That puts us right back where we started. So no, cutting NASA's budget is NOT the answer. Honestly, I believe that NASA's mission is one of the places where we should INCREASE spending, along with better oversight into ALL areas of government. The more NASA is able to do (and remember, they do more than just send people into space), the better off we will ALL be in the long run.
<br> <br>
And no, I'm not going to mod you down (I can't since I'm replying, obviously). But I also won't discourage anyone else from doing so. Modding you down for having a misguided and frankly wrong idea is NOT the same as censorship. If your argument carried any weight whatsoever, it would stand on its own merits. Suggesting that those who disagree with you are censoring your views is a myopic attempt to give them credibility where they would otherwise have none.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize this view is mighty unpopular , yet I am going to express it .
While science is very important , so are social issues .
I would like to see the NASA budget considerably shrunk but for only a short period of time , say 12 - 18 months .
We have to get our country healthy again and space flight really only effects a small sector of the economy .
It will create jobs but only at the most educated levels .
A healthy country is a more efficient and productive one .
Now , you may feel free to mod me but are you willing to join the censors ?
Cutting NASA 's budget in half will do nothing to solve the numerous social issues faced by this country .
Government spending needs to be adjusted , but there are many places spending much , MUCH more than NASA does on an annual basis .
Let 's do some quick Googling to compare some annual budget figures here : NASA FY09 : $ 17.6 billion US Military Operations FY09 : $ 179.8 billion US Military Personnel FY09 : $ 125.2 billion US Military Procurement FY09 : $ 104.2 Billion US Military Research , Development , Testing , &amp; Evaluation FY09 : $ 79.6 billion US Welfare Spending FY09 : $ 395.43 billion Of special note are the Procurement and RDT&amp;E budgets for FY09 totalling around $ 183.8 billion dollars .
This is how much money the military spends buying and testing new equipment .
Within those figures , you see a FY09 budget of $ 6.9 billion for the F-35 program , and $ 4.1 billion for the F-22 .
$ 11 billion dollars for two aircraft programs .
The military spends 62 \ % of what NASA uses to run its entire operation on TWO AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS .
To put it another way , for less than twice what the military spends on the next generation of combat aircraft , NASA has to fund ; the remainder of the Space Shuttle Program , the Orion/Ares program , the ISS , Ames Research Center , JPL , The Goddard Institute , Dryden Flight Research Center , KSC , Johnson Space Center , White Sands Test Facility , Deep Space Network , and the United States Space &amp; Rocket Center .
This includes research on ozone depletion , energy management , and medicine , along with several Earth-science projects dedicated to improving severe weather prediction and environmental conservation .
They do this on less than 1/4 of what the military spends on buying new equipment .
As another poster said , cutting their budget would cost them manpower that they may never get back .
You do n't want to do that when you 're operating on what is essentially a shoestring budget .
Finally , we come to the reason I included the welfare spending figures above .
If you slash the budget for NASA ( say by the 50 \ % I threw around earlier ) , you 're saving a grand total of $ 8.8 to $ 13.2 billion for the 12-18 months you suggested .
That adds 2.2 to 3.3 \ % to the bottom line for welfare spending , which is almost nothing in the grand scheme of things .
And what happens at the end of that period ?
Do you take the money away from welfare ?
That puts us right back where we started .
So no , cutting NASA 's budget is NOT the answer .
Honestly , I believe that NASA 's mission is one of the places where we should INCREASE spending , along with better oversight into ALL areas of government .
The more NASA is able to do ( and remember , they do more than just send people into space ) , the better off we will ALL be in the long run .
And no , I 'm not going to mod you down ( I ca n't since I 'm replying , obviously ) .
But I also wo n't discourage anyone else from doing so .
Modding you down for having a misguided and frankly wrong idea is NOT the same as censorship .
If your argument carried any weight whatsoever , it would stand on its own merits .
Suggesting that those who disagree with you are censoring your views is a myopic attempt to give them credibility where they would otherwise have none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize this view is mighty unpopular, yet I am going to express it.
While science is very important, so are social issues.
I would like to see the NASA budget considerably shrunk but for only a short period of time, say 12 - 18 months.
We have to get our country healthy again and space flight really only effects a small sector of the economy.
It will create jobs but only at the most educated levels.
A healthy country is a more efficient and productive one.
Now, you may feel free to mod me but are you willing to join the censors?
Cutting NASA's budget in half will do nothing to solve the numerous social issues faced by this country.
Government spending needs to be adjusted, but there are many places spending much, MUCH more than NASA does on an annual basis.
Let's do some quick Googling to compare some annual budget figures here:
  NASA FY09: $17.6 billion
 US Military Operations FY09: $179.8 billion
 US Military Personnel FY09: $125.2 billion
 US Military Procurement FY09: $104.2 Billion
 US Military Research, Development, Testing, &amp; Evaluation FY09: $79.6 billion
 US Welfare Spending FY09: $395.43 billion
Of special note are the Procurement and RDT&amp;E budgets for FY09 totalling around $183.8 billion dollars.
This is how much money the military spends buying and testing new equipment.
Within those figures, you see a FY09 budget of $6.9 billion for the F-35 program, and $4.1 billion for the F-22.
$11 billion dollars for two aircraft programs.
The military spends 62\% of what NASA uses to run its entire operation on TWO AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS.
To put it another way, for less than twice what the military spends on the next generation of combat aircraft, NASA has to fund; the remainder of the Space Shuttle Program, the Orion/Ares program, the ISS, Ames Research Center, JPL, The Goddard Institute, Dryden Flight Research Center, KSC, Johnson Space Center, White Sands Test Facility, Deep Space Network, and the United States Space &amp; Rocket Center.
This includes research on ozone depletion, energy management, and medicine, along with several Earth-science projects dedicated to improving severe weather prediction and environmental conservation.
They do this on less than 1/4 of what the military spends on buying new equipment.
As another poster said, cutting their budget would cost them manpower that they may never get back.
You don't want to do that when you're operating on what is essentially a shoestring budget.
Finally, we come to the reason I included the welfare spending figures above.
If you slash the budget for NASA (say by the 50\% I threw around earlier), you're saving a grand total of $8.8 to $13.2 billion for the 12-18 months you suggested.
That adds 2.2 to 3.3\% to the bottom line for welfare spending, which is almost nothing in the grand scheme of things.
And what happens at the end of that period?
Do you take the money away from welfare?
That puts us right back where we started.
So no, cutting NASA's budget is NOT the answer.
Honestly, I believe that NASA's mission is one of the places where we should INCREASE spending, along with better oversight into ALL areas of government.
The more NASA is able to do (and remember, they do more than just send people into space), the better off we will ALL be in the long run.
And no, I'm not going to mod you down (I can't since I'm replying, obviously).
But I also won't discourage anyone else from doing so.
Modding you down for having a misguided and frankly wrong idea is NOT the same as censorship.
If your argument carried any weight whatsoever, it would stand on its own merits.
Suggesting that those who disagree with you are censoring your views is a myopic attempt to give them credibility where they would otherwise have none.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263308</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1259527680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>NASA's budget is already pretty small, 17.2 billion. The current stimulus plan is valued at 135.15 billion.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Which are both dwarfed by the money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Not trying to start a fight, I'm just sayin'...
</p><p>
According to this <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf" title="fas.org">report</a> [fas.org] (pdf) by the Congressional Research Service, the "official" expenditures to date are listed as about $944 Billion, the UK Times <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest\_contributors/article3419840.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">estimated</a> [timesonline.co.uk] (in Feb 08) that including other things, like the cost of veteran's benefits, it has/will cost the US closer to $3 Trillion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA 's budget is already pretty small , 17.2 billion .
The current stimulus plan is valued at 135.15 billion .
Which are both dwarfed by the money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Not trying to start a fight , I 'm just sayin'.. . According to this report [ fas.org ] ( pdf ) by the Congressional Research Service , the " official " expenditures to date are listed as about $ 944 Billion , the UK Times estimated [ timesonline.co.uk ] ( in Feb 08 ) that including other things , like the cost of veteran 's benefits , it has/will cost the US closer to $ 3 Trillion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA's budget is already pretty small, 17.2 billion.
The current stimulus plan is valued at 135.15 billion.
Which are both dwarfed by the money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not trying to start a fight, I'm just sayin'...

According to this report [fas.org] (pdf) by the Congressional Research Service, the "official" expenditures to date are listed as about $944 Billion, the UK Times estimated [timesonline.co.uk] (in Feb 08) that including other things, like the cost of veteran's benefits, it has/will cost the US closer to $3 Trillion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264292</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>turgid</author>
	<datestamp>1259494380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2:1 it is stupid to even suggest it.
America's losing its balls.</i>
</p><p>This insanity got modded +5 insightful. Luckily this is only slashdot, or I'd be worried for the future of humanity.
</p><p>By your reasoning, why not remove any pretense of manned space flight being a return trip? Why not save a whole lot of dollars and leave the astronauts to die in space, or to burn up on reentry? It would make the engineering so much simpler and think of the weight savings to be made by not including heat shields and parachutes!
</p><p>After all: <i>It amazes me that this is a serious concern. There IS a price for manned spaceflight and if it goes too high, it's over. Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.</i>
</p><p>I know you'd be first in line to volunteer, cowboy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 1 : 1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1 : 129 then it 'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2 : 1 it is stupid to even suggest it .
America 's losing its balls .
This insanity got modded + 5 insightful .
Luckily this is only slashdot , or I 'd be worried for the future of humanity .
By your reasoning , why not remove any pretense of manned space flight being a return trip ?
Why not save a whole lot of dollars and leave the astronauts to die in space , or to burn up on reentry ?
It would make the engineering so much simpler and think of the weight savings to be made by not including heat shields and parachutes !
After all : It amazes me that this is a serious concern .
There IS a price for manned spaceflight and if it goes too high , it 's over .
Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them .
I know you 'd be first in line to volunteer , cowboy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2:1 it is stupid to even suggest it.
America's losing its balls.
This insanity got modded +5 insightful.
Luckily this is only slashdot, or I'd be worried for the future of humanity.
By your reasoning, why not remove any pretense of manned space flight being a return trip?
Why not save a whole lot of dollars and leave the astronauts to die in space, or to burn up on reentry?
It would make the engineering so much simpler and think of the weight savings to be made by not including heat shields and parachutes!
After all: It amazes me that this is a serious concern.
There IS a price for manned spaceflight and if it goes too high, it's over.
Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.
I know you'd be first in line to volunteer, cowboy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262762</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259522460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough"</p><p>That explains the economy "wing" seats on his commercial spacecraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough " That explains the economy " wing " seats on his commercial spacecraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough"That explains the economy "wing" seats on his commercial spacecraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262820</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259523000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever.  NASA is not the way forward, simple as that.  Given a multi-billion organization filled with politicians and bureaucrats, pencil pushers, bean counters, technicians, and janitors, all designed to support an exceedingly small cadre who actually pursue the mission, NASA is just a dinosaur looking for a place to fossilize.</p><p>SpaceX and others will lead us onward, if we even go on.</p><p>Imagine the army, or the navy, organized like NASA is.  We'd have 500 soldiers, 500 doctors, 1000 accountants, 1500 medics, 20,000 officer (with at least 1000 flag officers) and 500 hopeful politicians.  Not to mention about 50 infiltrators from the competition.  Oh, I forgot the 200 embedded journalists.</p><p>Fuck me running.  Is it any wonder NASA has no balls?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever .
NASA is not the way forward , simple as that .
Given a multi-billion organization filled with politicians and bureaucrats , pencil pushers , bean counters , technicians , and janitors , all designed to support an exceedingly small cadre who actually pursue the mission , NASA is just a dinosaur looking for a place to fossilize.SpaceX and others will lead us onward , if we even go on.Imagine the army , or the navy , organized like NASA is .
We 'd have 500 soldiers , 500 doctors , 1000 accountants , 1500 medics , 20,000 officer ( with at least 1000 flag officers ) and 500 hopeful politicians .
Not to mention about 50 infiltrators from the competition .
Oh , I forgot the 200 embedded journalists.Fuck me running .
Is it any wonder NASA has no balls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever.
NASA is not the way forward, simple as that.
Given a multi-billion organization filled with politicians and bureaucrats, pencil pushers, bean counters, technicians, and janitors, all designed to support an exceedingly small cadre who actually pursue the mission, NASA is just a dinosaur looking for a place to fossilize.SpaceX and others will lead us onward, if we even go on.Imagine the army, or the navy, organized like NASA is.
We'd have 500 soldiers, 500 doctors, 1000 accountants, 1500 medics, 20,000 officer (with at least 1000 flag officers) and 500 hopeful politicians.
Not to mention about 50 infiltrators from the competition.
Oh, I forgot the 200 embedded journalists.Fuck me running.
Is it any wonder NASA has no balls?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263878</id>
	<title>Demonstrated failure rate is 2 in 129</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259490480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The demonstrated failure rate is 2 in 129. Does no one remember Challenger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The demonstrated failure rate is 2 in 129 .
Does no one remember Challenger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The demonstrated failure rate is 2 in 129.
Does no one remember Challenger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268498</id>
	<title>Re:BS numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The demonstrated failure rate is ABSOLUTELY meaningless with such a low rate of loss. The actual failure rate could be 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000, but with only 129 samples and 1 failure, you've got no idea which one it really is.</p></div><p>1 in 129?<br>How about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_shuttle#Shuttle\_disasters" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">2</a> [wikipedia.org] in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_program#Flight\_statistics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">127</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>-- nitpick nazi.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The demonstrated failure rate is ABSOLUTELY meaningless with such a low rate of loss .
The actual failure rate could be 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000 , but with only 129 samples and 1 failure , you 've got no idea which one it really is.1 in 129 ? How about 2 [ wikipedia.org ] in 127 [ wikipedia.org ] .-- nitpick nazi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The demonstrated failure rate is ABSOLUTELY meaningless with such a low rate of loss.
The actual failure rate could be 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000, but with only 129 samples and 1 failure, you've got no idea which one it really is.1 in 129?How about 2 [wikipedia.org] in 127 [wikipedia.org].-- nitpick nazi.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262748</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259522400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't expect it to be cheap to train astronauts. They have be intelligent, fit, and highly trained. Combined with the risks involved, I'd imagine astronauts  be worth quite a bit in terms of money.</p><p>Also, the cost of a vehicle lost and everything else (normal launch cost that became pointless). The cost of failing a mission due to a lost space rocket could also be considered big though hard to quantify in dollars.</p><p>I'd imagine it be would be cheaper in the long run to reduce the risks. 1 out of 129 while is small odds for a single launch, it can hardly be safe for multiple flights over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't expect it to be cheap to train astronauts .
They have be intelligent , fit , and highly trained .
Combined with the risks involved , I 'd imagine astronauts be worth quite a bit in terms of money.Also , the cost of a vehicle lost and everything else ( normal launch cost that became pointless ) .
The cost of failing a mission due to a lost space rocket could also be considered big though hard to quantify in dollars.I 'd imagine it be would be cheaper in the long run to reduce the risks .
1 out of 129 while is small odds for a single launch , it can hardly be safe for multiple flights over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't expect it to be cheap to train astronauts.
They have be intelligent, fit, and highly trained.
Combined with the risks involved, I'd imagine astronauts  be worth quite a bit in terms of money.Also, the cost of a vehicle lost and everything else (normal launch cost that became pointless).
The cost of failing a mission due to a lost space rocket could also be considered big though hard to quantify in dollars.I'd imagine it be would be cheaper in the long run to reduce the risks.
1 out of 129 while is small odds for a single launch, it can hardly be safe for multiple flights over time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268792</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1259585940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost/safety problem is not only about killing people. The costs of acquiring astronauts, which I estimate in the tens of millions, to the cost of losing one spacecraft are tiny. If you kill the crew Challenger-style and destroy vehicle and payload during launch, you can also count the launch and payload costs, as well as any financial penalties for not completing the mission.</p><p>Sounds cruel, but astronauts are clever people and know that if manned space travel gets either too risky or too expensive, they will have to hand their jobs down to robots. And that would be worse than death for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost/safety problem is not only about killing people .
The costs of acquiring astronauts , which I estimate in the tens of millions , to the cost of losing one spacecraft are tiny .
If you kill the crew Challenger-style and destroy vehicle and payload during launch , you can also count the launch and payload costs , as well as any financial penalties for not completing the mission.Sounds cruel , but astronauts are clever people and know that if manned space travel gets either too risky or too expensive , they will have to hand their jobs down to robots .
And that would be worse than death for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost/safety problem is not only about killing people.
The costs of acquiring astronauts, which I estimate in the tens of millions, to the cost of losing one spacecraft are tiny.
If you kill the crew Challenger-style and destroy vehicle and payload during launch, you can also count the launch and payload costs, as well as any financial penalties for not completing the mission.Sounds cruel, but astronauts are clever people and know that if manned space travel gets either too risky or too expensive, they will have to hand their jobs down to robots.
And that would be worse than death for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264534</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1259496420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2:1 it is stupid to even suggest it.</p></div><p>This is especially the case when you consider that the committee meeting will probably only be discussing launch ascent safety, with perhaps a small portion devoted to reentry safety. Considering that NASA's plans for the new vehicles are for beyond-LEO exploration, it's a good bet that the most dangerous part of exploration won't be the launch, but the time that you spend voyaging to (e.g. Apollo 13's near-disaster) and exploring the Moon, Lagrange Points, Near-Earth Asteroids, comets, Phobos, Mars, or whatever. If you assume that there's even just a 1 in 50 chance of loss of life during the period of time after you've launched but while transiting to or exploring the Moon/Mars/whatever, the 1:1000 launch vehicle gives you an overall probability of dying of 2.1\%, while the 1:129 vehicle gives you a death probability of 2.8\%.</p><p>I guess that's worth something, but I'm not sure if it's worth tens of billions of dollars for a launch vehicle like the Ares I which will only launch a few dozen times at most. This is particularly so when you consider that the same money could be spent on launching commercial space vehicles many more times (with both unmanned and manned payloads), leading to improvements in safety and potentially creating much safer vehicles overall.</p><p>This point was well-stated on page 78 of the Augustine Committee's report:</p><p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html" title="nasa.gov">http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html</a> [nasa.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If 1 : 1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1 : 129 then it 'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2 : 1 it is stupid to even suggest it.This is especially the case when you consider that the committee meeting will probably only be discussing launch ascent safety , with perhaps a small portion devoted to reentry safety .
Considering that NASA 's plans for the new vehicles are for beyond-LEO exploration , it 's a good bet that the most dangerous part of exploration wo n't be the launch , but the time that you spend voyaging to ( e.g .
Apollo 13 's near-disaster ) and exploring the Moon , Lagrange Points , Near-Earth Asteroids , comets , Phobos , Mars , or whatever .
If you assume that there 's even just a 1 in 50 chance of loss of life during the period of time after you 've launched but while transiting to or exploring the Moon/Mars/whatever , the 1 : 1000 launch vehicle gives you an overall probability of dying of 2.1 \ % , while the 1 : 129 vehicle gives you a death probability of 2.8 \ % .I guess that 's worth something , but I 'm not sure if it 's worth tens of billions of dollars for a launch vehicle like the Ares I which will only launch a few dozen times at most .
This is particularly so when you consider that the same money could be spent on launching commercial space vehicles many more times ( with both unmanned and manned payloads ) , leading to improvements in safety and potentially creating much safer vehicles overall.This point was well-stated on page 78 of the Augustine Committee 's report : http : //www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2:1 it is stupid to even suggest it.This is especially the case when you consider that the committee meeting will probably only be discussing launch ascent safety, with perhaps a small portion devoted to reentry safety.
Considering that NASA's plans for the new vehicles are for beyond-LEO exploration, it's a good bet that the most dangerous part of exploration won't be the launch, but the time that you spend voyaging to (e.g.
Apollo 13's near-disaster) and exploring the Moon, Lagrange Points, Near-Earth Asteroids, comets, Phobos, Mars, or whatever.
If you assume that there's even just a 1 in 50 chance of loss of life during the period of time after you've launched but while transiting to or exploring the Moon/Mars/whatever, the 1:1000 launch vehicle gives you an overall probability of dying of 2.1\%, while the 1:129 vehicle gives you a death probability of 2.8\%.I guess that's worth something, but I'm not sure if it's worth tens of billions of dollars for a launch vehicle like the Ares I which will only launch a few dozen times at most.
This is particularly so when you consider that the same money could be spent on launching commercial space vehicles many more times (with both unmanned and manned payloads), leading to improvements in safety and potentially creating much safer vehicles overall.This point was well-stated on page 78 of the Augustine Committee's report:http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html [nasa.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263844</id>
	<title>Isn't it "2 in 129"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259490240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just finished Shuttle flight #129, and they've had two disasters.  I think that would work out to "1 in 64.5"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just finished Shuttle flight # 129 , and they 've had two disasters .
I think that would work out to " 1 in 64.5 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just finished Shuttle flight #129, and they've had two disasters.
I think that would work out to "1 in 64.5"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268150</id>
	<title>Re:BS numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>only 129 samples and 1 failure</p></div></blockquote><p>It's more like 258 samples and 2 failures.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Challenger\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Challenger</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Columbia\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Columbia</a> [wikipedia.org] both failed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>only 129 samples and 1 failureIt 's more like 258 samples and 2 failures .
Challenger [ wikipedia.org ] and Columbia [ wikipedia.org ] both failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only 129 samples and 1 failureIt's more like 258 samples and 2 failures.
Challenger [wikipedia.org] and Columbia [wikipedia.org] both failed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</id>
	<title>We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259518560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough. The simple fact is, that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life. Yet, NASA is talking all about safety rather than designing/building new rockets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough .
The simple fact is , that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life .
Yet , NASA is talking all about safety rather than designing/building new rockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough.
The simple fact is, that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life.
Yet, NASA is talking all about safety rather than designing/building new rockets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30267972</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Hazelfield</author>
	<datestamp>1259574240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.</p></div><p>So as long as you can find willing suicide candidates, you see no problem in having a 1/129 failure rate? In addition to being pretty cynical, that kind of thinking is negative for several other reasons:<br> <br>
1) It means the most promising students might choose other professions because of the risks involved.<br>
2) Every tragic accident in space will mean the entire mission, the shuttle and the equipment, the lives of the astronauts, and the training of them, will be lost. Add to that additional costs of investigation, lawsuits, insurance issues and so on. By avoiding even one such accident, the budget of NASA could afford spending that money on other things, such as safety improvements.<br>
3) Every loss of human lives is not only tragic but also undermines the credibility of NASA and the space program. With every failure, media and politicians start asking questions: why are we doing this? Why is it so expensive? Is it acceptable to spend billions of the tax-payers' dollars on a business this risky? One accident too many and they might decide to put manned space exploration on hold for the foreseeable future.<br>
4) If we are to increase human presence in space, we NEED to get a better track record. Let's compare with the history of aviation - that industry knew right from the beginning that safety was its main concern, so it developed routines and standards that were international, useful and improved safety to a level that beat most other forms of transportation. If flying had anywhere near the accident risk of space flight, then flying would be marginalized and reserved for adventurers and daredevils.<br> <br>

Am I unfair to compare aviation to space flight? Of course I am, and that's my point. Safety is essential to any mature industry. If we want to take space flight to the point where regular flying is today, working out useful and trustworthy safety procedures is not even an option - it's absolutely necessary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.So as long as you can find willing suicide candidates , you see no problem in having a 1/129 failure rate ?
In addition to being pretty cynical , that kind of thinking is negative for several other reasons : 1 ) It means the most promising students might choose other professions because of the risks involved .
2 ) Every tragic accident in space will mean the entire mission , the shuttle and the equipment , the lives of the astronauts , and the training of them , will be lost .
Add to that additional costs of investigation , lawsuits , insurance issues and so on .
By avoiding even one such accident , the budget of NASA could afford spending that money on other things , such as safety improvements .
3 ) Every loss of human lives is not only tragic but also undermines the credibility of NASA and the space program .
With every failure , media and politicians start asking questions : why are we doing this ?
Why is it so expensive ?
Is it acceptable to spend billions of the tax-payers ' dollars on a business this risky ?
One accident too many and they might decide to put manned space exploration on hold for the foreseeable future .
4 ) If we are to increase human presence in space , we NEED to get a better track record .
Let 's compare with the history of aviation - that industry knew right from the beginning that safety was its main concern , so it developed routines and standards that were international , useful and improved safety to a level that beat most other forms of transportation .
If flying had anywhere near the accident risk of space flight , then flying would be marginalized and reserved for adventurers and daredevils .
Am I unfair to compare aviation to space flight ?
Of course I am , and that 's my point .
Safety is essential to any mature industry .
If we want to take space flight to the point where regular flying is today , working out useful and trustworthy safety procedures is not even an option - it 's absolutely necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.So as long as you can find willing suicide candidates, you see no problem in having a 1/129 failure rate?
In addition to being pretty cynical, that kind of thinking is negative for several other reasons: 
1) It means the most promising students might choose other professions because of the risks involved.
2) Every tragic accident in space will mean the entire mission, the shuttle and the equipment, the lives of the astronauts, and the training of them, will be lost.
Add to that additional costs of investigation, lawsuits, insurance issues and so on.
By avoiding even one such accident, the budget of NASA could afford spending that money on other things, such as safety improvements.
3) Every loss of human lives is not only tragic but also undermines the credibility of NASA and the space program.
With every failure, media and politicians start asking questions: why are we doing this?
Why is it so expensive?
Is it acceptable to spend billions of the tax-payers' dollars on a business this risky?
One accident too many and they might decide to put manned space exploration on hold for the foreseeable future.
4) If we are to increase human presence in space, we NEED to get a better track record.
Let's compare with the history of aviation - that industry knew right from the beginning that safety was its main concern, so it developed routines and standards that were international, useful and improved safety to a level that beat most other forms of transportation.
If flying had anywhere near the accident risk of space flight, then flying would be marginalized and reserved for adventurers and daredevils.
Am I unfair to compare aviation to space flight?
Of course I am, and that's my point.
Safety is essential to any mature industry.
If we want to take space flight to the point where regular flying is today, working out useful and trustworthy safety procedures is not even an option - it's absolutely necessary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30267762</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What "social issues" could you possibly solve by increasing government funding going toward "social issues" by a couple of percentage points while killing spaceflight? What would this achieve?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What " social issues " could you possibly solve by increasing government funding going toward " social issues " by a couple of percentage points while killing spaceflight ?
What would this achieve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What "social issues" could you possibly solve by increasing government funding going toward "social issues" by a couple of percentage points while killing spaceflight?
What would this achieve?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266530</id>
	<title>Re:Why are astronauts so valuable???</title>
	<author>JRHelgeson</author>
	<datestamp>1259515800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and then they could change the name of NASA to Needs Another Seven Astronauts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and then they could change the name of NASA to Needs Another Seven Astronauts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and then they could change the name of NASA to Needs Another Seven Astronauts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262514</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>queazocotal</author>
	<datestamp>1259520060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people here would go on the shuttle today - given that failure rate - under 1\%.</p><p>NASA is unfortunately not a results driven organisation,they are a welfare organisation.</p><p>Consider the last attempt to reduce the cost of launch.</p><p>This had three completely untried technologies that all had to work perfectly in the picked vehicle design. (x33/venturestar).</p><p>Conformal tanks (non-spherical or cylindrical tanks that are shaped to fit with the structure).</p><p>Metallic thermal protection system - replacing the 'tiles' with a metal scale based system.</p><p>Linear aerospike - which had never flown.</p><p>NASA is in love with complexity.</p><p>Everything must work 100\%.</p><p>It must be the lightest shiniest most perfect thing that it can be.</p><p>Cost is not something you reduce after the design, it's a fundamental aspect of the process that NASA gets entirely backwards.</p><p>Take for example the shuttle.<br>In round numbers, the cost of the fuel for the shuttle is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\% of a launch cost.</p><p>A sizeable fraction is the standing army to service the thing.</p><p>A very simple three stage or so rocket with extremely large margins built in shipyards is not actually technically difficult.</p><p>Capsules are low tech - however they are extremely simple and reliable way to deorbit crew.<br>Soyuz has a better record of people not dying on the way down than shuttle, and is vastly cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people here would go on the shuttle today - given that failure rate - under 1 \ % .NASA is unfortunately not a results driven organisation,they are a welfare organisation.Consider the last attempt to reduce the cost of launch.This had three completely untried technologies that all had to work perfectly in the picked vehicle design .
( x33/venturestar ) .Conformal tanks ( non-spherical or cylindrical tanks that are shaped to fit with the structure ) .Metallic thermal protection system - replacing the 'tiles ' with a metal scale based system.Linear aerospike - which had never flown.NASA is in love with complexity.Everything must work 100 \ % .It must be the lightest shiniest most perfect thing that it can be.Cost is not something you reduce after the design , it 's a fundamental aspect of the process that NASA gets entirely backwards.Take for example the shuttle.In round numbers , the cost of the fuel for the shuttle is .1 \ % of a launch cost.A sizeable fraction is the standing army to service the thing.A very simple three stage or so rocket with extremely large margins built in shipyards is not actually technically difficult.Capsules are low tech - however they are extremely simple and reliable way to deorbit crew.Soyuz has a better record of people not dying on the way down than shuttle , and is vastly cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people here would go on the shuttle today - given that failure rate - under 1\%.NASA is unfortunately not a results driven organisation,they are a welfare organisation.Consider the last attempt to reduce the cost of launch.This had three completely untried technologies that all had to work perfectly in the picked vehicle design.
(x33/venturestar).Conformal tanks (non-spherical or cylindrical tanks that are shaped to fit with the structure).Metallic thermal protection system - replacing the 'tiles' with a metal scale based system.Linear aerospike - which had never flown.NASA is in love with complexity.Everything must work 100\%.It must be the lightest shiniest most perfect thing that it can be.Cost is not something you reduce after the design, it's a fundamental aspect of the process that NASA gets entirely backwards.Take for example the shuttle.In round numbers, the cost of the fuel for the shuttle is .1\% of a launch cost.A sizeable fraction is the standing army to service the thing.A very simple three stage or so rocket with extremely large margins built in shipyards is not actually technically difficult.Capsules are low tech - however they are extremely simple and reliable way to deorbit crew.Soyuz has a better record of people not dying on the way down than shuttle, and is vastly cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484</id>
	<title>BS numbers</title>
	<author>Lord Byron II</author>
	<datestamp>1259485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The demonstrated failure rate is ABSOLUTELY meaningless with such a low rate of loss. The actual failure rate could be 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000, but with only 129 samples and 1 failure, you've got no idea which one it really is. Maybe we're already at 1 in 1000.</p><p>I hate this probabilistic view anyway. If you know that the failure rate should be 1 in 1000, then you must know what will fail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\% of the time. Fix those flaws and now you should have a perfect vehicle. Of course, you don't have a perfect vehicle, because there are problems you don't know about. So when you think that you have a 1 in 1000 rate, you actually will have a lower one. So, if the goal is to get to a rate that is 1 in 1000, once we're there the unknowns might lower it to 1 in 129, which is where we are (demonstratively) at.</p><p>Put another way, think about how safe the space shuttle is now. In its service lifetime, we've seen two fatal flaws demonstrated: foam and O-rings. The O-rings have been fixed and the foam has been mitigated. Over 129 launches, every dangerous problem has been fixed, minimized, or mitigated. Now we're going to dump a vehicle that has had 30 years of improvements built in and hope to do better with a new design.</p><p>It would be like if we did a "rm -rdf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>." on the kernel archives, stuck Linus and the kernel developers in a room, and let them start over. How long would it take to redevelop an OS that is as secure as Linux? Linux has 20 years of development and security fixes. Even with a better design plan and all of the combined experience, would it take them a year to duplicate the safety? Two years? Five? Ten?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The demonstrated failure rate is ABSOLUTELY meaningless with such a low rate of loss .
The actual failure rate could be 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000 , but with only 129 samples and 1 failure , you 've got no idea which one it really is .
Maybe we 're already at 1 in 1000.I hate this probabilistic view anyway .
If you know that the failure rate should be 1 in 1000 , then you must know what will fail .1 \ % of the time .
Fix those flaws and now you should have a perfect vehicle .
Of course , you do n't have a perfect vehicle , because there are problems you do n't know about .
So when you think that you have a 1 in 1000 rate , you actually will have a lower one .
So , if the goal is to get to a rate that is 1 in 1000 , once we 're there the unknowns might lower it to 1 in 129 , which is where we are ( demonstratively ) at.Put another way , think about how safe the space shuttle is now .
In its service lifetime , we 've seen two fatal flaws demonstrated : foam and O-rings .
The O-rings have been fixed and the foam has been mitigated .
Over 129 launches , every dangerous problem has been fixed , minimized , or mitigated .
Now we 're going to dump a vehicle that has had 30 years of improvements built in and hope to do better with a new design.It would be like if we did a " rm -rdf .
" on the kernel archives , stuck Linus and the kernel developers in a room , and let them start over .
How long would it take to redevelop an OS that is as secure as Linux ?
Linux has 20 years of development and security fixes .
Even with a better design plan and all of the combined experience , would it take them a year to duplicate the safety ?
Two years ?
Five ? Ten ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The demonstrated failure rate is ABSOLUTELY meaningless with such a low rate of loss.
The actual failure rate could be 1 in 10 or 1 in 10,000, but with only 129 samples and 1 failure, you've got no idea which one it really is.
Maybe we're already at 1 in 1000.I hate this probabilistic view anyway.
If you know that the failure rate should be 1 in 1000, then you must know what will fail .1\% of the time.
Fix those flaws and now you should have a perfect vehicle.
Of course, you don't have a perfect vehicle, because there are problems you don't know about.
So when you think that you have a 1 in 1000 rate, you actually will have a lower one.
So, if the goal is to get to a rate that is 1 in 1000, once we're there the unknowns might lower it to 1 in 129, which is where we are (demonstratively) at.Put another way, think about how safe the space shuttle is now.
In its service lifetime, we've seen two fatal flaws demonstrated: foam and O-rings.
The O-rings have been fixed and the foam has been mitigated.
Over 129 launches, every dangerous problem has been fixed, minimized, or mitigated.
Now we're going to dump a vehicle that has had 30 years of improvements built in and hope to do better with a new design.It would be like if we did a "rm -rdf .
" on the kernel archives, stuck Linus and the kernel developers in a room, and let them start over.
How long would it take to redevelop an OS that is as secure as Linux?
Linux has 20 years of development and security fixes.
Even with a better design plan and all of the combined experience, would it take them a year to duplicate the safety?
Two years?
Five? Ten?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263162</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1259526120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this is <br> <br>

A) We have such a large investment in space already (ISS anyone?) if we stop working on it for a few months it could become unusuable and all the money we spent on it would be for nothing <br> <br>

B) Private space flight is struggling because of dumping large amounts of money into classified government projects to improve government space flight (yes, the money that you and me spent on research is unavaliable to the average citizen) <br> <br>

C) Space flight creates new private industries. Space flight has goals, and new things need to made to meet these goals, so until we have good private space flight, government space flight is a good way to discover new things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is A ) We have such a large investment in space already ( ISS anyone ?
) if we stop working on it for a few months it could become unusuable and all the money we spent on it would be for nothing B ) Private space flight is struggling because of dumping large amounts of money into classified government projects to improve government space flight ( yes , the money that you and me spent on research is unavaliable to the average citizen ) C ) Space flight creates new private industries .
Space flight has goals , and new things need to made to meet these goals , so until we have good private space flight , government space flight is a good way to discover new things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is  

A) We have such a large investment in space already (ISS anyone?
) if we stop working on it for a few months it could become unusuable and all the money we spent on it would be for nothing  

B) Private space flight is struggling because of dumping large amounts of money into classified government projects to improve government space flight (yes, the money that you and me spent on research is unavaliable to the average citizen)  

C) Space flight creates new private industries.
Space flight has goals, and new things need to made to meet these goals, so until we have good private space flight, government space flight is a good way to discover new things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1259517900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can certainly appreciate that they want to do better, but it still amazes me that we send people into F'ING SPACE with less than 1\% failure rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can certainly appreciate that they want to do better , but it still amazes me that we send people into F'ING SPACE with less than 1 \ % failure rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can certainly appreciate that they want to do better, but it still amazes me that we send people into F'ING SPACE with less than 1\% failure rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262868</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259523420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social issues?  You're dreaming.  Supposing that you solved every single social issue that mankind faces today.  Just suppose.  You get praises, and hossanahs, not to mention all the peace prizes for the next 50 years.  Big deal.  You will have gained nothing.  Why, you ask?</p><p>Simple.  Mankind thrives on issues.  With all of today's issues solved, he will run right out to create yet more issues tomorrow.  We WILL find a reason to fight, at any cost.  We WILL disagree, even if we must take an obviously wrong position to do so.  We WILL oppress the underprivileged, even if we have to CREATE an underprivileged class to do so.</p><p>Since we're going to piss the money away, no matter what, we might as well piss it away on something that MIGHT do mankind some good.  Let NASA go on, until they are superseded by something better.  That something may very well be SpaceX, or it might be a United Nations (don't hold your breath, the UN never accomplishes anything) Space Administration.  Something will come along, that gives us more bang for the buck, I'm sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social issues ?
You 're dreaming .
Supposing that you solved every single social issue that mankind faces today .
Just suppose .
You get praises , and hossanahs , not to mention all the peace prizes for the next 50 years .
Big deal .
You will have gained nothing .
Why , you ask ? Simple .
Mankind thrives on issues .
With all of today 's issues solved , he will run right out to create yet more issues tomorrow .
We WILL find a reason to fight , at any cost .
We WILL disagree , even if we must take an obviously wrong position to do so .
We WILL oppress the underprivileged , even if we have to CREATE an underprivileged class to do so.Since we 're going to piss the money away , no matter what , we might as well piss it away on something that MIGHT do mankind some good .
Let NASA go on , until they are superseded by something better .
That something may very well be SpaceX , or it might be a United Nations ( do n't hold your breath , the UN never accomplishes anything ) Space Administration .
Something will come along , that gives us more bang for the buck , I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social issues?
You're dreaming.
Supposing that you solved every single social issue that mankind faces today.
Just suppose.
You get praises, and hossanahs, not to mention all the peace prizes for the next 50 years.
Big deal.
You will have gained nothing.
Why, you ask?Simple.
Mankind thrives on issues.
With all of today's issues solved, he will run right out to create yet more issues tomorrow.
We WILL find a reason to fight, at any cost.
We WILL disagree, even if we must take an obviously wrong position to do so.
We WILL oppress the underprivileged, even if we have to CREATE an underprivileged class to do so.Since we're going to piss the money away, no matter what, we might as well piss it away on something that MIGHT do mankind some good.
Let NASA go on, until they are superseded by something better.
That something may very well be SpaceX, or it might be a United Nations (don't hold your breath, the UN never accomplishes anything) Space Administration.
Something will come along, that gives us more bang for the buck, I'm sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264486</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1259496060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine the army, or the navy, organized like NASA is. We'd have 500 soldiers, 500 doctors, 1000 accountants, 1500 medics, 20,000 officer (with at least 1000 flag officers) and 500 hopeful politicians. Not to mention about 50 infiltrators from the competition. Oh, I forgot the 200 embedded journalists.</p></div><p>I want to assume you're joking.  The Department of Defense <em>is</em> run like NASA.  Probably more so.</p><p>And don't give us the "private enterprise does better" argument without proof.  We've seen how the aerospace companies handle unmanned flight, and it's not really that impressive.  They have plenty of launch failures and mission screw-ups.  A good friend (who researchers Mars) is fond of noting that all of the recent Mars failures are basically the fault of Lockheed-Martin, for example.</p><p>My guess is that if private enterprise ran manned spaceflight, they'd just shrug at any losses and call it the "cost of doing business".  And then they'd probably vote themselves fat bonuses for saving money by not spending it on crew safety.  (I don't think I need to give examples of companies doing basically this in other industries.)  That's a cynical view, to be sure, and you're welcome to not share it.  But if you <em>do</em> want to disagree here, please explain why rather than taking it is an axiom that private business fixes everything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the army , or the navy , organized like NASA is .
We 'd have 500 soldiers , 500 doctors , 1000 accountants , 1500 medics , 20,000 officer ( with at least 1000 flag officers ) and 500 hopeful politicians .
Not to mention about 50 infiltrators from the competition .
Oh , I forgot the 200 embedded journalists.I want to assume you 're joking .
The Department of Defense is run like NASA .
Probably more so.And do n't give us the " private enterprise does better " argument without proof .
We 've seen how the aerospace companies handle unmanned flight , and it 's not really that impressive .
They have plenty of launch failures and mission screw-ups .
A good friend ( who researchers Mars ) is fond of noting that all of the recent Mars failures are basically the fault of Lockheed-Martin , for example.My guess is that if private enterprise ran manned spaceflight , they 'd just shrug at any losses and call it the " cost of doing business " .
And then they 'd probably vote themselves fat bonuses for saving money by not spending it on crew safety .
( I do n't think I need to give examples of companies doing basically this in other industries .
) That 's a cynical view , to be sure , and you 're welcome to not share it .
But if you do want to disagree here , please explain why rather than taking it is an axiom that private business fixes everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the army, or the navy, organized like NASA is.
We'd have 500 soldiers, 500 doctors, 1000 accountants, 1500 medics, 20,000 officer (with at least 1000 flag officers) and 500 hopeful politicians.
Not to mention about 50 infiltrators from the competition.
Oh, I forgot the 200 embedded journalists.I want to assume you're joking.
The Department of Defense is run like NASA.
Probably more so.And don't give us the "private enterprise does better" argument without proof.
We've seen how the aerospace companies handle unmanned flight, and it's not really that impressive.
They have plenty of launch failures and mission screw-ups.
A good friend (who researchers Mars) is fond of noting that all of the recent Mars failures are basically the fault of Lockheed-Martin, for example.My guess is that if private enterprise ran manned spaceflight, they'd just shrug at any losses and call it the "cost of doing business".
And then they'd probably vote themselves fat bonuses for saving money by not spending it on crew safety.
(I don't think I need to give examples of companies doing basically this in other industries.
)  That's a cynical view, to be sure, and you're welcome to not share it.
But if you do want to disagree here, please explain why rather than taking it is an axiom that private business fixes everything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263782</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259489700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they want a law to control the law safety of outside organizations. And isn't the launch failure rate 2 in 129 (since Columbia suffered its fatal damage on launch).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they want a law to control the law safety of outside organizations .
And is n't the launch failure rate 2 in 129 ( since Columbia suffered its fatal damage on launch ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they want a law to control the law safety of outside organizations.
And isn't the launch failure rate 2 in 129 (since Columbia suffered its fatal damage on launch).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263342</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259528040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you suggest would effectively kill the United States civilian space program.  The scientists and engineers put out of work by this broken idea would seek other jobs and not come back when the funding did.  Some would likely emigrate to other countries with funded programs.  And, I can guarantee that with the current 'leadership' in government in the United States, the funding would never come back anyway.  And all this for a measly ~$15 billion.</p><p>As you suggest, it is truly an unpopular idea - for its sheer stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you suggest would effectively kill the United States civilian space program .
The scientists and engineers put out of work by this broken idea would seek other jobs and not come back when the funding did .
Some would likely emigrate to other countries with funded programs .
And , I can guarantee that with the current 'leadership ' in government in the United States , the funding would never come back anyway .
And all this for a measly ~ $ 15 billion.As you suggest , it is truly an unpopular idea - for its sheer stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you suggest would effectively kill the United States civilian space program.
The scientists and engineers put out of work by this broken idea would seek other jobs and not come back when the funding did.
Some would likely emigrate to other countries with funded programs.
And, I can guarantee that with the current 'leadership' in government in the United States, the funding would never come back anyway.
And all this for a measly ~$15 billion.As you suggest, it is truly an unpopular idea - for its sheer stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262710</id>
	<title>safer?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259521740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worth noting here that safer space flight is counterproductive. The reason Ares I won back in 2005 on safety grounds is because it was a paper rocket. Nobody ever died on a paper rocket because nobody ever got to space on a paper rocket. NASA has not demonstrated that it can build or purchase a rocket safer than the Shuttle. Odds are very good that any increased safety requirements will have to be loosened when NASA finally gets (if it does) a manned space vehicle again.<br> <br>

As an aside, will these safety rules apply to contracted launches through other countries? Will NASA stop flying people to the ISS because the only vehicles (namely, Soyuz) can't and won't bother to meet stringent safety requirements? I doubt it.<br> <br>

My view is that the safety requirements are solely intended to cull rivals to the Ares I. These rules will in turn be dispensed with (this is called a "bait and switch" BTW) when it is no longer convenient for the Ares I program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting here that safer space flight is counterproductive .
The reason Ares I won back in 2005 on safety grounds is because it was a paper rocket .
Nobody ever died on a paper rocket because nobody ever got to space on a paper rocket .
NASA has not demonstrated that it can build or purchase a rocket safer than the Shuttle .
Odds are very good that any increased safety requirements will have to be loosened when NASA finally gets ( if it does ) a manned space vehicle again .
As an aside , will these safety rules apply to contracted launches through other countries ?
Will NASA stop flying people to the ISS because the only vehicles ( namely , Soyuz ) ca n't and wo n't bother to meet stringent safety requirements ?
I doubt it .
My view is that the safety requirements are solely intended to cull rivals to the Ares I. These rules will in turn be dispensed with ( this is called a " bait and switch " BTW ) when it is no longer convenient for the Ares I program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting here that safer space flight is counterproductive.
The reason Ares I won back in 2005 on safety grounds is because it was a paper rocket.
Nobody ever died on a paper rocket because nobody ever got to space on a paper rocket.
NASA has not demonstrated that it can build or purchase a rocket safer than the Shuttle.
Odds are very good that any increased safety requirements will have to be loosened when NASA finally gets (if it does) a manned space vehicle again.
As an aside, will these safety rules apply to contracted launches through other countries?
Will NASA stop flying people to the ISS because the only vehicles (namely, Soyuz) can't and won't bother to meet stringent safety requirements?
I doubt it.
My view is that the safety requirements are solely intended to cull rivals to the Ares I. These rules will in turn be dispensed with (this is called a "bait and switch" BTW) when it is no longer convenient for the Ares I program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263132</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>SteveWoz</author>
	<datestamp>1259525760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution is to make it so that a politician's child has to ride on each trip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is to make it so that a politician 's child has to ride on each trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is to make it so that a politician's child has to ride on each trip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264462</id>
	<title>Why are astronauts so valuable???</title>
	<author>ConfusedVorlon</author>
	<datestamp>1259495760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is an idea.</p><p>Build a cheaper more dangerous shuttle. Accept the fact that 5\% of launches will result in failure. Publicise this. Let the astronauts know. I guarantee there will still be plenty of volunteers to go into space.</p><p>So, you end up with say 50 dead astronauts. The training is pretty expensive - but way less than what you saved by building a cheaper shuttle.</p><p>Now take those billions that you saved. Spend them on better healthcare for army veterans and poor children. Save tens of thousands of lives.</p><p>Wouldn't that be a better way to spend your cash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an idea.Build a cheaper more dangerous shuttle .
Accept the fact that 5 \ % of launches will result in failure .
Publicise this .
Let the astronauts know .
I guarantee there will still be plenty of volunteers to go into space.So , you end up with say 50 dead astronauts .
The training is pretty expensive - but way less than what you saved by building a cheaper shuttle.Now take those billions that you saved .
Spend them on better healthcare for army veterans and poor children .
Save tens of thousands of lives.Would n't that be a better way to spend your cash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an idea.Build a cheaper more dangerous shuttle.
Accept the fact that 5\% of launches will result in failure.
Publicise this.
Let the astronauts know.
I guarantee there will still be plenty of volunteers to go into space.So, you end up with say 50 dead astronauts.
The training is pretty expensive - but way less than what you saved by building a cheaper shuttle.Now take those billions that you saved.
Spend them on better healthcare for army veterans and poor children.
Save tens of thousands of lives.Wouldn't that be a better way to spend your cash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262792</id>
	<title>Make it safer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259522700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole history of launching stuff into space in basically strapping something onto a bomb, and trying to control the way it explodes.<br>Comparing the earliest manmade flights, basically using ICBMs, to... to....<br>I was going to say today's tech, but the shuttle is almost 30 years old, so it really isn't today's tech.<br>Soyuz?  Proton?  Ariane?<br>It's all still focusing a huge amount of volatile explosives to a constricted area, hoping it doesn't all go pear shaped.<br>Add to that environmental concerns (this bug that's 10,000 miles away won't fuck if it so much as smells rocket exhaust, so use something else),<br>it's a wonder we get up there as safely as we do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole history of launching stuff into space in basically strapping something onto a bomb , and trying to control the way it explodes.Comparing the earliest manmade flights , basically using ICBMs , to... to....I was going to say today 's tech , but the shuttle is almost 30 years old , so it really is n't today 's tech.Soyuz ?
Proton ? Ariane ? It 's all still focusing a huge amount of volatile explosives to a constricted area , hoping it does n't all go pear shaped.Add to that environmental concerns ( this bug that 's 10,000 miles away wo n't fuck if it so much as smells rocket exhaust , so use something else ) ,it 's a wonder we get up there as safely as we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole history of launching stuff into space in basically strapping something onto a bomb, and trying to control the way it explodes.Comparing the earliest manmade flights, basically using ICBMs, to... to....I was going to say today's tech, but the shuttle is almost 30 years old, so it really isn't today's tech.Soyuz?
Proton?  Ariane?It's all still focusing a huge amount of volatile explosives to a constricted area, hoping it doesn't all go pear shaped.Add to that environmental concerns (this bug that's 10,000 miles away won't fuck if it so much as smells rocket exhaust, so use something else),it's a wonder we get up there as safely as we do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263356</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>Overunderrated</author>
	<datestamp>1259528160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, the X-33 project was canceled. Your whole post has no relevance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , the X-33 project was canceled .
Your whole post has no relevance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, the X-33 project was canceled.
Your whole post has no relevance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Baron\_Yam</author>
	<datestamp>1259520180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It amazes me that this is a serious concern.  There IS a price for manned spaceflight and if it goes too high, it's over.  Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.</p><p>If 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2:1 it is stupid to even suggest it.</p><p>America's losing its balls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It amazes me that this is a serious concern .
There IS a price for manned spaceflight and if it goes too high , it 's over .
Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.If 1 : 1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1 : 129 then it 'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2 : 1 it is stupid to even suggest it.America 's losing its balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It amazes me that this is a serious concern.
There IS a price for manned spaceflight and if it goes too high, it's over.
Astronauts know the risks and willingly take them.If 1:1000 is achievable with the same budget as 1:129 then it'd be evil not to do it - but if it increases costs by even 2:1 it is stupid to even suggest it.America's losing its balls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262782</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1259522700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What complete idiocy! By the same rational if we could half costs in the space program in exchange for a 1:12 chance of disaster it would stupid not to do so?</p><p>There is a trade-off between risk and price. You are indicating a particular point on that continuum and claiming it is stupid to look anywhere else, but without any justification whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What complete idiocy !
By the same rational if we could half costs in the space program in exchange for a 1 : 12 chance of disaster it would stupid not to do so ? There is a trade-off between risk and price .
You are indicating a particular point on that continuum and claiming it is stupid to look anywhere else , but without any justification whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What complete idiocy!
By the same rational if we could half costs in the space program in exchange for a 1:12 chance of disaster it would stupid not to do so?There is a trade-off between risk and price.
You are indicating a particular point on that continuum and claiming it is stupid to look anywhere else, but without any justification whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266806</id>
	<title>Re:BS numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259517900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Now we're going to dump a vehicle that has had 30 years of improvements built in and hope to do better with a new design.</p><p>You could look at it as 30 years of improvement, or as 30 years of layered bandaids. The truth is somewhere in between. A project as expensive and visible as the space shuttle has enormous intertia, in that if any of the past flaws had resulted in cancellation, all the investment would have been lost. But eventually, there comes a time when an outright redesign - informed by all we've learned in the several decades using the current shuttle - will perform better/cheaper/safer/simpler that the model covered in layers of patches. Note that 1) you can do things in a redesign that you couldn't do with a minor change, and 2) you can fix inherent flaws that you hadn't known about when you designed it, and thus remove the need for a whole bunch of the fixes you'd had to add on later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now we 're going to dump a vehicle that has had 30 years of improvements built in and hope to do better with a new design.You could look at it as 30 years of improvement , or as 30 years of layered bandaids .
The truth is somewhere in between .
A project as expensive and visible as the space shuttle has enormous intertia , in that if any of the past flaws had resulted in cancellation , all the investment would have been lost .
But eventually , there comes a time when an outright redesign - informed by all we 've learned in the several decades using the current shuttle - will perform better/cheaper/safer/simpler that the model covered in layers of patches .
Note that 1 ) you can do things in a redesign that you could n't do with a minor change , and 2 ) you can fix inherent flaws that you had n't known about when you designed it , and thus remove the need for a whole bunch of the fixes you 'd had to add on later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Now we're going to dump a vehicle that has had 30 years of improvements built in and hope to do better with a new design.You could look at it as 30 years of improvement, or as 30 years of layered bandaids.
The truth is somewhere in between.
A project as expensive and visible as the space shuttle has enormous intertia, in that if any of the past flaws had resulted in cancellation, all the investment would have been lost.
But eventually, there comes a time when an outright redesign - informed by all we've learned in the several decades using the current shuttle - will perform better/cheaper/safer/simpler that the model covered in layers of patches.
Note that 1) you can do things in a redesign that you couldn't do with a minor change, and 2) you can fix inherent flaws that you hadn't known about when you designed it, and thus remove the need for a whole bunch of the fixes you'd had to add on later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265306</id>
	<title>Re:We really need to get Commercial space going</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1259504700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Seriously, Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough. The simple fact is, that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life."</p><p>Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to book a passenger flight on your spaceline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Seriously , Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough .
The simple fact is , that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life .
" Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to book a passenger flight on your spaceline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Seriously, Rutan had it right when he said that we are not killing enough.
The simple fact is, that to be cutting edge WILL involve loss of life.
"Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to book a passenger flight on your spaceline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265860</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>wooferhound</author>
	<datestamp>1259509980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summery states a failure rate of 1:129, but I thought we lost 2 shuttles in the last 129 flights. Doesn't that make the failure rate at 2:129 or 1:65 ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summery states a failure rate of 1 : 129 , but I thought we lost 2 shuttles in the last 129 flights .
Does n't that make the failure rate at 2 : 129 or 1 : 65 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summery states a failure rate of 1:129, but I thought we lost 2 shuttles in the last 129 flights.
Doesn't that make the failure rate at 2:129 or 1:65 ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262278</id>
	<title>Not very Agile</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259518500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software processes have their heyday. The design up front strategy of Waterfall. The staged Incremental approach. The cowboy coding Big Bang approach (my personal favorite, if only to see watch the aftermath).</p><p>Nowadays, Agile development is the leading process du jour. With its short, incremental approach that relies on immediate feedback and rapid adaptation as well as well-scoped test points, Agile produces high quality software cheaply and quickly.</p><p>So to see NASA yearning for the days of design-heavy Waterfall with all risks supposedly identified up front, it's just a little bit disappointing. Years of actual practice have proven that Waterfall is one of the worst processes to follow, since it assumes that you can somehow know all necessary design points and risks at the outset.</p><p>Flight wasn't achieved overnight and certainly without tragedies. But we are where we are today because we took those accidents and tragedies and learned from them. NASA seems to think that they can bypass these failures by fiat. They are wrong, and this type of bad planning is going to cause huge budget overruns, delayed flight schedules, a loss of prestige, and worst of all less future funding.</p><p>Be Agile, NASA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software processes have their heyday .
The design up front strategy of Waterfall .
The staged Incremental approach .
The cowboy coding Big Bang approach ( my personal favorite , if only to see watch the aftermath ) .Nowadays , Agile development is the leading process du jour .
With its short , incremental approach that relies on immediate feedback and rapid adaptation as well as well-scoped test points , Agile produces high quality software cheaply and quickly.So to see NASA yearning for the days of design-heavy Waterfall with all risks supposedly identified up front , it 's just a little bit disappointing .
Years of actual practice have proven that Waterfall is one of the worst processes to follow , since it assumes that you can somehow know all necessary design points and risks at the outset.Flight was n't achieved overnight and certainly without tragedies .
But we are where we are today because we took those accidents and tragedies and learned from them .
NASA seems to think that they can bypass these failures by fiat .
They are wrong , and this type of bad planning is going to cause huge budget overruns , delayed flight schedules , a loss of prestige , and worst of all less future funding.Be Agile , NASA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software processes have their heyday.
The design up front strategy of Waterfall.
The staged Incremental approach.
The cowboy coding Big Bang approach (my personal favorite, if only to see watch the aftermath).Nowadays, Agile development is the leading process du jour.
With its short, incremental approach that relies on immediate feedback and rapid adaptation as well as well-scoped test points, Agile produces high quality software cheaply and quickly.So to see NASA yearning for the days of design-heavy Waterfall with all risks supposedly identified up front, it's just a little bit disappointing.
Years of actual practice have proven that Waterfall is one of the worst processes to follow, since it assumes that you can somehow know all necessary design points and risks at the outset.Flight wasn't achieved overnight and certainly without tragedies.
But we are where we are today because we took those accidents and tragedies and learned from them.
NASA seems to think that they can bypass these failures by fiat.
They are wrong, and this type of bad planning is going to cause huge budget overruns, delayed flight schedules, a loss of prestige, and worst of all less future funding.Be Agile, NASA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266354</id>
	<title>Re:10x safer = easy</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1259514000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if they want to do all this at minimum cost, they could just buy Soyuz vehicles, the world's safest, most reliable manned space transportation system.</p></div><p>And they'd have to do 3x the number of launches in order to send the same number of people that the shuttle can carry with one launch.  And they'd have to send up a few other launches to carry all the gear that the shuttle carries to the ISS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they want to do all this at minimum cost , they could just buy Soyuz vehicles , the world 's safest , most reliable manned space transportation system.And they 'd have to do 3x the number of launches in order to send the same number of people that the shuttle can carry with one launch .
And they 'd have to send up a few other launches to carry all the gear that the shuttle carries to the ISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they want to do all this at minimum cost, they could just buy Soyuz vehicles, the world's safest, most reliable manned space transportation system.And they'd have to do 3x the number of launches in order to send the same number of people that the shuttle can carry with one launch.
And they'd have to send up a few other launches to carry all the gear that the shuttle carries to the ISS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263710</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>santiagodraco</author>
	<datestamp>1259489040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure glad you are not designing or administering the security features of the cars I drive.  Or the planes I fly in.  Or the inspection proceedures for the food I eat.  I can go on and on....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure glad you are not designing or administering the security features of the cars I drive .
Or the planes I fly in .
Or the inspection proceedures for the food I eat .
I can go on and on... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure glad you are not designing or administering the security features of the cars I drive.
Or the planes I fly in.
Or the inspection proceedures for the food I eat.
I can go on and on....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263206</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259526540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>agree that at some point it is no longer worth it, and that implicitly we do place value on a humans lives. But how much is it worth?</i>
</p><p>
It is worth much more than it would cost to make the launch vehicle safe. The STS problem - and its death toll - is in deliberate design that made emergency escape impossible pretty much in any part of the launch or descent. Capsule based designs could survive both incidents if the capsule is strong enough to perform a ballistic reentry on its own. The problem is that you can't make such a capsule large enough to hold 7 people. STS design went for capacity and payload, at great risk to safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>agree that at some point it is no longer worth it , and that implicitly we do place value on a humans lives .
But how much is it worth ?
It is worth much more than it would cost to make the launch vehicle safe .
The STS problem - and its death toll - is in deliberate design that made emergency escape impossible pretty much in any part of the launch or descent .
Capsule based designs could survive both incidents if the capsule is strong enough to perform a ballistic reentry on its own .
The problem is that you ca n't make such a capsule large enough to hold 7 people .
STS design went for capacity and payload , at great risk to safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> agree that at some point it is no longer worth it, and that implicitly we do place value on a humans lives.
But how much is it worth?
It is worth much more than it would cost to make the launch vehicle safe.
The STS problem - and its death toll - is in deliberate design that made emergency escape impossible pretty much in any part of the launch or descent.
Capsule based designs could survive both incidents if the capsule is strong enough to perform a ballistic reentry on its own.
The problem is that you can't make such a capsule large enough to hold 7 people.
STS design went for capacity and payload, at great risk to safety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262460</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259519700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA's budget is already pretty small, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">17.2 billion</a> [wikipedia.org]. The current stimulus plan is valued at <a href="http://www.recovery.org/" title="recovery.org" rel="nofollow">135.15 billion</a> [recovery.org]. In other terms, NASA's budget would have covered 12.7\% of the economic stimulus if allocated in that way. The type of reform you're talking about would require more than the entirety of NASA's budget. What is amazing to me is the number of jobs for our educated persons that are created with that 17.2 billion dollars and also the amount of technology we get back out of it. I understand you believe that we need to pump more into economic recovery but please look somewhere with deeper pockets than NASA for the money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA 's budget is already pretty small , 17.2 billion [ wikipedia.org ] .
The current stimulus plan is valued at 135.15 billion [ recovery.org ] .
In other terms , NASA 's budget would have covered 12.7 \ % of the economic stimulus if allocated in that way .
The type of reform you 're talking about would require more than the entirety of NASA 's budget .
What is amazing to me is the number of jobs for our educated persons that are created with that 17.2 billion dollars and also the amount of technology we get back out of it .
I understand you believe that we need to pump more into economic recovery but please look somewhere with deeper pockets than NASA for the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA's budget is already pretty small, 17.2 billion [wikipedia.org].
The current stimulus plan is valued at 135.15 billion [recovery.org].
In other terms, NASA's budget would have covered 12.7\% of the economic stimulus if allocated in that way.
The type of reform you're talking about would require more than the entirety of NASA's budget.
What is amazing to me is the number of jobs for our educated persons that are created with that 17.2 billion dollars and also the amount of technology we get back out of it.
I understand you believe that we need to pump more into economic recovery but please look somewhere with deeper pockets than NASA for the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264694</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1259497860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can certainly appreciate that they want to do better, but it still amazes me that we send people into F'ING SPACE with less than 1\% failure rate.</p></div><p>Unless you want to send people into space with a greater than 1\% failure rate, sending them into space with LESS than a 1\% failure rate seems more sensible. I don't know about you, but I would want the failure rate to be smaller, not larger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can certainly appreciate that they want to do better , but it still amazes me that we send people into F'ING SPACE with less than 1 \ % failure rate.Unless you want to send people into space with a greater than 1 \ % failure rate , sending them into space with LESS than a 1 \ % failure rate seems more sensible .
I do n't know about you , but I would want the failure rate to be smaller , not larger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can certainly appreciate that they want to do better, but it still amazes me that we send people into F'ING SPACE with less than 1\% failure rate.Unless you want to send people into space with a greater than 1\% failure rate, sending them into space with LESS than a 1\% failure rate seems more sensible.
I don't know about you, but I would want the failure rate to be smaller, not larger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266460</id>
	<title>Re:safer?</title>
	<author>strack</author>
	<datestamp>1259515260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"NASA has not demonstrated that it can build or purchase a rocket safer than the Shuttle"
um. saturn V much?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" NASA has not demonstrated that it can build or purchase a rocket safer than the Shuttle " um .
saturn V much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"NASA has not demonstrated that it can build or purchase a rocket safer than the Shuttle"
um.
saturn V much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265014</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1259501040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I am a proponent of privatization, its disingenuous to say that NASA has no place.  SpaceX has a lot of potential, and I have a lot of faith that they and companies like them will be able to handle the task of getting cargo and astronauts back and forth from orbit.  Further, I fully agree that NASA needs to make motions towards getting out of the business of trucking stuff to orbit at all, leaving it fully to fixed-price contracts.  I am a "true believer" in NewSpace.</p><p>Given that, NASA still has a critical role to play: the initial exploration role, doing the things that have never been done before.  For-profit fixed-price contracts make sense when looking to make things that have been done before more efficient -- Getting people to orbit has known, manageable risks and quantifiable profit potential.  When learning how to do things for the first time, what you might call a high-risk, low-reward task, the cost-plus government directed methods actually work -- doing it for the first time is never going to be perfectly efficient.</p><p>Put simply, SpaceX wouldn't be where they were if NASA hadn't done its work during the Apollo Era.  What needs to be done now is for NASA to learn to pass on the well-understood tasks to industry and focus on what it does best, high-risk exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I am a proponent of privatization , its disingenuous to say that NASA has no place .
SpaceX has a lot of potential , and I have a lot of faith that they and companies like them will be able to handle the task of getting cargo and astronauts back and forth from orbit .
Further , I fully agree that NASA needs to make motions towards getting out of the business of trucking stuff to orbit at all , leaving it fully to fixed-price contracts .
I am a " true believer " in NewSpace.Given that , NASA still has a critical role to play : the initial exploration role , doing the things that have never been done before .
For-profit fixed-price contracts make sense when looking to make things that have been done before more efficient -- Getting people to orbit has known , manageable risks and quantifiable profit potential .
When learning how to do things for the first time , what you might call a high-risk , low-reward task , the cost-plus government directed methods actually work -- doing it for the first time is never going to be perfectly efficient.Put simply , SpaceX would n't be where they were if NASA had n't done its work during the Apollo Era .
What needs to be done now is for NASA to learn to pass on the well-understood tasks to industry and focus on what it does best , high-risk exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I am a proponent of privatization, its disingenuous to say that NASA has no place.
SpaceX has a lot of potential, and I have a lot of faith that they and companies like them will be able to handle the task of getting cargo and astronauts back and forth from orbit.
Further, I fully agree that NASA needs to make motions towards getting out of the business of trucking stuff to orbit at all, leaving it fully to fixed-price contracts.
I am a "true believer" in NewSpace.Given that, NASA still has a critical role to play: the initial exploration role, doing the things that have never been done before.
For-profit fixed-price contracts make sense when looking to make things that have been done before more efficient -- Getting people to orbit has known, manageable risks and quantifiable profit potential.
When learning how to do things for the first time, what you might call a high-risk, low-reward task, the cost-plus government directed methods actually work -- doing it for the first time is never going to be perfectly efficient.Put simply, SpaceX wouldn't be where they were if NASA hadn't done its work during the Apollo Era.
What needs to be done now is for NASA to learn to pass on the well-understood tasks to industry and focus on what it does best, high-risk exploration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</id>
	<title>NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>jlgreer1</author>
	<datestamp>1259518380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards? Why can't they implement them without the "politicians" approval?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards ?
Why ca n't they implement them without the " politicians " approval ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does NASA have to campaign for greater safety standards?
Why can't they implement them without the "politicians" approval?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262534</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Needs Permission?</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1259520120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's even more confusing is that the summary seems to be implying that there's some big debate going on. NASA wants more assurance of crew safety. Lawmakers want more assurance of crew safety. Where's the problem here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's even more confusing is that the summary seems to be implying that there 's some big debate going on .
NASA wants more assurance of crew safety .
Lawmakers want more assurance of crew safety .
Where 's the problem here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's even more confusing is that the summary seems to be implying that there's some big debate going on.
NASA wants more assurance of crew safety.
Lawmakers want more assurance of crew safety.
Where's the problem here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30267762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30274362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30272952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30273034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30267972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1629211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30267762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30274362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30273034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262820
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265014
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30272952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30265860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30267972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30264534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30262958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263206
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30268194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30266260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1629211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1629211.30263652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
