<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_24_1358245</id>
	<title>Launching Frequently Key To NASA Success</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1261646520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>teeks99 writes <i>"Even NASA could benefit from the 'Launch Often' idea that is frequently referred to in the software development community.  However, in NASA's case, the 'launch' is a bit more literal.  Edward Lu, writing in the New York Times, points out that by lowering the consequences of launch failure, and making frequent launches available to engineers, NASA could open up a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21lu.html">new wave of innovation in space exploration</a>.  If there were weekly launches of a rocket, there would be many opportunities for new ideas to be tried out in communications, remote sensing, orbital debris mitigation, robotic exploration, and even in developing technology for human spaceflight.  Another benefit would be that the rockets would be well understood, which would improve reliability."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>teeks99 writes " Even NASA could benefit from the 'Launch Often ' idea that is frequently referred to in the software development community .
However , in NASA 's case , the 'launch ' is a bit more literal .
Edward Lu , writing in the New York Times , points out that by lowering the consequences of launch failure , and making frequent launches available to engineers , NASA could open up a new wave of innovation in space exploration .
If there were weekly launches of a rocket , there would be many opportunities for new ideas to be tried out in communications , remote sensing , orbital debris mitigation , robotic exploration , and even in developing technology for human spaceflight .
Another benefit would be that the rockets would be well understood , which would improve reliability .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teeks99 writes "Even NASA could benefit from the 'Launch Often' idea that is frequently referred to in the software development community.
However, in NASA's case, the 'launch' is a bit more literal.
Edward Lu, writing in the New York Times, points out that by lowering the consequences of launch failure, and making frequent launches available to engineers, NASA could open up a new wave of innovation in space exploration.
If there were weekly launches of a rocket, there would be many opportunities for new ideas to be tried out in communications, remote sensing, orbital debris mitigation, robotic exploration, and even in developing technology for human spaceflight.
Another benefit would be that the rockets would be well understood, which would improve reliability.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547320</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1261652820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that we need to generate public interest, but I disagree on your methods.  So instead of sending robots, we send people.  To what affect?  Who cares?</p><p>Look back at the great space race of the 60s.  What made it as special as it was?  Was it that we were flying men in to space with little more than tin foil and duct tape?  Or was it that we were actually in a race?  We had to beat the commies!  I don't really know why it really mattered, but it was a national pride thing so I guess tangible results weren't required.</p><p>We need a goal.  We need a "mission".  Something the country can look towards and hope for.  Putting people in space is done.  We've done that.  No one cares.  Now, racing the Chinese to the first long term moon base?  That's a goal worth pursuing ( although I still fail to see the deliverables, it would again become a thing of national pride ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that we need to generate public interest , but I disagree on your methods .
So instead of sending robots , we send people .
To what affect ?
Who cares ? Look back at the great space race of the 60s .
What made it as special as it was ?
Was it that we were flying men in to space with little more than tin foil and duct tape ?
Or was it that we were actually in a race ?
We had to beat the commies !
I do n't really know why it really mattered , but it was a national pride thing so I guess tangible results were n't required.We need a goal .
We need a " mission " .
Something the country can look towards and hope for .
Putting people in space is done .
We 've done that .
No one cares .
Now , racing the Chinese to the first long term moon base ?
That 's a goal worth pursuing ( although I still fail to see the deliverables , it would again become a thing of national pride ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that we need to generate public interest, but I disagree on your methods.
So instead of sending robots, we send people.
To what affect?
Who cares?Look back at the great space race of the 60s.
What made it as special as it was?
Was it that we were flying men in to space with little more than tin foil and duct tape?
Or was it that we were actually in a race?
We had to beat the commies!
I don't really know why it really mattered, but it was a national pride thing so I guess tangible results weren't required.We need a goal.
We need a "mission".
Something the country can look towards and hope for.
Putting people in space is done.
We've done that.
No one cares.
Now, racing the Chinese to the first long term moon base?
That's a goal worth pursuing ( although I still fail to see the deliverables, it would again become a thing of national pride ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549766</id>
	<title>Re:"Launching is frequently the key to success?"</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1261732260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aw, troll? Someone is a little grumpy today.</p><p>Bah Humbug?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aw , troll ?
Someone is a little grumpy today.Bah Humbug ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aw, troll?
Someone is a little grumpy today.Bah Humbug?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548402</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261663980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to get people excited about space, then send up a buxom babe to bounce around on the moon.  Every guy on Earth will tune in to see how big breasts bounce in 1/5 earth gravity.</p><blockquote><div><p>Sending tiny robots into space is not interesting to most people</p></div></blockquote><p>Tiny? Cassini was the size of a small school bus. But at least robots are far cheaper than manned missions and return great science. And nobody dies if they flop. They are the work-horses of space exploration.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to get people excited about space , then send up a buxom babe to bounce around on the moon .
Every guy on Earth will tune in to see how big breasts bounce in 1/5 earth gravity.Sending tiny robots into space is not interesting to most peopleTiny ?
Cassini was the size of a small school bus .
But at least robots are far cheaper than manned missions and return great science .
And nobody dies if they flop .
They are the work-horses of space exploration .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to get people excited about space, then send up a buxom babe to bounce around on the moon.
Every guy on Earth will tune in to see how big breasts bounce in 1/5 earth gravity.Sending tiny robots into space is not interesting to most peopleTiny?
Cassini was the size of a small school bus.
But at least robots are far cheaper than manned missions and return great science.
And nobody dies if they flop.
They are the work-horses of space exploration.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30553080</id>
	<title>Re:A rocket launch is just like a software launch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261743240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the reason NASA has such phenomenal quality control is that two weeks to a month are spent on both sides of a launch checking everything, simulating all of the various issues that have cropped up from prior launches, marathon board reviews, and triple checking all the hardware.</p><p>Its a completely different mentality of operating boutique systems rather than full-on production spaceflight.  Similar quality could be maintained, but the way in which it was maintained would have to change significantly, and there would naturally be hiccups.  I think it would be an interesting change for NASA, and provide a welcome shift from the norm, as well as potentially useful innovations for the private sector, but the government is also traditionally not in the market of mass production hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the reason NASA has such phenomenal quality control is that two weeks to a month are spent on both sides of a launch checking everything , simulating all of the various issues that have cropped up from prior launches , marathon board reviews , and triple checking all the hardware.Its a completely different mentality of operating boutique systems rather than full-on production spaceflight .
Similar quality could be maintained , but the way in which it was maintained would have to change significantly , and there would naturally be hiccups .
I think it would be an interesting change for NASA , and provide a welcome shift from the norm , as well as potentially useful innovations for the private sector , but the government is also traditionally not in the market of mass production hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the reason NASA has such phenomenal quality control is that two weeks to a month are spent on both sides of a launch checking everything, simulating all of the various issues that have cropped up from prior launches, marathon board reviews, and triple checking all the hardware.Its a completely different mentality of operating boutique systems rather than full-on production spaceflight.
Similar quality could be maintained, but the way in which it was maintained would have to change significantly, and there would naturally be hiccups.
I think it would be an interesting change for NASA, and provide a welcome shift from the norm, as well as potentially useful innovations for the private sector, but the government is also traditionally not in the market of mass production hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547264</id>
	<title>Considering what a bunch of pussy-whipped bitches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261652460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this country has become, I'm surprised we can even manage to get a rocket into space at all anymore.  How is it that "the Greatest Generation" managed to raise "the Biggest Douchebags" as children?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this country has become , I 'm surprised we can even manage to get a rocket into space at all anymore .
How is it that " the Greatest Generation " managed to raise " the Biggest Douchebags " as children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this country has become, I'm surprised we can even manage to get a rocket into space at all anymore.
How is it that "the Greatest Generation" managed to raise "the Biggest Douchebags" as children?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094</id>
	<title>But in the big picture</title>
	<author>scarboni888</author>
	<datestamp>1261650840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?  And for how long?  Is this limitless or what?  I mean, I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis ?
And for how long ?
Is this limitless or what ?
I mean , I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?
And for how long?
Is this limitless or what?
I mean, I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547148</id>
	<title>Try Smoking It This Way</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1261651260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If there were weekly launches of a rocket, there would be many * DOLLARS * for new ideas to be tried out..."</p><p>Nope, sorry, it'll never get off the ground Orville.</p><p>These things cost money. Frequently too much, but even the best deals cost. Launching rockets costs a lot. It does not generate money. You can't buy squat with "opportunities", and can buy far less of you're punching holes in the sky based on a schedule of launches instead of a schedule of available payloads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If there were weekly launches of a rocket , there would be many * DOLLARS * for new ideas to be tried out... " Nope , sorry , it 'll never get off the ground Orville.These things cost money .
Frequently too much , but even the best deals cost .
Launching rockets costs a lot .
It does not generate money .
You ca n't buy squat with " opportunities " , and can buy far less of you 're punching holes in the sky based on a schedule of launches instead of a schedule of available payloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If there were weekly launches of a rocket, there would be many * DOLLARS * for new ideas to be tried out..."Nope, sorry, it'll never get off the ground Orville.These things cost money.
Frequently too much, but even the best deals cost.
Launching rockets costs a lot.
It does not generate money.
You can't buy squat with "opportunities", and can buy far less of you're punching holes in the sky based on a schedule of launches instead of a schedule of available payloads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547288</id>
	<title>Re:NASA successful?!?</title>
	<author>ChinggisK</author>
	<datestamp>1261652580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jeebus, at least RTFS, please.  It's saying that launching *more frequently* than they do now *would make* NASA a success.  It does not say that NASA is currently a success.<br> <br> <br> <br>*Also*, on an *unrelated* note, I *like* asterisks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeebus , at least RTFS , please .
It 's saying that launching * more frequently * than they do now * would make * NASA a success .
It does not say that NASA is currently a success .
* Also * , on an * unrelated * note , I * like * asterisks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeebus, at least RTFS, please.
It's saying that launching *more frequently* than they do now *would make* NASA a success.
It does not say that NASA is currently a success.
*Also*, on an *unrelated* note, I *like* asterisks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550306</id>
	<title>Re:A rocket launch is just like a software launch</title>
	<author>tinkerton</author>
	<datestamp>1261745100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>NASA has phenomenal quality control, your comparison is apples to oranges.</i> My knowledge is outdated, but I read Feynman's report on Nasa's quality control after the Challenger disaster, and I hope they got their act together after that. Quality control was huge then, in volume and procedure, but that doesn't mean it had any value. The software department was good, I recall that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA has phenomenal quality control , your comparison is apples to oranges .
My knowledge is outdated , but I read Feynman 's report on Nasa 's quality control after the Challenger disaster , and I hope they got their act together after that .
Quality control was huge then , in volume and procedure , but that does n't mean it had any value .
The software department was good , I recall that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA has phenomenal quality control, your comparison is apples to oranges.
My knowledge is outdated, but I read Feynman's report on Nasa's quality control after the Challenger disaster, and I hope they got their act together after that.
Quality control was huge then, in volume and procedure, but that doesn't mean it had any value.
The software department was good, I recall that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</id>
	<title>This is BS</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1261651380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have a shuttle launch every few months, and every time the general public's reaction is almost total apathy.  Satellites are launched into space all the time, and nobody cares.
<br> <br>
We don't need more frequent launches, we need a manned space program that actually makes progress if we want people to get excited about space travel.  Sending tiny robots into space is not interesting to most people, and sending people to the same rock over and over again is also not exciting to most people (witness the rapid dropoff in interest during the Apollo era).
<br> <br>
The way to get national interest in space travel up again is twofold:
<br>
1. Get NASA going full-bore on manned exploration of space.  Put the Mars mission on an Apollo-like timetable.  Of course, no one wants to spend the money for this because nobody cares about space, so we have to use the next point to get them there:<br>
2. Aggressively support commercial manned space travel.  Give more people a chance to go into space, even just LEO, and you'll have a lot more willingness to fund aggressive exploration missions.  This means the price for a trip has to go way down, and the safety has to go way up.  If we can get to a point where a trip to space costs the same as, say, an all-inclusive vacation to the Caribbean, everyone will want to go.
<br> <br>
The current strategy of announcing big initiatives and then starving them of funds, and letting commercial space ventures limp along with inadequate funding and no direction, is not getting anybody anywhere.  As long as NASA is saying 20 years just to get back to the Moon (assuming the funding isn't cut, which it always is), and it still costs $20 million to get a private citizen into LEO, interest in space travel will remain low.  Launching more rockets filled with tiny robots is not going to fix that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a shuttle launch every few months , and every time the general public 's reaction is almost total apathy .
Satellites are launched into space all the time , and nobody cares .
We do n't need more frequent launches , we need a manned space program that actually makes progress if we want people to get excited about space travel .
Sending tiny robots into space is not interesting to most people , and sending people to the same rock over and over again is also not exciting to most people ( witness the rapid dropoff in interest during the Apollo era ) .
The way to get national interest in space travel up again is twofold : 1 .
Get NASA going full-bore on manned exploration of space .
Put the Mars mission on an Apollo-like timetable .
Of course , no one wants to spend the money for this because nobody cares about space , so we have to use the next point to get them there : 2 .
Aggressively support commercial manned space travel .
Give more people a chance to go into space , even just LEO , and you 'll have a lot more willingness to fund aggressive exploration missions .
This means the price for a trip has to go way down , and the safety has to go way up .
If we can get to a point where a trip to space costs the same as , say , an all-inclusive vacation to the Caribbean , everyone will want to go .
The current strategy of announcing big initiatives and then starving them of funds , and letting commercial space ventures limp along with inadequate funding and no direction , is not getting anybody anywhere .
As long as NASA is saying 20 years just to get back to the Moon ( assuming the funding is n't cut , which it always is ) , and it still costs $ 20 million to get a private citizen into LEO , interest in space travel will remain low .
Launching more rockets filled with tiny robots is not going to fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a shuttle launch every few months, and every time the general public's reaction is almost total apathy.
Satellites are launched into space all the time, and nobody cares.
We don't need more frequent launches, we need a manned space program that actually makes progress if we want people to get excited about space travel.
Sending tiny robots into space is not interesting to most people, and sending people to the same rock over and over again is also not exciting to most people (witness the rapid dropoff in interest during the Apollo era).
The way to get national interest in space travel up again is twofold:

1.
Get NASA going full-bore on manned exploration of space.
Put the Mars mission on an Apollo-like timetable.
Of course, no one wants to spend the money for this because nobody cares about space, so we have to use the next point to get them there:
2.
Aggressively support commercial manned space travel.
Give more people a chance to go into space, even just LEO, and you'll have a lot more willingness to fund aggressive exploration missions.
This means the price for a trip has to go way down, and the safety has to go way up.
If we can get to a point where a trip to space costs the same as, say, an all-inclusive vacation to the Caribbean, everyone will want to go.
The current strategy of announcing big initiatives and then starving them of funds, and letting commercial space ventures limp along with inadequate funding and no direction, is not getting anybody anywhere.
As long as NASA is saying 20 years just to get back to the Moon (assuming the funding isn't cut, which it always is), and it still costs $20 million to get a private citizen into LEO, interest in space travel will remain low.
Launching more rockets filled with tiny robots is not going to fix that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30552198</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261773300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy to see how you reached your conclusion however one of your assumptions in one of your examples is 100\% wrong and another is incredibly misleading (no fault of yours, the amount of distortion from NASA is overwhelming, many good people have made exactly the same mistakes as you have, many more will, and many more continue to think as you do).</p><p>1. The "new" (and it actually is new) rocket Ares 1 is not in any way 80\% old Space Shuttle booster. ATK which makes the solid fuel first stage of the Ares 1 as well as the STS SRBs (Shuttle boosters) has by necessity of how very big solid fuel rockets work had to change every significant part of the solid fuel engine/rocket when going from producing STS SRBs to producing Ares 1 first stages. NASA and some NASA managers in particular try to deny this fact due to political reasons (and I guess also to avoid criminal charges, lying under oath to Congress etc.) but it's a plain fact of solid rocketry that STS SRBs and Ares 1 first stages not only would have nothing significant in common but indeed could not have anything significant in common if the laws of physics are to be observed. Pick up (or download) any book on creating your own solid rocket engines (i.e. not buying premade ones) and read it and you will see that just about every characteristics of solid rocket engine creation and function proves me right but of course the killer above them all is the crucial nature of length to diameter ratios in solid fuel engines/rockets (STS SRBs and Ares 1 first stages have different such ratios). ATK of course openly admits they've changed the grain geometry, the core profile, the grain composition etc. if they did anything else they would be laughed out of business.<br>.<br>That NASA even tries to sell such a huge lie as Ares 1 being "Shuttle derived" says a lot about the persons involved, NASA at large, and US Congress. That they succeed says even more. Unfortunately this is just one of a host of problems with the what NASA says about the Ares 1 and the lies they've made in order to sell Ares 1 (across the board but to Congress in particular).</p><p>The worst part of all of this is that such huge lies and malice or criminal incompetence could eventually begin to give significant credence to the nutcases that claim nobody ever went to the Moon. That is truly sad and depressing, even more so than the horrendous waste of money for US citizens (I'm not one and won't even visit the US). Even if the US should disappear the Moon landings was a triumph for all of humanity.</p><p>2. It doesn't really make sense to talk about man-rating rockets that are meant to have been designed specifically for human space launch but if one talks about establishing confidence in the reliability of a complex system then you should not need to know much math and statistics to realize that six uses of said system is not enough. The decisions to "man-rate" (or assume such, or pretend that it has been done) Saturn V or for that matter the Shuttle Transportation System were 100\% political. The same can be seen with the "man-rating" of Ares 1 where if you look at the ESAS study you'll see blatant rigging of numbers to "man-rate" Ares 1 right there at the start and then one can add that the current Ares 1 not only has changed significantly from that original configuration but also that several of the NASA "man-rating" "requirements" have been tweaked, nudged, or outright nullified to make the Ares 1 "pass". The Ares 1 is according to NASA supposed to be "man-rated" with only one test flight... plainly laughable and a scandal but of course 100 flights would not be enough for the Ares 1 as it will most likely be a death trap due to all the issues it has.</p><p>However you are completely right about the EELVs (Atlas and Delta launch vehicles and Centaur upper stages).</p><p>You would also be correct if you pointed out that the Falcon 9 will have had several tens of flights through the already signed NASA CRS deal for commercial resupply to the ISS before the possibility of carrying any NASA astronauts to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to see how you reached your conclusion however one of your assumptions in one of your examples is 100 \ % wrong and another is incredibly misleading ( no fault of yours , the amount of distortion from NASA is overwhelming , many good people have made exactly the same mistakes as you have , many more will , and many more continue to think as you do ) .1 .
The " new " ( and it actually is new ) rocket Ares 1 is not in any way 80 \ % old Space Shuttle booster .
ATK which makes the solid fuel first stage of the Ares 1 as well as the STS SRBs ( Shuttle boosters ) has by necessity of how very big solid fuel rockets work had to change every significant part of the solid fuel engine/rocket when going from producing STS SRBs to producing Ares 1 first stages .
NASA and some NASA managers in particular try to deny this fact due to political reasons ( and I guess also to avoid criminal charges , lying under oath to Congress etc .
) but it 's a plain fact of solid rocketry that STS SRBs and Ares 1 first stages not only would have nothing significant in common but indeed could not have anything significant in common if the laws of physics are to be observed .
Pick up ( or download ) any book on creating your own solid rocket engines ( i.e .
not buying premade ones ) and read it and you will see that just about every characteristics of solid rocket engine creation and function proves me right but of course the killer above them all is the crucial nature of length to diameter ratios in solid fuel engines/rockets ( STS SRBs and Ares 1 first stages have different such ratios ) .
ATK of course openly admits they 've changed the grain geometry , the core profile , the grain composition etc .
if they did anything else they would be laughed out of business..That NASA even tries to sell such a huge lie as Ares 1 being " Shuttle derived " says a lot about the persons involved , NASA at large , and US Congress .
That they succeed says even more .
Unfortunately this is just one of a host of problems with the what NASA says about the Ares 1 and the lies they 've made in order to sell Ares 1 ( across the board but to Congress in particular ) .The worst part of all of this is that such huge lies and malice or criminal incompetence could eventually begin to give significant credence to the nutcases that claim nobody ever went to the Moon .
That is truly sad and depressing , even more so than the horrendous waste of money for US citizens ( I 'm not one and wo n't even visit the US ) .
Even if the US should disappear the Moon landings was a triumph for all of humanity.2 .
It does n't really make sense to talk about man-rating rockets that are meant to have been designed specifically for human space launch but if one talks about establishing confidence in the reliability of a complex system then you should not need to know much math and statistics to realize that six uses of said system is not enough .
The decisions to " man-rate " ( or assume such , or pretend that it has been done ) Saturn V or for that matter the Shuttle Transportation System were 100 \ % political .
The same can be seen with the " man-rating " of Ares 1 where if you look at the ESAS study you 'll see blatant rigging of numbers to " man-rate " Ares 1 right there at the start and then one can add that the current Ares 1 not only has changed significantly from that original configuration but also that several of the NASA " man-rating " " requirements " have been tweaked , nudged , or outright nullified to make the Ares 1 " pass " .
The Ares 1 is according to NASA supposed to be " man-rated " with only one test flight... plainly laughable and a scandal but of course 100 flights would not be enough for the Ares 1 as it will most likely be a death trap due to all the issues it has.However you are completely right about the EELVs ( Atlas and Delta launch vehicles and Centaur upper stages ) .You would also be correct if you pointed out that the Falcon 9 will have had several tens of flights through the already signed NASA CRS deal for commercial resupply to the ISS before the possibility of carrying any NASA astronauts to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to see how you reached your conclusion however one of your assumptions in one of your examples is 100\% wrong and another is incredibly misleading (no fault of yours, the amount of distortion from NASA is overwhelming, many good people have made exactly the same mistakes as you have, many more will, and many more continue to think as you do).1.
The "new" (and it actually is new) rocket Ares 1 is not in any way 80\% old Space Shuttle booster.
ATK which makes the solid fuel first stage of the Ares 1 as well as the STS SRBs (Shuttle boosters) has by necessity of how very big solid fuel rockets work had to change every significant part of the solid fuel engine/rocket when going from producing STS SRBs to producing Ares 1 first stages.
NASA and some NASA managers in particular try to deny this fact due to political reasons (and I guess also to avoid criminal charges, lying under oath to Congress etc.
) but it's a plain fact of solid rocketry that STS SRBs and Ares 1 first stages not only would have nothing significant in common but indeed could not have anything significant in common if the laws of physics are to be observed.
Pick up (or download) any book on creating your own solid rocket engines (i.e.
not buying premade ones) and read it and you will see that just about every characteristics of solid rocket engine creation and function proves me right but of course the killer above them all is the crucial nature of length to diameter ratios in solid fuel engines/rockets (STS SRBs and Ares 1 first stages have different such ratios).
ATK of course openly admits they've changed the grain geometry, the core profile, the grain composition etc.
if they did anything else they would be laughed out of business..That NASA even tries to sell such a huge lie as Ares 1 being "Shuttle derived" says a lot about the persons involved, NASA at large, and US Congress.
That they succeed says even more.
Unfortunately this is just one of a host of problems with the what NASA says about the Ares 1 and the lies they've made in order to sell Ares 1 (across the board but to Congress in particular).The worst part of all of this is that such huge lies and malice or criminal incompetence could eventually begin to give significant credence to the nutcases that claim nobody ever went to the Moon.
That is truly sad and depressing, even more so than the horrendous waste of money for US citizens (I'm not one and won't even visit the US).
Even if the US should disappear the Moon landings was a triumph for all of humanity.2.
It doesn't really make sense to talk about man-rating rockets that are meant to have been designed specifically for human space launch but if one talks about establishing confidence in the reliability of a complex system then you should not need to know much math and statistics to realize that six uses of said system is not enough.
The decisions to "man-rate" (or assume such, or pretend that it has been done) Saturn V or for that matter the Shuttle Transportation System were 100\% political.
The same can be seen with the "man-rating" of Ares 1 where if you look at the ESAS study you'll see blatant rigging of numbers to "man-rate" Ares 1 right there at the start and then one can add that the current Ares 1 not only has changed significantly from that original configuration but also that several of the NASA "man-rating" "requirements" have been tweaked, nudged, or outright nullified to make the Ares 1 "pass".
The Ares 1 is according to NASA supposed to be "man-rated" with only one test flight... plainly laughable and a scandal but of course 100 flights would not be enough for the Ares 1 as it will most likely be a death trap due to all the issues it has.However you are completely right about the EELVs (Atlas and Delta launch vehicles and Centaur upper stages).You would also be correct if you pointed out that the Falcon 9 will have had several tens of flights through the already signed NASA CRS deal for commercial resupply to the ISS before the possibility of carrying any NASA astronauts to</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547398</id>
	<title>Single stage ground to orbit and other stuff</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1261653600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to sound negative, but until we have a single stage ground to orbit reusable vehicle, this probably won't happen. The shuttle had the right general idea, but failed for numerous reasons and it also was not a single stage ground to orbit vehicle. One of those issues was the re-entry, which damaged the heat shield tiles requiring a large number of man hours to inspect and replace, and another was that it took for ever to get readied again for launch. There are technologies being researched that will resolve these issues, but they are far from ready.</p><p>Even if we consider a rocket based solution to the two week window, we have to consider whether the cost can be justified and whether safety can be maintained. These are two things that are of importance to the public funding the program and to organisations putting their precious payload on top of the rocket. The other question to ask is whether we have enough backlog to have a well managed two week window. I would be curious to know how many space programs NASA has delayed because of rocket wait time and how much more space is their for yet another non maintainable orbiting satellite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound negative , but until we have a single stage ground to orbit reusable vehicle , this probably wo n't happen .
The shuttle had the right general idea , but failed for numerous reasons and it also was not a single stage ground to orbit vehicle .
One of those issues was the re-entry , which damaged the heat shield tiles requiring a large number of man hours to inspect and replace , and another was that it took for ever to get readied again for launch .
There are technologies being researched that will resolve these issues , but they are far from ready.Even if we consider a rocket based solution to the two week window , we have to consider whether the cost can be justified and whether safety can be maintained .
These are two things that are of importance to the public funding the program and to organisations putting their precious payload on top of the rocket .
The other question to ask is whether we have enough backlog to have a well managed two week window .
I would be curious to know how many space programs NASA has delayed because of rocket wait time and how much more space is their for yet another non maintainable orbiting satellite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound negative, but until we have a single stage ground to orbit reusable vehicle, this probably won't happen.
The shuttle had the right general idea, but failed for numerous reasons and it also was not a single stage ground to orbit vehicle.
One of those issues was the re-entry, which damaged the heat shield tiles requiring a large number of man hours to inspect and replace, and another was that it took for ever to get readied again for launch.
There are technologies being researched that will resolve these issues, but they are far from ready.Even if we consider a rocket based solution to the two week window, we have to consider whether the cost can be justified and whether safety can be maintained.
These are two things that are of importance to the public funding the program and to organisations putting their precious payload on top of the rocket.
The other question to ask is whether we have enough backlog to have a well managed two week window.
I would be curious to know how many space programs NASA has delayed because of rocket wait time and how much more space is their for yet another non maintainable orbiting satellite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547262</id>
	<title>"Launching is frequently the key to success?"</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1261652400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No shit, Sherlock? Good luck succeeding without launching.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>(Yes, I know.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit , Sherlock ?
Good luck succeeding without launching .
: P ( Yes , I know .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit, Sherlock?
Good luck succeeding without launching.
:P(Yes, I know.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547044</id>
	<title>A rocket launch is just like a software launch</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1261650420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, your'r a silicon valley startup, you launch a POS software that crashes, you redo it, no blood no foul; the only problem is some pissed off customers, but hey - it's software, we expect it to not work on ver1.0 (or ver10,0 if your are MS)

Just like putting 100,000 gallons of toxic explosive up into the air - the consequences of failure due to rapid product cycle are just the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , your'r a silicon valley startup , you launch a POS software that crashes , you redo it , no blood no foul ; the only problem is some pissed off customers , but hey - it 's software , we expect it to not work on ver1.0 ( or ver10,0 if your are MS ) Just like putting 100,000 gallons of toxic explosive up into the air - the consequences of failure due to rapid product cycle are just the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, your'r a silicon valley startup, you launch a POS software that crashes, you redo it, no blood no foul; the only problem is some pissed off customers, but hey - it's software, we expect it to not work on ver1.0 (or ver10,0 if your are MS)

Just like putting 100,000 gallons of toxic explosive up into the air - the consequences of failure due to rapid product cycle are just the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30553882</id>
	<title>This headline no verb?</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1261756800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Launching Frequently Key To NASA Success</p></div><p>Frequently key to NASA success?  I'd say it's almost always key to NASA's success, otherwise it'd be known as the National Staying Right Here On The Ground, Thank You Very Much, Administration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Launching Frequently Key To NASA SuccessFrequently key to NASA success ?
I 'd say it 's almost always key to NASA 's success , otherwise it 'd be known as the National Staying Right Here On The Ground , Thank You Very Much , Administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Launching Frequently Key To NASA SuccessFrequently key to NASA success?
I'd say it's almost always key to NASA's success, otherwise it'd be known as the National Staying Right Here On The Ground, Thank You Very Much, Administration.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547156</id>
	<title>Orbital Debris Mitigation?</title>
	<author>the phantom</author>
	<datestamp>1261651380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If there were weekly launches of a rocket, there would be many opportunities for new ideas to be tried out in communications, remote sensing, <b>orbital debris mitigation</b>, robotic exploration, and even in developing technology for human spaceflight.</p></div></blockquote><p>

And, with all of those extra launches, there will be extra debris to attempt those orbital debris mitigation techniques on!  It's win/win!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were weekly launches of a rocket , there would be many opportunities for new ideas to be tried out in communications , remote sensing , orbital debris mitigation , robotic exploration , and even in developing technology for human spaceflight .
And , with all of those extra launches , there will be extra debris to attempt those orbital debris mitigation techniques on !
It 's win/win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were weekly launches of a rocket, there would be many opportunities for new ideas to be tried out in communications, remote sensing, orbital debris mitigation, robotic exploration, and even in developing technology for human spaceflight.
And, with all of those extra launches, there will be extra debris to attempt those orbital debris mitigation techniques on!
It's win/win!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547192</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261651680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?  And for how long?  Is this limitless or what?</p></div><p>They're rocket launches, not nuclear bombs. We aren't going to run out of oxygen and we<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/certainly/ aren't going to ever run out of hydrogen, so that's already our cryogenic fuels. That said kerosene and whatnot for rocket fuels is indeed limited, but there's plenty of non-fossil alternatives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis ?
And for how long ?
Is this limitless or what ? They 're rocket launches , not nuclear bombs .
We are n't going to run out of oxygen and we /certainly/ are n't going to ever run out of hydrogen , so that 's already our cryogenic fuels .
That said kerosene and whatnot for rocket fuels is indeed limited , but there 's plenty of non-fossil alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?
And for how long?
Is this limitless or what?They're rocket launches, not nuclear bombs.
We aren't going to run out of oxygen and we /certainly/ aren't going to ever run out of hydrogen, so that's already our cryogenic fuels.
That said kerosene and whatnot for rocket fuels is indeed limited, but there's plenty of non-fossil alternatives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548732</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture. Have you seen it?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1261670160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if it was as cheap and rosy as you pretend it is, why does it cost hundreds of dollars per kg launched into orbit?</p></div><p>Hundreds of dollars per kg would be pretty sweet. You could put a bunch of people (bulk rate here) in orbit for less than a million dollars apiece at those rates. Unfortunately, current launch costs are somewhere between $5k and $40k per kg depending what you use (Russian vehicles for the lower cost, Shuttle for the higher cost) and how often you use them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if it was as cheap and rosy as you pretend it is , why does it cost hundreds of dollars per kg launched into orbit ? Hundreds of dollars per kg would be pretty sweet .
You could put a bunch of people ( bulk rate here ) in orbit for less than a million dollars apiece at those rates .
Unfortunately , current launch costs are somewhere between $ 5k and $ 40k per kg depending what you use ( Russian vehicles for the lower cost , Shuttle for the higher cost ) and how often you use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it was as cheap and rosy as you pretend it is, why does it cost hundreds of dollars per kg launched into orbit?Hundreds of dollars per kg would be pretty sweet.
You could put a bunch of people (bulk rate here) in orbit for less than a million dollars apiece at those rates.
Unfortunately, current launch costs are somewhere between $5k and $40k per kg depending what you use (Russian vehicles for the lower cost, Shuttle for the higher cost) and how often you use them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30575348</id>
	<title>Earlier idea...and IT HAS BEEN DONE, essentially</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261993080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, why did everybody forget about A-4 rocket? (aka V-2)</p><p><a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html" title="fourmilab.ch">http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html</a> [fourmilab.ch]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , why did everybody forget about A-4 rocket ?
( aka V-2 ) http : //www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html [ fourmilab.ch ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, why did everybody forget about A-4 rocket?
(aka V-2)http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html [fourmilab.ch]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547182</id>
	<title>NASA successful?!?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1261651620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Launching Frequently Key To NASA Success</p>  </div><p>

Really, I wouldn't call NASA now "successful", if it wasn't for NASA having a nearly unlimited budget to compete with the USSR, they wouldn't have achieved much. I'd say "unlimited money in the hands of a simi-competent organization can let you do great things". Lets see what state NASA is at in 2009. They currently don't have a way to send things into space on their own, having abandoned the older designs and won't have Ares done till at least 2014. The Space Shuttle was more or less a disaster having lost 2/5 of the shuttles and really accomplishing very little. <br> <br>

NASA is by no means successful, just because it is more advanced than Russia's space program which hasn't changed for several years and has hardly any funding, the ESA which is more or less a bureaucratic nightmare,  and JAXA which wasn't really formed till 2003.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Launching Frequently Key To NASA Success Really , I would n't call NASA now " successful " , if it was n't for NASA having a nearly unlimited budget to compete with the USSR , they would n't have achieved much .
I 'd say " unlimited money in the hands of a simi-competent organization can let you do great things " .
Lets see what state NASA is at in 2009 .
They currently do n't have a way to send things into space on their own , having abandoned the older designs and wo n't have Ares done till at least 2014 .
The Space Shuttle was more or less a disaster having lost 2/5 of the shuttles and really accomplishing very little .
NASA is by no means successful , just because it is more advanced than Russia 's space program which has n't changed for several years and has hardly any funding , the ESA which is more or less a bureaucratic nightmare , and JAXA which was n't really formed till 2003 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Launching Frequently Key To NASA Success  

Really, I wouldn't call NASA now "successful", if it wasn't for NASA having a nearly unlimited budget to compete with the USSR, they wouldn't have achieved much.
I'd say "unlimited money in the hands of a simi-competent organization can let you do great things".
Lets see what state NASA is at in 2009.
They currently don't have a way to send things into space on their own, having abandoned the older designs and won't have Ares done till at least 2014.
The Space Shuttle was more or less a disaster having lost 2/5 of the shuttles and really accomplishing very little.
NASA is by no means successful, just because it is more advanced than Russia's space program which hasn't changed for several years and has hardly any funding, the ESA which is more or less a bureaucratic nightmare,  and JAXA which wasn't really formed till 2003.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547836</id>
	<title>Re:Single stage ground to orbit and other stuff</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1261657140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The basic technology to solve reusable reentry has been developed a long time ago. It is a matter of applying it. How to you think rocket engines manage not to melt during flight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic technology to solve reusable reentry has been developed a long time ago .
It is a matter of applying it .
How to you think rocket engines manage not to melt during flight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic technology to solve reusable reentry has been developed a long time ago.
It is a matter of applying it.
How to you think rocket engines manage not to melt during flight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547448</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of crapola</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1261653900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You might look for other motivations, like maybe huge profits for the rocket makers and launchers?</i></p><p>What's preventing competition from bringing down these costs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might look for other motivations , like maybe huge profits for the rocket makers and launchers ? What 's preventing competition from bringing down these costs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might look for other motivations, like maybe huge profits for the rocket makers and launchers?What's preventing competition from bringing down these costs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547760</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of crapola</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261656420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's not rocket science, people!</p><p>oh wait, yes it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's not rocket science , people ! oh wait , yes it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's not rocket science, people!oh wait, yes it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548290</id>
	<title>Re:Price?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1261662420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Doing one each week would amount to approximately $24 billion per year in costs.</p></div></blockquote><p>And it would put about 1500 tons into orbit every year.  Rather more than four times the current mass of the ISS.
</p><p>Let's see.  What could we do with that much mass in Earth orbit.  Besides make the ISS about five times its current size, of course.  Since most of our plans for Mars missions envision about 800 tons in orbit to send the mission off, we can do that.  And an asteroid mission, of course, since that's easier than the Mars mission.  A moon mission or two with the leftovers.
</p><p>And that's just this year....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing one each week would amount to approximately $ 24 billion per year in costs.And it would put about 1500 tons into orbit every year .
Rather more than four times the current mass of the ISS .
Let 's see .
What could we do with that much mass in Earth orbit .
Besides make the ISS about five times its current size , of course .
Since most of our plans for Mars missions envision about 800 tons in orbit to send the mission off , we can do that .
And an asteroid mission , of course , since that 's easier than the Mars mission .
A moon mission or two with the leftovers .
And that 's just this year... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing one each week would amount to approximately $24 billion per year in costs.And it would put about 1500 tons into orbit every year.
Rather more than four times the current mass of the ISS.
Let's see.
What could we do with that much mass in Earth orbit.
Besides make the ISS about five times its current size, of course.
Since most of our plans for Mars missions envision about 800 tons in orbit to send the mission off, we can do that.
And an asteroid mission, of course, since that's easier than the Mars mission.
A moon mission or two with the leftovers.
And that's just this year....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547868</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>Katatsumuri</author>
	<datestamp>1261657440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talking about LEO space tourism, I wonder what is the environmental footprint of that, and is it worth it? What will it do in terms of toxic exhaust? It may be mostly water in theory, but there are always by-products. And how will that affect the ozone layer?</p><p>Scientific and engineering missions that we have now are probably worth it, given their practical and scientific value - but frequent tourist launches? Wouldn't that be like a light version of dropping nukes for the lulz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking about LEO space tourism , I wonder what is the environmental footprint of that , and is it worth it ?
What will it do in terms of toxic exhaust ?
It may be mostly water in theory , but there are always by-products .
And how will that affect the ozone layer ? Scientific and engineering missions that we have now are probably worth it , given their practical and scientific value - but frequent tourist launches ?
Would n't that be like a light version of dropping nukes for the lulz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking about LEO space tourism, I wonder what is the environmental footprint of that, and is it worth it?
What will it do in terms of toxic exhaust?
It may be mostly water in theory, but there are always by-products.
And how will that affect the ozone layer?Scientific and engineering missions that we have now are probably worth it, given their practical and scientific value - but frequent tourist launches?
Wouldn't that be like a light version of dropping nukes for the lulz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547316</id>
	<title>Re:A rocket launch is just like a software launch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261652820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A rocket launch is just like a penis launching towards your mouth.  A big nigger penis to be exact, cuz that makes it better in every way.  By the way, hydrogen and oxygen are not what most people think of when you say "toxic."  So that's another FAIL.  You know what I do if I don't know what I'm talking about?  I shut the fuck up and listen or in this case, read.  Try it sometime.  It sure beats saying something about the shuttle's fuel that's just plain false and EASILY PROVEN false (ever heard of Google?  Good, ya lazy bastard.).  You jackass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A rocket launch is just like a penis launching towards your mouth .
A big nigger penis to be exact , cuz that makes it better in every way .
By the way , hydrogen and oxygen are not what most people think of when you say " toxic .
" So that 's another FAIL .
You know what I do if I do n't know what I 'm talking about ?
I shut the fuck up and listen or in this case , read .
Try it sometime .
It sure beats saying something about the shuttle 's fuel that 's just plain false and EASILY PROVEN false ( ever heard of Google ?
Good , ya lazy bastard. ) .
You jackass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A rocket launch is just like a penis launching towards your mouth.
A big nigger penis to be exact, cuz that makes it better in every way.
By the way, hydrogen and oxygen are not what most people think of when you say "toxic.
"  So that's another FAIL.
You know what I do if I don't know what I'm talking about?
I shut the fuck up and listen or in this case, read.
Try it sometime.
It sure beats saying something about the shuttle's fuel that's just plain false and EASILY PROVEN false (ever heard of Google?
Good, ya lazy bastard.).
You jackass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549616</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261684740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?  And for how long?  Is this limitless or what?  I mean, I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....</p></div><p>Have you ever seen how much fuel is required for an Abrams Tank? I think if we are worried about energy expenditure we should scale back our military operations before scientific endeavors.</p></div><p>Then watch as the scientific endeavors grind to a halt because there is no military to protect them anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis ?
And for how long ?
Is this limitless or what ?
I mean , I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....Have you ever seen how much fuel is required for an Abrams Tank ?
I think if we are worried about energy expenditure we should scale back our military operations before scientific endeavors.Then watch as the scientific endeavors grind to a halt because there is no military to protect them anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?
And for how long?
Is this limitless or what?
I mean, I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....Have you ever seen how much fuel is required for an Abrams Tank?
I think if we are worried about energy expenditure we should scale back our military operations before scientific endeavors.Then watch as the scientific endeavors grind to a halt because there is no military to protect them anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550380</id>
	<title>Re:NASA successful?!?</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1261746540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They currently don't have a way to send things into space on their own, having abandoned the older designs and won't have Ares done till at least 2014.</p></div><p>Just to be clear: There are several launch systems capable of sending "things" into space, just not people. Things like Mars rovers and probes to other planets and comets don't use man-rated launchers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They currently do n't have a way to send things into space on their own , having abandoned the older designs and wo n't have Ares done till at least 2014.Just to be clear : There are several launch systems capable of sending " things " into space , just not people .
Things like Mars rovers and probes to other planets and comets do n't use man-rated launchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They currently don't have a way to send things into space on their own, having abandoned the older designs and won't have Ares done till at least 2014.Just to be clear: There are several launch systems capable of sending "things" into space, just not people.
Things like Mars rovers and probes to other planets and comets don't use man-rated launchers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548048</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1261659300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?  And for how long?  Is this limitless or what?</p></div><p>Yes.  A long time.  Nothing is limitless.  Let us know if you have any further questions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis ?
And for how long ?
Is this limitless or what ? Yes .
A long time .
Nothing is limitless .
Let us know if you have any further questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?
And for how long?
Is this limitless or what?Yes.
A long time.
Nothing is limitless.
Let us know if you have any further questions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548824</id>
	<title>the dream has passed</title>
	<author>virchull</author>
	<datestamp>1261671600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA had a vision in the 1980s to become "the trucking company of space", which is akin to the idea of weekly launches.  They hired expensive consultants to help them prepare for that future.  They ran into at least two brick walls.  One was the lack of funding.  The second was a culture of being risk averse.  The Atlantis crash was used by the risk averse to force the culture everywhere. NASA is now coasting on its resources and is a small shadow of its original dream - being only an occasional developer and launcher of small science probes.</p><p>The future of space will be created by corporate development and launch organizations.  They will bring a higher risk tolerance to ventures.  Some accidents will happen, just as in the early days of air flight. But the flip side is that much more progress will be made, as we have seen from the results of competition in the airplane industry as it developed over the past 80+ years.  Some cluster of corporate ventures will eventually produce weekly launches.  NASA will not be a party to them.  Their dream has passed.  Corporations will compete for success and resources, and pass by NASA's shadow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA had a vision in the 1980s to become " the trucking company of space " , which is akin to the idea of weekly launches .
They hired expensive consultants to help them prepare for that future .
They ran into at least two brick walls .
One was the lack of funding .
The second was a culture of being risk averse .
The Atlantis crash was used by the risk averse to force the culture everywhere .
NASA is now coasting on its resources and is a small shadow of its original dream - being only an occasional developer and launcher of small science probes.The future of space will be created by corporate development and launch organizations .
They will bring a higher risk tolerance to ventures .
Some accidents will happen , just as in the early days of air flight .
But the flip side is that much more progress will be made , as we have seen from the results of competition in the airplane industry as it developed over the past 80 + years .
Some cluster of corporate ventures will eventually produce weekly launches .
NASA will not be a party to them .
Their dream has passed .
Corporations will compete for success and resources , and pass by NASA 's shadow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA had a vision in the 1980s to become "the trucking company of space", which is akin to the idea of weekly launches.
They hired expensive consultants to help them prepare for that future.
They ran into at least two brick walls.
One was the lack of funding.
The second was a culture of being risk averse.
The Atlantis crash was used by the risk averse to force the culture everywhere.
NASA is now coasting on its resources and is a small shadow of its original dream - being only an occasional developer and launcher of small science probes.The future of space will be created by corporate development and launch organizations.
They will bring a higher risk tolerance to ventures.
Some accidents will happen, just as in the early days of air flight.
But the flip side is that much more progress will be made, as we have seen from the results of competition in the airplane industry as it developed over the past 80+ years.
Some cluster of corporate ventures will eventually produce weekly launches.
NASA will not be a party to them.
Their dream has passed.
Corporations will compete for success and resources, and pass by NASA's shadow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30551206</id>
	<title>A blast from the past...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261761540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On UseNet (look in Google groups!) there was a posting...</p><p>"A Rocket A Day"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  which kinda makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On UseNet ( look in Google groups !
) there was a posting... " A Rocket A Day " ... which kinda makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On UseNet (look in Google groups!
) there was a posting..."A Rocket A Day" ...  which kinda makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30552126</id>
	<title>It's about science, not public outreach.</title>
	<author>oneiros27</author>
	<datestamp>1261772340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's good to have people care about NASA so that maybe Congress will actually fund them, and not just keep shoving pork on them.</p><p>However, the need for more launches is to be able to do science.  Yes, the launches themselves can be exciting, but you could put on a fireworks display for a lot less money.</p><p>And NASA can't set their priorities and timetables when they have no control over their budget.  I have no idea just how many projects got cut when the whole 'go back to the moon' thing happened, but I know the one I was working on got cut in a major way, and I know of a few that were canned entirely.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and then there's the problem with launch vehicles -- even the unmanned.  STEREO would have launched months earlier if it hadn't been for a strike by a certain launch vehicle manufacturer.  As a result, we got grounded, and the costs of storing a satellite on the ground in Florida is *more* than the cost of operating it while it's in space, *and* analyzing the data.  There was a discussion if it was worth risking moving everything twice to get it back to Goddard, and then ship it back down to Florida when we were past the launch delays.</p><p>NASA is much more than just manned space missions.  There are a whole lot of engineers, scientists, computer programmers and people who support them who have absolutely nothing to do with the manned missions.</p><p>(disclaimer -- I'm a NASA contractor)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's good to have people care about NASA so that maybe Congress will actually fund them , and not just keep shoving pork on them.However , the need for more launches is to be able to do science .
Yes , the launches themselves can be exciting , but you could put on a fireworks display for a lot less money.And NASA ca n't set their priorities and timetables when they have no control over their budget .
I have no idea just how many projects got cut when the whole 'go back to the moon ' thing happened , but I know the one I was working on got cut in a major way , and I know of a few that were canned entirely .
... and then there 's the problem with launch vehicles -- even the unmanned .
STEREO would have launched months earlier if it had n't been for a strike by a certain launch vehicle manufacturer .
As a result , we got grounded , and the costs of storing a satellite on the ground in Florida is * more * than the cost of operating it while it 's in space , * and * analyzing the data .
There was a discussion if it was worth risking moving everything twice to get it back to Goddard , and then ship it back down to Florida when we were past the launch delays.NASA is much more than just manned space missions .
There are a whole lot of engineers , scientists , computer programmers and people who support them who have absolutely nothing to do with the manned missions .
( disclaimer -- I 'm a NASA contractor )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's good to have people care about NASA so that maybe Congress will actually fund them, and not just keep shoving pork on them.However, the need for more launches is to be able to do science.
Yes, the launches themselves can be exciting, but you could put on a fireworks display for a lot less money.And NASA can't set their priorities and timetables when they have no control over their budget.
I have no idea just how many projects got cut when the whole 'go back to the moon' thing happened, but I know the one I was working on got cut in a major way, and I know of a few that were canned entirely.
... and then there's the problem with launch vehicles -- even the unmanned.
STEREO would have launched months earlier if it hadn't been for a strike by a certain launch vehicle manufacturer.
As a result, we got grounded, and the costs of storing a satellite on the ground in Florida is *more* than the cost of operating it while it's in space, *and* analyzing the data.
There was a discussion if it was worth risking moving everything twice to get it back to Goddard, and then ship it back down to Florida when we were past the launch delays.NASA is much more than just manned space missions.
There are a whole lot of engineers, scientists, computer programmers and people who support them who have absolutely nothing to do with the manned missions.
(disclaimer -- I'm a NASA contractor)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549728</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of crapola</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1261774440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The rockets are well understood. The Atlas/Delta/Centaurs are all 45 year old designs and well shook down and understood. Even the "new" rocket is 85\% old Space Shuttle booster, 30 yr old design.</p></div><p>A lot of old aerospace tech is effectively lost to time because:<br>1. The dies/molds were destroyed<br>2. The blueprints were tossed out<br>3. The institutional knowledge of the workforce is gone</p><p>Modern "heavy" lift rockets can boost about 22\%~24\% of the Saturn V's capacity.<br>We're lucky enough to have the Saturn V's blueprints still around,<br>but without the other two things I've listed, it'd cost billions to ressurect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rockets are well understood .
The Atlas/Delta/Centaurs are all 45 year old designs and well shook down and understood .
Even the " new " rocket is 85 \ % old Space Shuttle booster , 30 yr old design.A lot of old aerospace tech is effectively lost to time because : 1 .
The dies/molds were destroyed2 .
The blueprints were tossed out3 .
The institutional knowledge of the workforce is goneModern " heavy " lift rockets can boost about 22 \ % ~ 24 \ % of the Saturn V 's capacity.We 're lucky enough to have the Saturn V 's blueprints still around,but without the other two things I 've listed , it 'd cost billions to ressurect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rockets are well understood.
The Atlas/Delta/Centaurs are all 45 year old designs and well shook down and understood.
Even the "new" rocket is 85\% old Space Shuttle booster, 30 yr old design.A lot of old aerospace tech is effectively lost to time because:1.
The dies/molds were destroyed2.
The blueprints were tossed out3.
The institutional knowledge of the workforce is goneModern "heavy" lift rockets can boost about 22\%~24\% of the Saturn V's capacity.We're lucky enough to have the Saturn V's blueprints still around,but without the other two things I've listed, it'd cost billions to ressurect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548772</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1261670880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't need more frequent launches, we need a manned space program that actually makes progress</p></div><p>To the contrary, we need more frequent launches because this is the great unexploited economy of scale in space flight. If you want a program that "actually makes progress", then it needs cheaper space launch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need more frequent launches , we need a manned space program that actually makes progressTo the contrary , we need more frequent launches because this is the great unexploited economy of scale in space flight .
If you want a program that " actually makes progress " , then it needs cheaper space launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need more frequent launches, we need a manned space program that actually makes progressTo the contrary, we need more frequent launches because this is the great unexploited economy of scale in space flight.
If you want a program that "actually makes progress", then it needs cheaper space launch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547712</id>
	<title>Transistor was 1947</title>
	<author>fdrebin</author>
	<datestamp>1261655940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Integrated circuit 1958.<p>
You kids these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Integrated circuit 1958 .
You kids these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Integrated circuit 1958.
You kids these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548268</id>
	<title>To Read TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261662120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To actually read TFA: <a href="http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com" title="bugmenot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com</a> [bugmenot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To actually read TFA : http : //www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com [ bugmenot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To actually read TFA: http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com [bugmenot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548794</id>
	<title>Rate of launch</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1261671180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The shuttle's systems can launch as rapidly as 24 times a year.  The hangup of launch times is the shuttle itself.  The original plan was for an assembly-line setup, but the refurbishment of the shuttles turned out to be too time consuming.  A disposable system utilizing the STS system, like the DIRECT or the original ESAS Ares V, could be flown at 18-24 times a year using the existing system, simply due to the most time consuming piece of the puzzle, the shuttle, being taken out of the picture.  The Ares V Classic could lift 155mT to orbit, 24 x 155mT == a whole lotta stuff in orbit.</p><p>In addition, once you do 8 flights a year, the Shuttle-Derived solution costs less to operate than any other system currently in operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The shuttle 's systems can launch as rapidly as 24 times a year .
The hangup of launch times is the shuttle itself .
The original plan was for an assembly-line setup , but the refurbishment of the shuttles turned out to be too time consuming .
A disposable system utilizing the STS system , like the DIRECT or the original ESAS Ares V , could be flown at 18-24 times a year using the existing system , simply due to the most time consuming piece of the puzzle , the shuttle , being taken out of the picture .
The Ares V Classic could lift 155mT to orbit , 24 x 155mT = = a whole lotta stuff in orbit.In addition , once you do 8 flights a year , the Shuttle-Derived solution costs less to operate than any other system currently in operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shuttle's systems can launch as rapidly as 24 times a year.
The hangup of launch times is the shuttle itself.
The original plan was for an assembly-line setup, but the refurbishment of the shuttles turned out to be too time consuming.
A disposable system utilizing the STS system, like the DIRECT or the original ESAS Ares V, could be flown at 18-24 times a year using the existing system, simply due to the most time consuming piece of the puzzle, the shuttle, being taken out of the picture.
The Ares V Classic could lift 155mT to orbit, 24 x 155mT == a whole lotta stuff in orbit.In addition, once you do 8 flights a year, the Shuttle-Derived solution costs less to operate than any other system currently in operation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30551402</id>
	<title>Expanding on the post...</title>
	<author>teeks99</author>
	<datestamp>1261763460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To expand a little more on my post....This is an excellent idea. In fact, it could probably be done for not a whole lot. The entry-level SpaceX rocket costs $6million per launch, and NASA could probably get a (very) bulk discount, so lets say $5m. If they launch 50 times a year (take a couple weeks off for christmas or something), that's only $250million...just chump change in NASA's budget.</p><p>Then it would be an issue of finding payloads for these 50 launches each year. Ideally NASA could have a competitive process that would let individuals or organizations compete for the free launches. Then if the org isn't able to get their payload ready in time, you could have a pool of ready-to-launch payloads that didn't win the competition, but are willing to launch if there is a chance. If all that fails, the rocket should launch anyway, and just do a sub-orbital flight, so that the system stays sharp.</p><p>There's a couple issues with this...one if the biggest is range tracking and availability. Having to be available to launch every week would be very tough for the range, because it usually takes them 24hrs+ to get set for a launch, then there are several days booked where the launch can happen any time in that window. To solve this problem, something that launches with this regularity would need to be independent of the current assets, which with cheap GPS and sat data links shouldn't be too big of a deal.</p><p>Another thing to think about would be orbital debris. Launch every week, with the competitively determined payloads, which probably won't be as long lived as traditional payloads, could contribute negatively to the amount of debris in orbit. To mitigate this, a big part of the competitive selection process should be how the payload will de-orbit itself, even in the event of a failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To expand a little more on my post....This is an excellent idea .
In fact , it could probably be done for not a whole lot .
The entry-level SpaceX rocket costs $ 6million per launch , and NASA could probably get a ( very ) bulk discount , so lets say $ 5m .
If they launch 50 times a year ( take a couple weeks off for christmas or something ) , that 's only $ 250million...just chump change in NASA 's budget.Then it would be an issue of finding payloads for these 50 launches each year .
Ideally NASA could have a competitive process that would let individuals or organizations compete for the free launches .
Then if the org is n't able to get their payload ready in time , you could have a pool of ready-to-launch payloads that did n't win the competition , but are willing to launch if there is a chance .
If all that fails , the rocket should launch anyway , and just do a sub-orbital flight , so that the system stays sharp.There 's a couple issues with this...one if the biggest is range tracking and availability .
Having to be available to launch every week would be very tough for the range , because it usually takes them 24hrs + to get set for a launch , then there are several days booked where the launch can happen any time in that window .
To solve this problem , something that launches with this regularity would need to be independent of the current assets , which with cheap GPS and sat data links should n't be too big of a deal.Another thing to think about would be orbital debris .
Launch every week , with the competitively determined payloads , which probably wo n't be as long lived as traditional payloads , could contribute negatively to the amount of debris in orbit .
To mitigate this , a big part of the competitive selection process should be how the payload will de-orbit itself , even in the event of a failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To expand a little more on my post....This is an excellent idea.
In fact, it could probably be done for not a whole lot.
The entry-level SpaceX rocket costs $6million per launch, and NASA could probably get a (very) bulk discount, so lets say $5m.
If they launch 50 times a year (take a couple weeks off for christmas or something), that's only $250million...just chump change in NASA's budget.Then it would be an issue of finding payloads for these 50 launches each year.
Ideally NASA could have a competitive process that would let individuals or organizations compete for the free launches.
Then if the org isn't able to get their payload ready in time, you could have a pool of ready-to-launch payloads that didn't win the competition, but are willing to launch if there is a chance.
If all that fails, the rocket should launch anyway, and just do a sub-orbital flight, so that the system stays sharp.There's a couple issues with this...one if the biggest is range tracking and availability.
Having to be available to launch every week would be very tough for the range, because it usually takes them 24hrs+ to get set for a launch, then there are several days booked where the launch can happen any time in that window.
To solve this problem, something that launches with this regularity would need to be independent of the current assets, which with cheap GPS and sat data links shouldn't be too big of a deal.Another thing to think about would be orbital debris.
Launch every week, with the competitively determined payloads, which probably won't be as long lived as traditional payloads, could contribute negatively to the amount of debris in orbit.
To mitigate this, a big part of the competitive selection process should be how the payload will de-orbit itself, even in the event of a failure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture.  Have you seen it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly you have not even looked at the big picture.</p><p>First off the fuel is Hydrogen and Oxygen.  Which by product is water.</p><p>The space program has given us. world wide telecommunications, GPS, weather satellite. How many lives and how much energy have those things saved?  GPS alone applied to the transport industry has been a huge fuel saver.</p><p>"If" we develop fusion we will need fuel.  Where is the highest concentration of fusion fuel? The moon.</p><p>Would it not be more ecological to mine asteroids than the amazon?</p><p>What about the development of clean 24/7 solar power?  That can only be achieved in space.</p><p>The Moon program of the 60's gave us the transistor and ultimately the processor in your computer you used to view this.  How many lives have been saved by the chip.  Hybrid cars would be impossible with them.</p><p>The space program is possible the last area where mega projects can have significant positive impact on the planet, man and our future.</p><p>And lastly the resources in space are LIMITLESS.  Once we learn how to tap them properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you have not even looked at the big picture.First off the fuel is Hydrogen and Oxygen .
Which by product is water.The space program has given us .
world wide telecommunications , GPS , weather satellite .
How many lives and how much energy have those things saved ?
GPS alone applied to the transport industry has been a huge fuel saver .
" If " we develop fusion we will need fuel .
Where is the highest concentration of fusion fuel ?
The moon.Would it not be more ecological to mine asteroids than the amazon ? What about the development of clean 24/7 solar power ?
That can only be achieved in space.The Moon program of the 60 's gave us the transistor and ultimately the processor in your computer you used to view this .
How many lives have been saved by the chip .
Hybrid cars would be impossible with them.The space program is possible the last area where mega projects can have significant positive impact on the planet , man and our future.And lastly the resources in space are LIMITLESS .
Once we learn how to tap them properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you have not even looked at the big picture.First off the fuel is Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Which by product is water.The space program has given us.
world wide telecommunications, GPS, weather satellite.
How many lives and how much energy have those things saved?
GPS alone applied to the transport industry has been a huge fuel saver.
"If" we develop fusion we will need fuel.
Where is the highest concentration of fusion fuel?
The moon.Would it not be more ecological to mine asteroids than the amazon?What about the development of clean 24/7 solar power?
That can only be achieved in space.The Moon program of the 60's gave us the transistor and ultimately the processor in your computer you used to view this.
How many lives have been saved by the chip.
Hybrid cars would be impossible with them.The space program is possible the last area where mega projects can have significant positive impact on the planet, man and our future.And lastly the resources in space are LIMITLESS.
Once we learn how to tap them properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547314</id>
	<title>Define, "success."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261652820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't launching frequently the <em>definition</em> of NASA success?</p><p>I mean, would you think it was profound if someone said "Making money is the key to MegaBank's success!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't launching frequently the definition of NASA success ? I mean , would you think it was profound if someone said " Making money is the key to MegaBank 's success !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't launching frequently the definition of NASA success?I mean, would you think it was profound if someone said "Making money is the key to MegaBank's success!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547328</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1261652940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?</p></div><p>Can't we?  Don't we expend several orders of magnitude more energy every day "launching" millions of cars onto the roads of America?  Compared to that, launching one rocket a week is trivial...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis ? Ca n't we ?
Do n't we expend several orders of magnitude more energy every day " launching " millions of cars onto the roads of America ?
Compared to that , launching one rocket a week is trivial.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?Can't we?
Don't we expend several orders of magnitude more energy every day "launching" millions of cars onto the roads of America?
Compared to that, launching one rocket a week is trivial...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549540</id>
	<title>Edward Lu is a Fucking Genius</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1261682760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wondered where John Walker got <a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html" title="fourmilab.ch">his idea</a> [fourmilab.ch].  Now I know he was just imitating Ed Lu!  Edward Lu is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSnjRaGoYyI" title="youtube.com">a Fucking Genius</a> [youtube.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered where John Walker got his idea [ fourmilab.ch ] .
Now I know he was just imitating Ed Lu !
Edward Lu is a Fucking Genius [ youtube.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered where John Walker got his idea [fourmilab.ch].
Now I know he was just imitating Ed Lu!
Edward Lu is a Fucking Genius [youtube.com]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548046</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1261659300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't need to "get people excited", they just need to pay for launches.</p><p>Since a manned program is not a matter of need, send probes, perfect robots, and concentrate on science instead of the wasteful drama involved in manned travel. Men will go into space wether or not the US sends them, and there is no reason we cannot mooch off the progress of others instead of pissing away money in what is a hangover of Cold War rivalry.</p><p>Space is a hostile place, and an expensive place to send humans, so why should we not take advantage of our ability to pave the way build remote-manned systems WE WILL REQUIRE ANYWAY???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need to " get people excited " , they just need to pay for launches.Since a manned program is not a matter of need , send probes , perfect robots , and concentrate on science instead of the wasteful drama involved in manned travel .
Men will go into space wether or not the US sends them , and there is no reason we can not mooch off the progress of others instead of pissing away money in what is a hangover of Cold War rivalry.Space is a hostile place , and an expensive place to send humans , so why should we not take advantage of our ability to pave the way build remote-manned systems WE WILL REQUIRE ANYWAY ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need to "get people excited", they just need to pay for launches.Since a manned program is not a matter of need, send probes, perfect robots, and concentrate on science instead of the wasteful drama involved in manned travel.
Men will go into space wether or not the US sends them, and there is no reason we cannot mooch off the progress of others instead of pissing away money in what is a hangover of Cold War rivalry.Space is a hostile place, and an expensive place to send humans, so why should we not take advantage of our ability to pave the way build remote-manned systems WE WILL REQUIRE ANYWAY??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547268</id>
	<title>Re:A rocket launch is just like a software launch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261652520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA has phenomenal quality control, your comparison is apples to oranges.<br> <br>

The fact of the matter is they need more launches to maintain interest in the public sector so we might get a budget that actually allows things to get done. Of course they need a more efficient launch system, something that diverting 20-30\% of the defense budget unto NASA could accomplish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA has phenomenal quality control , your comparison is apples to oranges .
The fact of the matter is they need more launches to maintain interest in the public sector so we might get a budget that actually allows things to get done .
Of course they need a more efficient launch system , something that diverting 20-30 \ % of the defense budget unto NASA could accomplish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA has phenomenal quality control, your comparison is apples to oranges.
The fact of the matter is they need more launches to maintain interest in the public sector so we might get a budget that actually allows things to get done.
Of course they need a more efficient launch system, something that diverting 20-30\% of the defense budget unto NASA could accomplish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547296</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture</title>
	<author>negRo\_slim</author>
	<datestamp>1261652640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?  And for how long?  Is this limitless or what?  I mean, I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....</p></div><p>Have you ever seen how much fuel is required for an Abrams Tank? I think if we are worried about energy expenditure we should scale back our military operations before scientific endeavors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis ?
And for how long ?
Is this limitless or what ?
I mean , I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....Have you ever seen how much fuel is required for an Abrams Tank ?
I think if we are worried about energy expenditure we should scale back our military operations before scientific endeavors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?
And for how long?
Is this limitless or what?
I mean, I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....Have you ever seen how much fuel is required for an Abrams Tank?
I think if we are worried about energy expenditure we should scale back our military operations before scientific endeavors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547768</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261656480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We have a shuttle launch every few months, and every time the general public's reaction is almost total apathy. Satellites are launched into space all the time, and nobody cares. </i></p><p>Do you judge the success of a space program based on the public's reaction?</p><p>Does the public care when a 747 (or Aerobus or whatever) takes off from an airport? Do you use the public's reaction to judge the success of the airline industry?</p><p>He doesn't exactly say it, but I think Lu's underlying point is that NASA is run like a PR agency. What mission will grab the public's attention? How can we get the public excited about space flight again? Go to the moon? Go to Mars?</p><p>Are you excited about <a href="http://www.nist.gov/" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">NIST</a> [nist.gov]? <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/" title="noaa.gov" rel="nofollow">NOAA</a> [noaa.gov]? Do you judge their success by what the public thinks about them? Do they try to grab the public's attention to justify their budget? No, they just do their job year in and year out, and that includes R&amp;D.</p><p>Lu's point is that maybe NASA shouldn't worry so much about their PR. Maybe they should concentrate on more frequent, but smaller steps. And build on those smaller steps, instead of always trying to grab the public's attention by making giant leaps (heh).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a shuttle launch every few months , and every time the general public 's reaction is almost total apathy .
Satellites are launched into space all the time , and nobody cares .
Do you judge the success of a space program based on the public 's reaction ? Does the public care when a 747 ( or Aerobus or whatever ) takes off from an airport ?
Do you use the public 's reaction to judge the success of the airline industry ? He does n't exactly say it , but I think Lu 's underlying point is that NASA is run like a PR agency .
What mission will grab the public 's attention ?
How can we get the public excited about space flight again ?
Go to the moon ?
Go to Mars ? Are you excited about NIST [ nist.gov ] ?
NOAA [ noaa.gov ] ?
Do you judge their success by what the public thinks about them ?
Do they try to grab the public 's attention to justify their budget ?
No , they just do their job year in and year out , and that includes R&amp;D.Lu 's point is that maybe NASA should n't worry so much about their PR .
Maybe they should concentrate on more frequent , but smaller steps .
And build on those smaller steps , instead of always trying to grab the public 's attention by making giant leaps ( heh ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a shuttle launch every few months, and every time the general public's reaction is almost total apathy.
Satellites are launched into space all the time, and nobody cares.
Do you judge the success of a space program based on the public's reaction?Does the public care when a 747 (or Aerobus or whatever) takes off from an airport?
Do you use the public's reaction to judge the success of the airline industry?He doesn't exactly say it, but I think Lu's underlying point is that NASA is run like a PR agency.
What mission will grab the public's attention?
How can we get the public excited about space flight again?
Go to the moon?
Go to Mars?Are you excited about NIST [nist.gov]?
NOAA [noaa.gov]?
Do you judge their success by what the public thinks about them?
Do they try to grab the public's attention to justify their budget?
No, they just do their job year in and year out, and that includes R&amp;D.Lu's point is that maybe NASA shouldn't worry so much about their PR.
Maybe they should concentrate on more frequent, but smaller steps.
And build on those smaller steps, instead of always trying to grab the public's attention by making giant leaps (heh).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547684</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture. Have you seen it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261655700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is nonsense<br>if it was as cheap and rosy as you pretend it is, why does it cost hundreds of dollars per kg launched into orbit?<br>the answer is: you are lying. it is not cheap. it would be a ridicolus waste of money. money that could be spent on actual space exploration rather than just firing loads of crap into the sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is nonsenseif it was as cheap and rosy as you pretend it is , why does it cost hundreds of dollars per kg launched into orbit ? the answer is : you are lying .
it is not cheap .
it would be a ridicolus waste of money .
money that could be spent on actual space exploration rather than just firing loads of crap into the sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is nonsenseif it was as cheap and rosy as you pretend it is, why does it cost hundreds of dollars per kg launched into orbit?the answer is: you are lying.
it is not cheap.
it would be a ridicolus waste of money.
money that could be spent on actual space exploration rather than just firing loads of crap into the sky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547356</id>
	<title>SSTO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261653240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best papers I've ever read on this subject were Jerry Pournelle's <a href="http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/gettospace.html" title="jerrypournelle.com">Getting To Space</a> [jerrypournelle.com] and <a href="http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/SSX.html" title="jerrypournelle.com">The SSX Concept</a> [jerrypournelle.com].  Basically he makes a simlar argument in the context of SSTO.  The problem with the way we do space right now is it's just too expensive to do anything useful.  Things we could do like space-based solar power and asteroid mining are now totally impractical because it costs, what, $20k to put a kilogram in orbit?  As long as that's the case we're pretty much stuck with LEO vanity projects.  We can't even afford to go back to the moon.
</p><p>Getting the $/kg to LEO down should be the single-minded thrust of the US space program in the coming years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best papers I 've ever read on this subject were Jerry Pournelle 's Getting To Space [ jerrypournelle.com ] and The SSX Concept [ jerrypournelle.com ] .
Basically he makes a simlar argument in the context of SSTO .
The problem with the way we do space right now is it 's just too expensive to do anything useful .
Things we could do like space-based solar power and asteroid mining are now totally impractical because it costs , what , $ 20k to put a kilogram in orbit ?
As long as that 's the case we 're pretty much stuck with LEO vanity projects .
We ca n't even afford to go back to the moon .
Getting the $ /kg to LEO down should be the single-minded thrust of the US space program in the coming years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best papers I've ever read on this subject were Jerry Pournelle's Getting To Space [jerrypournelle.com] and The SSX Concept [jerrypournelle.com].
Basically he makes a simlar argument in the context of SSTO.
The problem with the way we do space right now is it's just too expensive to do anything useful.
Things we could do like space-based solar power and asteroid mining are now totally impractical because it costs, what, $20k to put a kilogram in orbit?
As long as that's the case we're pretty much stuck with LEO vanity projects.
We can't even afford to go back to the moon.
Getting the $/kg to LEO down should be the single-minded thrust of the US space program in the coming years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550702</id>
	<title>Linking technology and funding</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1261753800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The space program has given us. world wide telecommunications, GPS, weather satellite. How many lives and how much energy have those things saved? GPS alone applied to the transport industry has been a huge fuel saver.</p></div><p>Those are tremendous advances and there are many more besides.  Problem is that the users of them often had nothing to do with the funding of them.  That linking of the technology and the funding needs to happen for entrepreneurial activity to take place.  To date the tremendous costs have made it very difficult for most entrepreneurs and businesses to directly pursue projects in space.  (indirect opportunities such as building satellite parts or commercializing research are of course possible)  Direct entrepreneurial ventures (Sirius Satellite Radio for instance) carry such high costs that commercial success is too risky to seriously contemplate most of the time.  So right now we put up technologies that are subsidized.  You are absolutely right that there has been valuable use of space but it's so expensive to get physical objects there that we've only been able to scratch the surface.  So far only telecommunications, military and research (weather, etc) have directly participated because they mostly don't involve transporting more than the satellite itself into orbit - the data is the valuable thing and data weighs literally nothing.</p><p>My take on NASA is that it is useful as a research institution but not as a resource for lowering costs.  There needs to be more emphasis on bringing the cost to orbit down.  NASA may not be the best organization to pursue that goal.  Absent some technological revolution however, orbital and higher launches are unlikely to become truly cheap anytime soon but cheaper would still open up many doors.  Should we accomplish (relatively) inexpensive spaceflight then you need regulations and legal framework for activity in space by private enterprise so we don't stupidly abuse resources and cause other problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The space program has given us .
world wide telecommunications , GPS , weather satellite .
How many lives and how much energy have those things saved ?
GPS alone applied to the transport industry has been a huge fuel saver.Those are tremendous advances and there are many more besides .
Problem is that the users of them often had nothing to do with the funding of them .
That linking of the technology and the funding needs to happen for entrepreneurial activity to take place .
To date the tremendous costs have made it very difficult for most entrepreneurs and businesses to directly pursue projects in space .
( indirect opportunities such as building satellite parts or commercializing research are of course possible ) Direct entrepreneurial ventures ( Sirius Satellite Radio for instance ) carry such high costs that commercial success is too risky to seriously contemplate most of the time .
So right now we put up technologies that are subsidized .
You are absolutely right that there has been valuable use of space but it 's so expensive to get physical objects there that we 've only been able to scratch the surface .
So far only telecommunications , military and research ( weather , etc ) have directly participated because they mostly do n't involve transporting more than the satellite itself into orbit - the data is the valuable thing and data weighs literally nothing.My take on NASA is that it is useful as a research institution but not as a resource for lowering costs .
There needs to be more emphasis on bringing the cost to orbit down .
NASA may not be the best organization to pursue that goal .
Absent some technological revolution however , orbital and higher launches are unlikely to become truly cheap anytime soon but cheaper would still open up many doors .
Should we accomplish ( relatively ) inexpensive spaceflight then you need regulations and legal framework for activity in space by private enterprise so we do n't stupidly abuse resources and cause other problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The space program has given us.
world wide telecommunications, GPS, weather satellite.
How many lives and how much energy have those things saved?
GPS alone applied to the transport industry has been a huge fuel saver.Those are tremendous advances and there are many more besides.
Problem is that the users of them often had nothing to do with the funding of them.
That linking of the technology and the funding needs to happen for entrepreneurial activity to take place.
To date the tremendous costs have made it very difficult for most entrepreneurs and businesses to directly pursue projects in space.
(indirect opportunities such as building satellite parts or commercializing research are of course possible)  Direct entrepreneurial ventures (Sirius Satellite Radio for instance) carry such high costs that commercial success is too risky to seriously contemplate most of the time.
So right now we put up technologies that are subsidized.
You are absolutely right that there has been valuable use of space but it's so expensive to get physical objects there that we've only been able to scratch the surface.
So far only telecommunications, military and research (weather, etc) have directly participated because they mostly don't involve transporting more than the satellite itself into orbit - the data is the valuable thing and data weighs literally nothing.My take on NASA is that it is useful as a research institution but not as a resource for lowering costs.
There needs to be more emphasis on bringing the cost to orbit down.
NASA may not be the best organization to pursue that goal.
Absent some technological revolution however, orbital and higher launches are unlikely to become truly cheap anytime soon but cheaper would still open up many doors.
Should we accomplish (relatively) inexpensive spaceflight then you need regulations and legal framework for activity in space by private enterprise so we don't stupidly abuse resources and cause other problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547748</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture. Have you seen it?</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1261656300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternatively: doing a few launches a year makes it impossible to take advantage of economies of scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively : doing a few launches a year makes it impossible to take advantage of economies of scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively: doing a few launches a year makes it impossible to take advantage of economies of scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547108</id>
	<title>Fuel</title>
	<author>bucketoftruth</author>
	<datestamp>1261650960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first thing that occurs to me is that it probably takes more than a week to gather all the fuel to launch a satellite into orbit, you insensitive clod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing that occurs to me is that it probably takes more than a week to gather all the fuel to launch a satellite into orbit , you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing that occurs to me is that it probably takes more than a week to gather all the fuel to launch a satellite into orbit, you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547524</id>
	<title>Price?</title>
	<author>GWRedDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261654500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds quite nice, but consider the costs. According to NASA, each Space Shuttle launch costs an average of $450 million. Doing one each week would amount to approximately $24 billion per year in costs. This would be similar to the per-year project cost of the Apollo program. If we are going to spend that much, shouldn't we go to Mars or something rather than just throwing up a bunch of rockets?</p><p>Anyhow, given the debt that the US is currently putting itself into, it seems to me like it would be a much better use of money to create more 'prizes' for private builders...something useful that can be done at a fraction of the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds quite nice , but consider the costs .
According to NASA , each Space Shuttle launch costs an average of $ 450 million .
Doing one each week would amount to approximately $ 24 billion per year in costs .
This would be similar to the per-year project cost of the Apollo program .
If we are going to spend that much , should n't we go to Mars or something rather than just throwing up a bunch of rockets ? Anyhow , given the debt that the US is currently putting itself into , it seems to me like it would be a much better use of money to create more 'prizes ' for private builders...something useful that can be done at a fraction of the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds quite nice, but consider the costs.
According to NASA, each Space Shuttle launch costs an average of $450 million.
Doing one each week would amount to approximately $24 billion per year in costs.
This would be similar to the per-year project cost of the Apollo program.
If we are going to spend that much, shouldn't we go to Mars or something rather than just throwing up a bunch of rockets?Anyhow, given the debt that the US is currently putting itself into, it seems to me like it would be a much better use of money to create more 'prizes' for private builders...something useful that can be done at a fraction of the cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30604490</id>
	<title>Re:Price?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262269440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That just means the Shuttle wasn't a move in the right direction.</p><p>Germans were building and launching a dozen A-4's <i>per day.</i> Cheaply. In a country ravaged by aerial bombings. One could think we can do better over half a century later...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That just means the Shuttle was n't a move in the right direction.Germans were building and launching a dozen A-4 's per day .
Cheaply. In a country ravaged by aerial bombings .
One could think we can do better over half a century later.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That just means the Shuttle wasn't a move in the right direction.Germans were building and launching a dozen A-4's per day.
Cheaply. In a country ravaged by aerial bombings.
One could think we can do better over half a century later...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547312</id>
	<title>So....Let me get this straight.</title>
	<author>Stupid McStupidson</author>
	<datestamp>1261652820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  In order for the National Aeronautics(rockets) and Space(rockets) Administration to be successful, they have launch...............rockets?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for the National Aeronautics ( rockets ) and Space ( rockets ) Administration to be successful , they have launch...............rockets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  In order for the National Aeronautics(rockets) and Space(rockets) Administration to be successful, they have launch...............rockets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548144</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1261660680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and sending people to the same rock over and over again is also not exciting to most people (witness the rapid dropoff in interest during the Apollo era).</p></div> </blockquote><p>The problem with public interest in Apollo is that we pretty much did the same thing every flight - went up, walked around a bit, picked up some rocks, flew home.
</p><p>No base.  Not even a little one.
</p><p>No two Apollo missions at the same time - I was really looking forward to the first time we landed two LMs at the same place, but it never happened.
</p><p>If you want people to pay attention to a manned space program, you need to launch often, you need to do different things often.  If people see that this flight is building on last flight, and that the next one will build on this one, they'll watch.  But they're not going to pay attention to more of the same every six months....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and sending people to the same rock over and over again is also not exciting to most people ( witness the rapid dropoff in interest during the Apollo era ) .
The problem with public interest in Apollo is that we pretty much did the same thing every flight - went up , walked around a bit , picked up some rocks , flew home .
No base .
Not even a little one .
No two Apollo missions at the same time - I was really looking forward to the first time we landed two LMs at the same place , but it never happened .
If you want people to pay attention to a manned space program , you need to launch often , you need to do different things often .
If people see that this flight is building on last flight , and that the next one will build on this one , they 'll watch .
But they 're not going to pay attention to more of the same every six months... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and sending people to the same rock over and over again is also not exciting to most people (witness the rapid dropoff in interest during the Apollo era).
The problem with public interest in Apollo is that we pretty much did the same thing every flight - went up, walked around a bit, picked up some rocks, flew home.
No base.
Not even a little one.
No two Apollo missions at the same time - I was really looking forward to the first time we landed two LMs at the same place, but it never happened.
If you want people to pay attention to a manned space program, you need to launch often, you need to do different things often.
If people see that this flight is building on last flight, and that the next one will build on this one, they'll watch.
But they're not going to pay attention to more of the same every six months....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140</id>
	<title>What a bunch of crapola</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1261651200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rockets are well understood.  The Atlas/Delta/Centaurs are all 45 year old designs and well shook down and understood.  Even the "new" rocket is 85\% old Space Shuttle booster, 30 yr old design.<br>The Saturn V was considered well understood and capable of being "man-rated" after six launches.    So this rationale does not hold water.</p><p>You might look for other motivations, like maybe huge profits for the rocket makers and launchers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rockets are well understood .
The Atlas/Delta/Centaurs are all 45 year old designs and well shook down and understood .
Even the " new " rocket is 85 \ % old Space Shuttle booster , 30 yr old design.The Saturn V was considered well understood and capable of being " man-rated " after six launches .
So this rationale does not hold water.You might look for other motivations , like maybe huge profits for the rocket makers and launchers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rockets are well understood.
The Atlas/Delta/Centaurs are all 45 year old designs and well shook down and understood.
Even the "new" rocket is 85\% old Space Shuttle booster, 30 yr old design.The Saturn V was considered well understood and capable of being "man-rated" after six launches.
So this rationale does not hold water.You might look for other motivations, like maybe huge profits for the rocket makers and launchers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547102</id>
	<title>Not impressed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261650960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about we go to the moon every other day? Think of all the stuff we can test then!
<br> <br>
Actually, lets just build a voyager probe every four hours and launch it, and shoot it in a slightly different direction.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_program" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_program</a> [wikipedia.org] <p><div class="quote"><p>Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc) by the number of launches. With 115 missions (as of 6 August 2006), and a total cost of $150 billion ($145 billion as of early 2005 + $5 billion for 2005,[19] this gives <b>approximately $1.3 billion per launch.</b> Another method is to calculate the incremental (or marginal) cost differential to add or subtract one flight &mdash; just the immediate resources expended/saved/involved in that one flight. This is about $60 million U. S. dollars.[21]</p></div><p>Well, the government just spent 800+ Billion dollars this morning. If only we can convince them to trade the health of America for 800 (on the low end) or so rocket launches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we go to the moon every other day ?
Think of all the stuff we can test then !
Actually , lets just build a voyager probe every four hours and launch it , and shoot it in a slightly different direction .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space \ _Shuttle \ _program [ wikipedia.org ] Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program ( including buildings , facilities , training , salaries , etc ) by the number of launches .
With 115 missions ( as of 6 August 2006 ) , and a total cost of $ 150 billion ( $ 145 billion as of early 2005 + $ 5 billion for 2005 , [ 19 ] this gives approximately $ 1.3 billion per launch .
Another method is to calculate the incremental ( or marginal ) cost differential to add or subtract one flight    just the immediate resources expended/saved/involved in that one flight .
This is about $ 60 million U. S. dollars .
[ 21 ] Well , the government just spent 800 + Billion dollars this morning .
If only we can convince them to trade the health of America for 800 ( on the low end ) or so rocket launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we go to the moon every other day?
Think of all the stuff we can test then!
Actually, lets just build a voyager probe every four hours and launch it, and shoot it in a slightly different direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_program [wikipedia.org] Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc) by the number of launches.
With 115 missions (as of 6 August 2006), and a total cost of $150 billion ($145 billion as of early 2005 + $5 billion for 2005,[19] this gives approximately $1.3 billion per launch.
Another method is to calculate the incremental (or marginal) cost differential to add or subtract one flight — just the immediate resources expended/saved/involved in that one flight.
This is about $60 million U. S. dollars.
[21]Well, the government just spent 800+ Billion dollars this morning.
If only we can convince them to trade the health of America for 800 (on the low end) or so rocket launches.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547294</id>
	<title>Re:This is BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261652640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We have a shuttle launch every few months, and every time the general public's reaction is almost total apathy. Satellites are launched into space all the time, and nobody cares.</p></div></blockquote><p>Cruise ships depart US ports almost daily, airliners depart from where in the US every second, rail cars by the thousands are in motion day in and day out - and nobody cares.  It's all routine.  If space travel and access is all routine, then that's usually considered a sign of maturity.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>We don't need more frequent launches, we need a manned space program that actually makes progress if we want people to get excited about space travel.</p></div></blockquote><p>You state that as if not being able to make progress without getting people excited was a fact, as opposed to the opinion it actually is.  Research ships leave US ports routinely, and there are probably a thousand or more science teams in the field in the US at any given time.  (Well, maybe not this week with the holidays and all.)  All of this happens almost completely without public notice, and the lack of such notice impedes progress not at all.  (And that doesn't even touch on the [probably] tens of thousands of lab bench bound research projects or researchers toiling away in libraries and archives.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>Which is a long winded way of saying that before you propose expensive stunts to draw public interest, first justify your claim that without interest progress won't occur.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a shuttle launch every few months , and every time the general public 's reaction is almost total apathy .
Satellites are launched into space all the time , and nobody cares.Cruise ships depart US ports almost daily , airliners depart from where in the US every second , rail cars by the thousands are in motion day in and day out - and nobody cares .
It 's all routine .
If space travel and access is all routine , then that 's usually considered a sign of maturity .
  We do n't need more frequent launches , we need a manned space program that actually makes progress if we want people to get excited about space travel.You state that as if not being able to make progress without getting people excited was a fact , as opposed to the opinion it actually is .
Research ships leave US ports routinely , and there are probably a thousand or more science teams in the field in the US at any given time .
( Well , maybe not this week with the holidays and all .
) All of this happens almost completely without public notice , and the lack of such notice impedes progress not at all .
( And that does n't even touch on the [ probably ] tens of thousands of lab bench bound research projects or researchers toiling away in libraries and archives .
)   Which is a long winded way of saying that before you propose expensive stunts to draw public interest , first justify your claim that without interest progress wo n't occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a shuttle launch every few months, and every time the general public's reaction is almost total apathy.
Satellites are launched into space all the time, and nobody cares.Cruise ships depart US ports almost daily, airliners depart from where in the US every second, rail cars by the thousands are in motion day in and day out - and nobody cares.
It's all routine.
If space travel and access is all routine, then that's usually considered a sign of maturity.
  We don't need more frequent launches, we need a manned space program that actually makes progress if we want people to get excited about space travel.You state that as if not being able to make progress without getting people excited was a fact, as opposed to the opinion it actually is.
Research ships leave US ports routinely, and there are probably a thousand or more science teams in the field in the US at any given time.
(Well, maybe not this week with the holidays and all.
)  All of this happens almost completely without public notice, and the lack of such notice impedes progress not at all.
(And that doesn't even touch on the [probably] tens of thousands of lab bench bound research projects or researchers toiling away in libraries and archives.
)
  Which is a long winded way of saying that before you propose expensive stunts to draw public interest, first justify your claim that without interest progress won't occur.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547354</id>
	<title>it would be a nice place to be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261653240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>More frequent launches, cheaper better faster, reusable, and more reliable would be a nice place to get to. And it seems like it is being tried at NASA. The space shuttle was supposed to be something that launched frequently. The mars missions were cheaper better faster.  Both showed NASA was not quite there yet.
<p>
NASA is not going to the be the guys for quick jaunts into space.  For that to happen, the west is going to have to have a much higher tolerance to exploding spacecraft, and the economics is going to have to allow for profitable ventures to succeed even when the launch vehicle fails and the company gets sued because someone was woken up by the explosion.
</p><p>
Three other lessons learned from software development.  One,doing more increase communications costs, and those communications costs can overwhelm a management structure. NASA does pretty ok with communications as launching a space craft requires a lot of high quality communication.  Two, there is no silver bullet.Real problems are really hard to fix, and most of the time requires a novel solution, not just doing more of the same. Three, system can quickly become complex enough so that no one fully understand what is happening.Our machines do grow more complex and sometimes we don't know exactly what is happening.
</p><p>
Then, again, there is the issue of launch vehicles exploding in space.  When google mail goes down, as it does, people are annoyed. When a launch vehicle does down, as happened two years ago with Sea Launch,the communication payload, launch platform, pretty everything goes kaput.
</p><p>
Speaking of Sea Lauch, I wonder if we don't have a launch a week from the various people who do this. Such a distributed system might be better as it prevent one company, such as google, from being the absolute arbiter or what is a good idea and what is a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More frequent launches , cheaper better faster , reusable , and more reliable would be a nice place to get to .
And it seems like it is being tried at NASA .
The space shuttle was supposed to be something that launched frequently .
The mars missions were cheaper better faster .
Both showed NASA was not quite there yet .
NASA is not going to the be the guys for quick jaunts into space .
For that to happen , the west is going to have to have a much higher tolerance to exploding spacecraft , and the economics is going to have to allow for profitable ventures to succeed even when the launch vehicle fails and the company gets sued because someone was woken up by the explosion .
Three other lessons learned from software development .
One,doing more increase communications costs , and those communications costs can overwhelm a management structure .
NASA does pretty ok with communications as launching a space craft requires a lot of high quality communication .
Two , there is no silver bullet.Real problems are really hard to fix , and most of the time requires a novel solution , not just doing more of the same .
Three , system can quickly become complex enough so that no one fully understand what is happening.Our machines do grow more complex and sometimes we do n't know exactly what is happening .
Then , again , there is the issue of launch vehicles exploding in space .
When google mail goes down , as it does , people are annoyed .
When a launch vehicle does down , as happened two years ago with Sea Launch,the communication payload , launch platform , pretty everything goes kaput .
Speaking of Sea Lauch , I wonder if we do n't have a launch a week from the various people who do this .
Such a distributed system might be better as it prevent one company , such as google , from being the absolute arbiter or what is a good idea and what is a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More frequent launches, cheaper better faster, reusable, and more reliable would be a nice place to get to.
And it seems like it is being tried at NASA.
The space shuttle was supposed to be something that launched frequently.
The mars missions were cheaper better faster.
Both showed NASA was not quite there yet.
NASA is not going to the be the guys for quick jaunts into space.
For that to happen, the west is going to have to have a much higher tolerance to exploding spacecraft, and the economics is going to have to allow for profitable ventures to succeed even when the launch vehicle fails and the company gets sued because someone was woken up by the explosion.
Three other lessons learned from software development.
One,doing more increase communications costs, and those communications costs can overwhelm a management structure.
NASA does pretty ok with communications as launching a space craft requires a lot of high quality communication.
Two, there is no silver bullet.Real problems are really hard to fix, and most of the time requires a novel solution, not just doing more of the same.
Three, system can quickly become complex enough so that no one fully understand what is happening.Our machines do grow more complex and sometimes we don't know exactly what is happening.
Then, again, there is the issue of launch vehicles exploding in space.
When google mail goes down, as it does, people are annoyed.
When a launch vehicle does down, as happened two years ago with Sea Launch,the communication payload, launch platform, pretty everything goes kaput.
Speaking of Sea Lauch, I wonder if we don't have a launch a week from the various people who do this.
Such a distributed system might be better as it prevent one company, such as google, from being the absolute arbiter or what is a good idea and what is a bad idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548250</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture. Have you seen it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261661820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would everyone stop talking about the fusion-fuel-on-the-moon myth? The helium-3 on the moon currently cannot be used with any fusion reactor. If we did create a working fusion reactor in the next ten years, ocean water would work just fine. Using helium-3 would take years and years of additional development with the only added benefit of aneutronic fusion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would everyone stop talking about the fusion-fuel-on-the-moon myth ?
The helium-3 on the moon currently can not be used with any fusion reactor .
If we did create a working fusion reactor in the next ten years , ocean water would work just fine .
Using helium-3 would take years and years of additional development with the only added benefit of aneutronic fusion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would everyone stop talking about the fusion-fuel-on-the-moon myth?
The helium-3 on the moon currently cannot be used with any fusion reactor.
If we did create a working fusion reactor in the next ten years, ocean water would work just fine.
Using helium-3 would take years and years of additional development with the only added benefit of aneutronic fusion...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547746</id>
	<title>We are not rocket scientists, obviously.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1261656300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But we can at least speculate on a realistic plan for frequent launches:</p><p>1. Adopting a limited number of launch vehicle types.  Atlas, Titan, Delta, Ares or whatever it becomes, and maybe a commercial design or two in there, but probably just one.  The Virgin/Scaled Composites projects are out of scope for this, let them do their own thing.</p><p>2. After certifying new designs and man-rating them, we move from testing to 'production'.</p><p>3. Ramp up launches so that you are probably only launching every 3-5 weeks realistically.</p><p>4. Allow for more launches when needed.</p><p>5. Multiple pads are in use.  Currently, pads 36A&amp;B, 39A&amp;B, 40, and 46 are active, 37 and 41 are under construction for Ares (probably) and Delta IV respectively.  So we could have 2-3 pads for big lifts, and 3-4 pads for utility launches.  This makes some 3-8 week turnarounds practical, and some shorter.</p><p>6. Some rockets have different prep times.  I suspect the goal of the Ares-type launch vehicle is to get it into a rapid cycle, but I dunno if Atlas, Atlas-Centaur, and Delta can be prepped that quickly.   However, if you tell them you need 15 Delta launches a year, I be they can do it.</p><p>7. Now to get some payload for these.  Certainly, sending a new set of Mars Rovers up would be cheapo science.  I bet the guys at ASU could have them ready in a year.  How about sending a set of them to a Saturn moon?  Need bigger panels of course, and improved radios, but maybe send a Surveyor-style satellite up there also as a multipurpose mapper and relay?  More solar expeditions?  Venus has been neglected.  replacement and maybe even return and refurbishing of some communications birds?  There are plenty of projects.</p><p>8. Benefits;  Regular routine launching gets everyone in the mode of a business-as-usual launch team.  Practice makes perfect.  Small problems should be detected and resolved.  Obviously big problems get attention and maybe even a stand-down to work the problem.  A multitude of small payloads spreads the potential loss, though in some cases I bet the vehicle is more expensive than the payload, if small science is a goal.  And, and, maybe there builds pressure for more reusable vehicles.  Routine launching makes the ISS easier to maintain, in a way, if you have regular smaller deliveries.  Losing one doesn't hurt so much, and repairs can be done faster.  Faster crew exchanges might be useful, especially if you just send a specialist up for a 3-week project, knowing they will be able to go back up in 6 months.  You can work to improve experiments in a way you can't much do now with the expense and time needed to send up crew and equipment.</p><p>Can we hope there is some economy of scale?  I'm not sure how important that is, since I think NASA should be getting a LOT more money, but I'm a space wonk.</p><p>Then again, maybe Rutan and Branson team up and make a servicable small payload launch version of the White Knight, and we get competition.</p><p>Thinking this through, NASA could probably do a lot of launches with not too much problem.  And we could build or rebuild a few pads...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But we can at least speculate on a realistic plan for frequent launches : 1 .
Adopting a limited number of launch vehicle types .
Atlas , Titan , Delta , Ares or whatever it becomes , and maybe a commercial design or two in there , but probably just one .
The Virgin/Scaled Composites projects are out of scope for this , let them do their own thing.2 .
After certifying new designs and man-rating them , we move from testing to 'production'.3 .
Ramp up launches so that you are probably only launching every 3-5 weeks realistically.4 .
Allow for more launches when needed.5 .
Multiple pads are in use .
Currently , pads 36A&amp;B , 39A&amp;B , 40 , and 46 are active , 37 and 41 are under construction for Ares ( probably ) and Delta IV respectively .
So we could have 2-3 pads for big lifts , and 3-4 pads for utility launches .
This makes some 3-8 week turnarounds practical , and some shorter.6 .
Some rockets have different prep times .
I suspect the goal of the Ares-type launch vehicle is to get it into a rapid cycle , but I dunno if Atlas , Atlas-Centaur , and Delta can be prepped that quickly .
However , if you tell them you need 15 Delta launches a year , I be they can do it.7 .
Now to get some payload for these .
Certainly , sending a new set of Mars Rovers up would be cheapo science .
I bet the guys at ASU could have them ready in a year .
How about sending a set of them to a Saturn moon ?
Need bigger panels of course , and improved radios , but maybe send a Surveyor-style satellite up there also as a multipurpose mapper and relay ?
More solar expeditions ?
Venus has been neglected .
replacement and maybe even return and refurbishing of some communications birds ?
There are plenty of projects.8 .
Benefits ; Regular routine launching gets everyone in the mode of a business-as-usual launch team .
Practice makes perfect .
Small problems should be detected and resolved .
Obviously big problems get attention and maybe even a stand-down to work the problem .
A multitude of small payloads spreads the potential loss , though in some cases I bet the vehicle is more expensive than the payload , if small science is a goal .
And , and , maybe there builds pressure for more reusable vehicles .
Routine launching makes the ISS easier to maintain , in a way , if you have regular smaller deliveries .
Losing one does n't hurt so much , and repairs can be done faster .
Faster crew exchanges might be useful , especially if you just send a specialist up for a 3-week project , knowing they will be able to go back up in 6 months .
You can work to improve experiments in a way you ca n't much do now with the expense and time needed to send up crew and equipment.Can we hope there is some economy of scale ?
I 'm not sure how important that is , since I think NASA should be getting a LOT more money , but I 'm a space wonk.Then again , maybe Rutan and Branson team up and make a servicable small payload launch version of the White Knight , and we get competition.Thinking this through , NASA could probably do a lot of launches with not too much problem .
And we could build or rebuild a few pads.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we can at least speculate on a realistic plan for frequent launches:1.
Adopting a limited number of launch vehicle types.
Atlas, Titan, Delta, Ares or whatever it becomes, and maybe a commercial design or two in there, but probably just one.
The Virgin/Scaled Composites projects are out of scope for this, let them do their own thing.2.
After certifying new designs and man-rating them, we move from testing to 'production'.3.
Ramp up launches so that you are probably only launching every 3-5 weeks realistically.4.
Allow for more launches when needed.5.
Multiple pads are in use.
Currently, pads 36A&amp;B, 39A&amp;B, 40, and 46 are active, 37 and 41 are under construction for Ares (probably) and Delta IV respectively.
So we could have 2-3 pads for big lifts, and 3-4 pads for utility launches.
This makes some 3-8 week turnarounds practical, and some shorter.6.
Some rockets have different prep times.
I suspect the goal of the Ares-type launch vehicle is to get it into a rapid cycle, but I dunno if Atlas, Atlas-Centaur, and Delta can be prepped that quickly.
However, if you tell them you need 15 Delta launches a year, I be they can do it.7.
Now to get some payload for these.
Certainly, sending a new set of Mars Rovers up would be cheapo science.
I bet the guys at ASU could have them ready in a year.
How about sending a set of them to a Saturn moon?
Need bigger panels of course, and improved radios, but maybe send a Surveyor-style satellite up there also as a multipurpose mapper and relay?
More solar expeditions?
Venus has been neglected.
replacement and maybe even return and refurbishing of some communications birds?
There are plenty of projects.8.
Benefits;  Regular routine launching gets everyone in the mode of a business-as-usual launch team.
Practice makes perfect.
Small problems should be detected and resolved.
Obviously big problems get attention and maybe even a stand-down to work the problem.
A multitude of small payloads spreads the potential loss, though in some cases I bet the vehicle is more expensive than the payload, if small science is a goal.
And, and, maybe there builds pressure for more reusable vehicles.
Routine launching makes the ISS easier to maintain, in a way, if you have regular smaller deliveries.
Losing one doesn't hurt so much, and repairs can be done faster.
Faster crew exchanges might be useful, especially if you just send a specialist up for a 3-week project, knowing they will be able to go back up in 6 months.
You can work to improve experiments in a way you can't much do now with the expense and time needed to send up crew and equipment.Can we hope there is some economy of scale?
I'm not sure how important that is, since I think NASA should be getting a LOT more money, but I'm a space wonk.Then again, maybe Rutan and Branson team up and make a servicable small payload launch version of the White Knight, and we get competition.Thinking this through, NASA could probably do a lot of launches with not too much problem.
And we could build or rebuild a few pads...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548018</id>
	<title>Re:But in the big picture</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1261659000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The expenditure of energy will become affordable and efficient if we drop the manned space program for a few decades.</p><p>There is no rush, and we can learn far more per dollar spent if we focus on remote-manned systems.</p><p>For the romantics who crave a ride in space, pay a commercial outfit like any other tourist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The expenditure of energy will become affordable and efficient if we drop the manned space program for a few decades.There is no rush , and we can learn far more per dollar spent if we focus on remote-manned systems.For the romantics who crave a ride in space , pay a commercial outfit like any other tourist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expenditure of energy will become affordable and efficient if we drop the manned space program for a few decades.There is no rush, and we can learn far more per dollar spent if we focus on remote-manned systems.For the romantics who crave a ride in space, pay a commercial outfit like any other tourist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547074</id>
	<title>That was the original idea behind the space shuttl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261650780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>each shuttle was supposed to be able to be readied for launch in  2 weeks, and there were going to be 10+ launches a year</p><p>they can't even roll it from the VAB to the pad in 2 weeks it turns out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>each shuttle was supposed to be able to be readied for launch in 2 weeks , and there were going to be 10 + launches a yearthey ca n't even roll it from the VAB to the pad in 2 weeks it turns out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>each shuttle was supposed to be able to be readied for launch in  2 weeks, and there were going to be 10+ launches a yearthey can't even roll it from the VAB to the pad in 2 weeks it turns out</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30552126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30552198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30553080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30604490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30575348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_1358245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30553080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30552198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548732
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30550702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30549616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30552126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30575348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_1358245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30547524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30548290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_1358245.30604490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
