<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_07_1331241</id>
	<title>NASA&rsquo;s Contest To Design the Last Shuttle Patch</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262874540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>rocamargo writes <i>"The space shuttle program is on its way out, but the core of people who built and maintained it will live on. To honor them, NASA gave its employees the chance to  <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/patches-gallery/">design the patch</a> that will commemorate the shuttle program, which is slated to end in September, after STS-133 flies. From the designs of 85 current and former employees, the Shuttle Program Office has selected 15 finalists. The prospective patches, presented here, will be voted on internally by NASA employees and judged by a small panel."</i>  I've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle.  For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel.  I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rocamargo writes " The space shuttle program is on its way out , but the core of people who built and maintained it will live on .
To honor them , NASA gave its employees the chance to design the patch that will commemorate the shuttle program , which is slated to end in September , after STS-133 flies .
From the designs of 85 current and former employees , the Shuttle Program Office has selected 15 finalists .
The prospective patches , presented here , will be voted on internally by NASA employees and judged by a small panel .
" I 've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle .
For someone my age , the shuttle really * IS * space travel .
I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rocamargo writes "The space shuttle program is on its way out, but the core of people who built and maintained it will live on.
To honor them, NASA gave its employees the chance to  design the patch that will commemorate the shuttle program, which is slated to end in September, after STS-133 flies.
From the designs of 85 current and former employees, the Shuttle Program Office has selected 15 finalists.
The prospective patches, presented here, will be voted on internally by NASA employees and judged by a small panel.
"  I've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle.
For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel.
I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683266</id>
	<title>I'm lucky</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1262883480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel. I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land."</p><p>Reading that, I feel lucky to have grown up watching the space program when we were testing the limits of our abilities and every flight brought us closer to landing on the moon. There was a sense of adventure that's been missing since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For someone my age , the shuttle really * IS * space travel .
I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
" Reading that , I feel lucky to have grown up watching the space program when we were testing the limits of our abilities and every flight brought us closer to landing on the moon .
There was a sense of adventure that 's been missing since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel.
I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
"Reading that, I feel lucky to have grown up watching the space program when we were testing the limits of our abilities and every flight brought us closer to landing on the moon.
There was a sense of adventure that's been missing since then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624</id>
	<title>I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1262881020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement...<br>
Now the space shuttle (yeah.. I have known this for a while but I feel like now is the time to let my feelings out!)<br>
What's next? they are going to retire the IIS? GPS satellites? or what!<br>
Americans, you once amused me.. but now.. it's so.. decadent.. it's like the URSS.. depressing..<br>
<br>
And don't come with those f22, f35 or "orion" shit.. that's all vaporware.. and no.. the Predator is NOT that cool!<br>
As long as it's not autonomous, it's no big deal! What..? Pilots sitting in the ground and all that.. it's just a harder, better, faster and stronger RC place.<br>
<br>
Thanks..</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement.. . Now the space shuttle ( yeah.. I have known this for a while but I feel like now is the time to let my feelings out !
) What 's next ?
they are going to retire the IIS ?
GPS satellites ?
or what !
Americans , you once amused me.. but now.. it 's so.. decadent.. it 's like the URSS.. depressing. . And do n't come with those f22 , f35 or " orion " shit.. that 's all vaporware.. and no.. the Predator is NOT that cool !
As long as it 's not autonomous , it 's no big deal !
What.. ? Pilots sitting in the ground and all that.. it 's just a harder , better , faster and stronger RC place .
Thanks. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement...
Now the space shuttle (yeah.. I have known this for a while but I feel like now is the time to let my feelings out!
)
What's next?
they are going to retire the IIS?
GPS satellites?
or what!
Americans, you once amused me.. but now.. it's so.. decadent.. it's like the URSS.. depressing..

And don't come with those f22, f35 or "orion" shit.. that's all vaporware.. and no.. the Predator is NOT that cool!
As long as it's not autonomous, it's no big deal!
What..? Pilots sitting in the ground and all that.. it's just a harder, better, faster and stronger RC place.
Thanks..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686146</id>
	<title>That depends...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1262895300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you define <p><div class="quote"><p> see a shuttle launch in person?</p></div><p>
I was at Kennedy over the summer, and I was fortunate enough to be able to see likely the last time we will ever have two shuttles on platform simultaneously.  However my timing down there was incompatible with seeing a launch, and I learned something from our NASA tour guide about the launches that I did not know before.<br> <br>
Very, very, few people are allowed to get even somewhat close to the launch.  Granted, you can get close enough to feel some of the shockwave, you won't be able to get nearly as close as the media.  And unless you have a special pass (which are extremely hard to get) you'll be a long ways away <i>and</i> you'll have to deal with insane traffic at insane times.<br> <br>
As much as I would love to have seen a launch, I think in the end it works out better to watch it on TV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you define see a shuttle launch in person ?
I was at Kennedy over the summer , and I was fortunate enough to be able to see likely the last time we will ever have two shuttles on platform simultaneously .
However my timing down there was incompatible with seeing a launch , and I learned something from our NASA tour guide about the launches that I did not know before .
Very , very , few people are allowed to get even somewhat close to the launch .
Granted , you can get close enough to feel some of the shockwave , you wo n't be able to get nearly as close as the media .
And unless you have a special pass ( which are extremely hard to get ) you 'll be a long ways away and you 'll have to deal with insane traffic at insane times .
As much as I would love to have seen a launch , I think in the end it works out better to watch it on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you define  see a shuttle launch in person?
I was at Kennedy over the summer, and I was fortunate enough to be able to see likely the last time we will ever have two shuttles on platform simultaneously.
However my timing down there was incompatible with seeing a launch, and I learned something from our NASA tour guide about the launches that I did not know before.
Very, very, few people are allowed to get even somewhat close to the launch.
Granted, you can get close enough to feel some of the shockwave, you won't be able to get nearly as close as the media.
And unless you have a special pass (which are extremely hard to get) you'll be a long ways away and you'll have to deal with insane traffic at insane times.
As much as I would love to have seen a launch, I think in the end it works out better to watch it on TV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404</id>
	<title>Agree with you, CT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262879940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really quite sad to see another step backward in human spaceflight.  I grew up in the '80s when the shuttle was exciting but thought we'd have progressed beyond it by now.  As a child a space station meant a large circular wheel with a central hub that thousands of people were living on and which was stepping off point for missions further out.  Much as I appreciate the science going on with what we have, it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really quite sad to see another step backward in human spaceflight .
I grew up in the '80s when the shuttle was exciting but thought we 'd have progressed beyond it by now .
As a child a space station meant a large circular wheel with a central hub that thousands of people were living on and which was stepping off point for missions further out .
Much as I appreciate the science going on with what we have , it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really quite sad to see another step backward in human spaceflight.
I grew up in the '80s when the shuttle was exciting but thought we'd have progressed beyond it by now.
As a child a space station meant a large circular wheel with a central hub that thousands of people were living on and which was stepping off point for missions further out.
Much as I appreciate the science going on with what we have, it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684140</id>
	<title>Is anybody counting the Shuttle Pathfinder</title>
	<author>wooferhound</author>
	<datestamp>1262886780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Shuttle "Pathfinder" wasn't designed to fly either . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder\_(Space\_Shuttle\_simulator)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder\_(Space\_Shuttle\_simulator)</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br>it was used to check clearances in places where the shuttle would be in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Shuttle " Pathfinder " was n't designed to fly either .
. .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder \ _ ( Space \ _Shuttle \ _simulator ) [ wikipedia.org ] it was used to check clearances in places where the shuttle would be in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Shuttle "Pathfinder" wasn't designed to fly either .
. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder\_(Space\_Shuttle\_simulator) [wikipedia.org]
it was used to check clearances in places where the shuttle would be in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682322</id>
	<title>After the naming contest what would you do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262879340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course I doubt they would go with a shuttle picture with billions blowing out the exhaust as something to highlight.</p><p>I wonder how many years our exploration/exploitation of space has been on hold because of the costs of the shuttle program.  Would we have people already on the moon?  We made this grand celebration of getting into orbit in a fancy science fiction looking way and just stopped.</p><p>It was like, ain't this enough?  Granted NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket (and no the Iraq war ain't denying NASA any money - it would have gone elsewhere through some other politician fantasy) of the overall federal government but still, how much of a detour was the shuttle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course I doubt they would go with a shuttle picture with billions blowing out the exhaust as something to highlight.I wonder how many years our exploration/exploitation of space has been on hold because of the costs of the shuttle program .
Would we have people already on the moon ?
We made this grand celebration of getting into orbit in a fancy science fiction looking way and just stopped.It was like , ai n't this enough ?
Granted NASA 's budget is a drop in the bucket ( and no the Iraq war ai n't denying NASA any money - it would have gone elsewhere through some other politician fantasy ) of the overall federal government but still , how much of a detour was the shuttle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course I doubt they would go with a shuttle picture with billions blowing out the exhaust as something to highlight.I wonder how many years our exploration/exploitation of space has been on hold because of the costs of the shuttle program.
Would we have people already on the moon?
We made this grand celebration of getting into orbit in a fancy science fiction looking way and just stopped.It was like, ain't this enough?
Granted NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket (and no the Iraq war ain't denying NASA any money - it would have gone elsewhere through some other politician fantasy) of the overall federal government but still, how much of a detour was the shuttle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684290</id>
	<title>Baby steps</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1262887260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Figure that Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo are part of the baby steps needed to get to orbital manned commercial space flight.  They are kind of like the barnstormers that flew from place to place around the country back in the infancy of manned flight, taking people into the air as a thrill.</p><p>I seem to recall reading that WhiteKnightTwo, the launch ship series for SpaceShipTwo, will also be used for launching other Earth to space vessels.  I wouldn't be surprised if a version of SpaceShipTwo, with a reduced cargo load and a larger fuel supply, managed to reach LEO.  (The first one would likely be a single pilot version.)</p><p>The hard part would be coming down, because the extra velocity would need to be shed without affecting the 'shuttlecock' wing configuration that made SpaceShipOne work.</p><p>Still, given Rutan's expertise, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an orbital flight not long before the commercial jumps start.  (Yeah Cal Poly!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Figure that Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo are part of the baby steps needed to get to orbital manned commercial space flight .
They are kind of like the barnstormers that flew from place to place around the country back in the infancy of manned flight , taking people into the air as a thrill.I seem to recall reading that WhiteKnightTwo , the launch ship series for SpaceShipTwo , will also be used for launching other Earth to space vessels .
I would n't be surprised if a version of SpaceShipTwo , with a reduced cargo load and a larger fuel supply , managed to reach LEO .
( The first one would likely be a single pilot version .
) The hard part would be coming down , because the extra velocity would need to be shed without affecting the 'shuttlecock ' wing configuration that made SpaceShipOne work.Still , given Rutan 's expertise , I would n't be surprised if there is an orbital flight not long before the commercial jumps start .
( Yeah Cal Poly !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Figure that Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo are part of the baby steps needed to get to orbital manned commercial space flight.
They are kind of like the barnstormers that flew from place to place around the country back in the infancy of manned flight, taking people into the air as a thrill.I seem to recall reading that WhiteKnightTwo, the launch ship series for SpaceShipTwo, will also be used for launching other Earth to space vessels.
I wouldn't be surprised if a version of SpaceShipTwo, with a reduced cargo load and a larger fuel supply, managed to reach LEO.
(The first one would likely be a single pilot version.
)The hard part would be coming down, because the extra velocity would need to be shed without affecting the 'shuttlecock' wing configuration that made SpaceShipOne work.Still, given Rutan's expertise, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an orbital flight not long before the commercial jumps start.
(Yeah Cal Poly!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682336</id>
	<title>Number Three...</title>
	<author>GypC</author>
	<datestamp>1262879400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is the best by far. Most of those entries won't embroider well at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is the best by far .
Most of those entries wo n't embroider well at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is the best by far.
Most of those entries won't embroider well at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682122</id>
	<title>why have an extra panel at the end?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262878320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't they trust the vote?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they trust the vote ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they trust the vote?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686038</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-related question</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1262894700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depending on how far you live from FL (&lt;1000 miles), and how fuel-efficient your car is, you could drive there, with the intention of tent camping when you get there.  There are lots of places to camp in FL.  If the weather turns sour, sleep in your car.  If it gets <em>really</em> bad, drive home (they won't be launching a shuttle in a hurricane anyway).
<br> <br>
Most of the time, I try to do without my car, but this is one of those cases where using one is probably the most economical solution.  As another poster mentioned, though-- expect it to be crowded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on how far you live from FL ( really bad , drive home ( they wo n't be launching a shuttle in a hurricane anyway ) .
Most of the time , I try to do without my car , but this is one of those cases where using one is probably the most economical solution .
As another poster mentioned , though-- expect it to be crowded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on how far you live from FL (really bad, drive home (they won't be launching a shuttle in a hurricane anyway).
Most of the time, I try to do without my car, but this is one of those cases where using one is probably the most economical solution.
As another poster mentioned, though-- expect it to be crowded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683174</id>
	<title>Shuttle Wasted 30 years</title>
	<author>thrich81</author>
	<datestamp>1262883120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel. I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land." --
Well for someone MY age, the Shuttle with its false promises of cheap access to space is what destroyed the Apollo-Saturn progression of vehicles and stagnated real manned space exploration for 30 years.  Good riddance; it is time to get back to business with Constellation or some other Apollo type vehicles which will take us beyond LEO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" For someone my age , the shuttle really * IS * space travel .
I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
" -- Well for someone MY age , the Shuttle with its false promises of cheap access to space is what destroyed the Apollo-Saturn progression of vehicles and stagnated real manned space exploration for 30 years .
Good riddance ; it is time to get back to business with Constellation or some other Apollo type vehicles which will take us beyond LEO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel.
I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
" --
Well for someone MY age, the Shuttle with its false promises of cheap access to space is what destroyed the Apollo-Saturn progression of vehicles and stagnated real manned space exploration for 30 years.
Good riddance; it is time to get back to business with Constellation or some other Apollo type vehicles which will take us beyond LEO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302</id>
	<title>On the bright side...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262879220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the bright side, commercial space flight is nearing the point of practicality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the bright side , commercial space flight is nearing the point of practicality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the bright side, commercial space flight is nearing the point of practicality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683150</id>
	<title>Re:On the bright side...</title>
	<author>Gravatron</author>
	<datestamp>1262883000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is cool, because if we can just buy tickets into space for the mundane stuff, we are free to pour money into the pure science missions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is cool , because if we can just buy tickets into space for the mundane stuff , we are free to pour money into the pure science missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is cool, because if we can just buy tickets into space for the mundane stuff, we are free to pour money into the pure science missions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682708</id>
	<title>#5 is the best...</title>
	<author>PHPNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1262881500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because it names Enterprise among the ships. #10 runs a close second due to this fact as well. Either way, Enterprise needs to be on the final patch as it played a crucial role in the program. (and it must be honored for nerdiness sake)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because it names Enterprise among the ships .
# 10 runs a close second due to this fact as well .
Either way , Enterprise needs to be on the final patch as it played a crucial role in the program .
( and it must be honored for nerdiness sake )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because it names Enterprise among the ships.
#10 runs a close second due to this fact as well.
Either way, Enterprise needs to be on the final patch as it played a crucial role in the program.
(and it must be honored for nerdiness sake)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684688</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1262888940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But to claim that they could completely replace the Blackbird is a bit much. Spy sats all follow known orbits. It is possible to compute those orbits and avoid/hide from spy sats. Both sides of the cold war did that a lot, which is part of the reason why the U2 and Blackbird were so useful.</i></p><p>Indeed, thanks for saying that so I didn't have to.  Being able to put a camera over something whenever you want is a big advantage for spy planes.</p><p><i>But I'm sure there have been cases since its retirement where government or military leaders sat back and went "if only we still had a Blackbird".</i></p><p>Eh I'm not so sure.  What would that be?</p><p><i>And on that note, the U-2 is still in active use (they call it the TR-1 now). So one of the ironies there is that the U-2 outlasted its replacement.. by a lot. If anything, it shows that there's still use for long range human recon planes (compared to spy sats).  Though I guess UAVs are gonna completely take over that role soon enough.</i></p><p>Well yeah.  The reason we built the SR-71 in the first place was so that we could fly over a country with sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses and have it not be shot down (like happened to the U-2).  Once the cold war was over, suddenly all the places we were interested in were places where even a U-2 is essentially invulnerable.  So why send a plane that is as impressive in its expense and wastefulness as it is in performance?</p><p>UAVs are pretty much already the "eye in the sky" of choice.  They're a lot better in many respects.  For one, they're cheaper so if they do get shot down it's not as big a deal, and there's no pilot for them to parade around on video.  For two, they have vastly superior loiter capability to previous spy planes.</p><p>If we ever get in a scuffle with Russia or China or something, we may want something with SR-71-like capabilities, but that's no reason to keep the project alive for however many decades or fund a speculative replacement.  In a pinch, I'm sure something like the JSF is flexible enough to be made into a spy plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But to claim that they could completely replace the Blackbird is a bit much .
Spy sats all follow known orbits .
It is possible to compute those orbits and avoid/hide from spy sats .
Both sides of the cold war did that a lot , which is part of the reason why the U2 and Blackbird were so useful.Indeed , thanks for saying that so I did n't have to .
Being able to put a camera over something whenever you want is a big advantage for spy planes.But I 'm sure there have been cases since its retirement where government or military leaders sat back and went " if only we still had a Blackbird " .Eh I 'm not so sure .
What would that be ? And on that note , the U-2 is still in active use ( they call it the TR-1 now ) .
So one of the ironies there is that the U-2 outlasted its replacement.. by a lot .
If anything , it shows that there 's still use for long range human recon planes ( compared to spy sats ) .
Though I guess UAVs are gon na completely take over that role soon enough.Well yeah .
The reason we built the SR-71 in the first place was so that we could fly over a country with sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses and have it not be shot down ( like happened to the U-2 ) .
Once the cold war was over , suddenly all the places we were interested in were places where even a U-2 is essentially invulnerable .
So why send a plane that is as impressive in its expense and wastefulness as it is in performance ? UAVs are pretty much already the " eye in the sky " of choice .
They 're a lot better in many respects .
For one , they 're cheaper so if they do get shot down it 's not as big a deal , and there 's no pilot for them to parade around on video .
For two , they have vastly superior loiter capability to previous spy planes.If we ever get in a scuffle with Russia or China or something , we may want something with SR-71-like capabilities , but that 's no reason to keep the project alive for however many decades or fund a speculative replacement .
In a pinch , I 'm sure something like the JSF is flexible enough to be made into a spy plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But to claim that they could completely replace the Blackbird is a bit much.
Spy sats all follow known orbits.
It is possible to compute those orbits and avoid/hide from spy sats.
Both sides of the cold war did that a lot, which is part of the reason why the U2 and Blackbird were so useful.Indeed, thanks for saying that so I didn't have to.
Being able to put a camera over something whenever you want is a big advantage for spy planes.But I'm sure there have been cases since its retirement where government or military leaders sat back and went "if only we still had a Blackbird".Eh I'm not so sure.
What would that be?And on that note, the U-2 is still in active use (they call it the TR-1 now).
So one of the ironies there is that the U-2 outlasted its replacement.. by a lot.
If anything, it shows that there's still use for long range human recon planes (compared to spy sats).
Though I guess UAVs are gonna completely take over that role soon enough.Well yeah.
The reason we built the SR-71 in the first place was so that we could fly over a country with sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses and have it not be shot down (like happened to the U-2).
Once the cold war was over, suddenly all the places we were interested in were places where even a U-2 is essentially invulnerable.
So why send a plane that is as impressive in its expense and wastefulness as it is in performance?UAVs are pretty much already the "eye in the sky" of choice.
They're a lot better in many respects.
For one, they're cheaper so if they do get shot down it's not as big a deal, and there's no pilot for them to parade around on video.
For two, they have vastly superior loiter capability to previous spy planes.If we ever get in a scuffle with Russia or China or something, we may want something with SR-71-like capabilities, but that's no reason to keep the project alive for however many decades or fund a speculative replacement.
In a pinch, I'm sure something like the JSF is flexible enough to be made into a spy plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688142</id>
	<title>Re:Agree with you, CT</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1262861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  For all the problems of that the space shuttle has (over budget, the bizarre requirement to return satellites from orbit, the constantly shifting requirements during development in the 70s), it was an honest to god <strong>space ship</strong>.  It wasn't a rocket.  It had cargo.  It had a big crew.  It had robot arms.  It flew like an airplane.  Orion or Ares or whatever they're calling the new rocket and capsule, just seems like a step backwards.  We've done rockets.  Yes they work.  Yes they're cheap and good enough.  But damn it, they're not romantic.  The CEV isn't the 1960's version of 2010, the <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3ai.html" title="projectrho.com" rel="nofollow">the space shuttle was</a> [projectrho.com].</p><p>Where's my space plane?  Where's my single stage to orbit launchers?   Damn it.  Maybe they're not practical.  I don't know.  But I do want my space plane, even if at the same time, I've become quite skeptical of the whole idea of manned space exploration.  (Robotic exploration on the other hand, I'm a big fan of.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
For all the problems of that the space shuttle has ( over budget , the bizarre requirement to return satellites from orbit , the constantly shifting requirements during development in the 70s ) , it was an honest to god space ship .
It was n't a rocket .
It had cargo .
It had a big crew .
It had robot arms .
It flew like an airplane .
Orion or Ares or whatever they 're calling the new rocket and capsule , just seems like a step backwards .
We 've done rockets .
Yes they work .
Yes they 're cheap and good enough .
But damn it , they 're not romantic .
The CEV is n't the 1960 's version of 2010 , the the space shuttle was [ projectrho.com ] .Where 's my space plane ?
Where 's my single stage to orbit launchers ?
Damn it .
Maybe they 're not practical .
I do n't know .
But I do want my space plane , even if at the same time , I 've become quite skeptical of the whole idea of manned space exploration .
( Robotic exploration on the other hand , I 'm a big fan of .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
For all the problems of that the space shuttle has (over budget, the bizarre requirement to return satellites from orbit, the constantly shifting requirements during development in the 70s), it was an honest to god space ship.
It wasn't a rocket.
It had cargo.
It had a big crew.
It had robot arms.
It flew like an airplane.
Orion or Ares or whatever they're calling the new rocket and capsule, just seems like a step backwards.
We've done rockets.
Yes they work.
Yes they're cheap and good enough.
But damn it, they're not romantic.
The CEV isn't the 1960's version of 2010, the the space shuttle was [projectrho.com].Where's my space plane?
Where's my single stage to orbit launchers?
Damn it.
Maybe they're not practical.
I don't know.
But I do want my space plane, even if at the same time, I've become quite skeptical of the whole idea of manned space exploration.
(Robotic exploration on the other hand, I'm a big fan of.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682402</id>
	<title>How Many shuttles?</title>
	<author>frith01</author>
	<datestamp>1262879880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some patches only show 5 shuttles, and dont count Enterprise, but the others do ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some patches only show 5 shuttles , and dont count Enterprise , but the others do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some patches only show 5 shuttles, and dont count Enterprise, but the others do ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682552</id>
	<title>Re:Number Three...</title>
	<author>llZENll</author>
	<datestamp>1262880660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only a few are good, but patch #3 is the best design, five shuttles, and each star represents a lost crew member.  An excellent design.  Its clean and stylish and represents several ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a few are good , but patch # 3 is the best design , five shuttles , and each star represents a lost crew member .
An excellent design .
Its clean and stylish and represents several ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a few are good, but patch #3 is the best design, five shuttles, and each star represents a lost crew member.
An excellent design.
Its clean and stylish and represents several ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683344</id>
	<title>Poor wording</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1262883780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</p></div><p>As opposed to something.... more spectacular? They've already done that a couple of times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.As opposed to something.... more spectacular ?
They 've already done that a couple of times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.As opposed to something.... more spectacular?
They've already done that a couple of times.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687230</id>
	<title>if only ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... they added the prototype: Enterprise.</p><p>But this is probably just the geek in me speaking. Then again, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they added the prototype : Enterprise.But this is probably just the geek in me speaking .
Then again , this is / .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they added the prototype: Enterprise.But this is probably just the geek in me speaking.
Then again, this is /.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687208</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-related question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262857200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was working at home once, with CNN on in the other room, and heard they were launching the shuttle. <br>
&nbsp; <br>I ran into my backyard and saw it lift off...  and I was living in Sarasota on the Gulf coast, across the entire freakin' state!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was working at home once , with CNN on in the other room , and heard they were launching the shuttle .
  I ran into my backyard and saw it lift off... and I was living in Sarasota on the Gulf coast , across the entire freakin ' state !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was working at home once, with CNN on in the other room, and heard they were launching the shuttle.
  I ran into my backyard and saw it lift off...  and I was living in Sarasota on the Gulf coast, across the entire freakin' state!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682588</id>
	<title>Time to move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262880840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also grew up as a big fan of the shuttle program, but as I've gotten older and wiser, I can see what a boondoggle this program was. It never lived up to its goals of reusability and was over the projected costs by orders of magnitude.
<p>
Frankly, I'm now glad to see the shuttle retiring and I'm greatly looking forward to the impending launch of the first SpaceX Falcon 9 this spring ( <a href="http://www.spacex.com/updates.php" title="spacex.com">http://www.spacex.com/updates.php</a> [spacex.com] ) . Space will not be conquered with government programs, but by private enterprise and individuals looking to make a profit and a better life.
</p><p>
Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also grew up as a big fan of the shuttle program , but as I 've gotten older and wiser , I can see what a boondoggle this program was .
It never lived up to its goals of reusability and was over the projected costs by orders of magnitude .
Frankly , I 'm now glad to see the shuttle retiring and I 'm greatly looking forward to the impending launch of the first SpaceX Falcon 9 this spring ( http : //www.spacex.com/updates.php [ spacex.com ] ) .
Space will not be conquered with government programs , but by private enterprise and individuals looking to make a profit and a better life .
Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also grew up as a big fan of the shuttle program, but as I've gotten older and wiser, I can see what a boondoggle this program was.
It never lived up to its goals of reusability and was over the projected costs by orders of magnitude.
Frankly, I'm now glad to see the shuttle retiring and I'm greatly looking forward to the impending launch of the first SpaceX Falcon 9 this spring ( http://www.spacex.com/updates.php [spacex.com] ) .
Space will not be conquered with government programs, but by private enterprise and individuals looking to make a profit and a better life.
Necron69</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684690</id>
	<title>Re:why have an extra panel at the end?</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1262888940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't see NASA allowing Goatse to be on the mission patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't see NASA allowing Goatse to be on the mission patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't see NASA allowing Goatse to be on the mission patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682878</id>
	<title>Why not just build new shuttles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262882040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand the need to retire the aging space shuttle fleet but I've always wondered<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... why not just build new ones?  I'm sure it would cost $Texas but it couldn't be more expensive than this constellation program they are trying to get off the ground (pun SO intended).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand the need to retire the aging space shuttle fleet but I 've always wondered .... why not just build new ones ?
I 'm sure it would cost $ Texas but it could n't be more expensive than this constellation program they are trying to get off the ground ( pun SO intended ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand the need to retire the aging space shuttle fleet but I've always wondered .... why not just build new ones?
I'm sure it would cost $Texas but it couldn't be more expensive than this constellation program they are trying to get off the ground (pun SO intended).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682814</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1262881800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The F22 is in service. The F35 may still be vapor. Orion... Yea I am not thrilled but  dude? What about the Mars Rovers? What about the missions to the outer planets, what about the mission to Pluto?<br>Yes it is sad that we have seen to lost our vision for grand mega projects for now. But the actual science and exploration that is being done is wonderful. Since you seem to be from another country why don't you ask your own nation to step up to the plate? All of the EU working together have not built a single maned spacecraft. You hitch rides with the US or Russia. Come folks if you don't think the US is doing enough step up to the plate and show us how it is done. Nothing drives the US like a little competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The F22 is in service .
The F35 may still be vapor .
Orion... Yea I am not thrilled but dude ?
What about the Mars Rovers ?
What about the missions to the outer planets , what about the mission to Pluto ? Yes it is sad that we have seen to lost our vision for grand mega projects for now .
But the actual science and exploration that is being done is wonderful .
Since you seem to be from another country why do n't you ask your own nation to step up to the plate ?
All of the EU working together have not built a single maned spacecraft .
You hitch rides with the US or Russia .
Come folks if you do n't think the US is doing enough step up to the plate and show us how it is done .
Nothing drives the US like a little competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The F22 is in service.
The F35 may still be vapor.
Orion... Yea I am not thrilled but  dude?
What about the Mars Rovers?
What about the missions to the outer planets, what about the mission to Pluto?Yes it is sad that we have seen to lost our vision for grand mega projects for now.
But the actual science and exploration that is being done is wonderful.
Since you seem to be from another country why don't you ask your own nation to step up to the plate?
All of the EU working together have not built a single maned spacecraft.
You hitch rides with the US or Russia.
Come folks if you don't think the US is doing enough step up to the plate and show us how it is done.
Nothing drives the US like a little competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682236</id>
	<title>All these worlds are yours, except Europa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262878920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Attempt no landing there</htmltext>
<tokenext>Attempt no landing there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attempt no landing there</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684410</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>icegreentea</author>
	<datestamp>1262887740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh, just replying here to a bunch of other sibling responses. Newer spy-sats can indeed do a lot of things the Blackbird could do, as well as some stuff that the Blackbird couldn't do. But to claim that they could completely replace the Blackbird is a bit much. Spy sats all follow known orbits. It is possible to compute those orbits and avoid/hide from spy sats. Both sides of the cold war did that a lot, which is part of the reason why the U2 and Blackbird were so useful. Does that mean that we NEED the Blackbird (taking its costs and other stuff into account)? Not necessarily. But I'm sure there have been cases since its retirement where government or military leaders sat back and went "if only we still had a Blackbird". Assuming they haven't been duping us the whole time, and they actually did replace it with something better.<br><br>And on that note, the U-2 is still in active use (they call it the TR-1 now). So one of the ironies there is that the U-2 outlasted its replacement.. by a lot. If anything, it shows that there's still use for long range human recon planes (compared to spy sats). Though I guess UAVs are gonna completely take over that role soon enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , just replying here to a bunch of other sibling responses .
Newer spy-sats can indeed do a lot of things the Blackbird could do , as well as some stuff that the Blackbird could n't do .
But to claim that they could completely replace the Blackbird is a bit much .
Spy sats all follow known orbits .
It is possible to compute those orbits and avoid/hide from spy sats .
Both sides of the cold war did that a lot , which is part of the reason why the U2 and Blackbird were so useful .
Does that mean that we NEED the Blackbird ( taking its costs and other stuff into account ) ?
Not necessarily .
But I 'm sure there have been cases since its retirement where government or military leaders sat back and went " if only we still had a Blackbird " .
Assuming they have n't been duping us the whole time , and they actually did replace it with something better.And on that note , the U-2 is still in active use ( they call it the TR-1 now ) .
So one of the ironies there is that the U-2 outlasted its replacement.. by a lot .
If anything , it shows that there 's still use for long range human recon planes ( compared to spy sats ) .
Though I guess UAVs are gon na completely take over that role soon enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, just replying here to a bunch of other sibling responses.
Newer spy-sats can indeed do a lot of things the Blackbird could do, as well as some stuff that the Blackbird couldn't do.
But to claim that they could completely replace the Blackbird is a bit much.
Spy sats all follow known orbits.
It is possible to compute those orbits and avoid/hide from spy sats.
Both sides of the cold war did that a lot, which is part of the reason why the U2 and Blackbird were so useful.
Does that mean that we NEED the Blackbird (taking its costs and other stuff into account)?
Not necessarily.
But I'm sure there have been cases since its retirement where government or military leaders sat back and went "if only we still had a Blackbird".
Assuming they haven't been duping us the whole time, and they actually did replace it with something better.And on that note, the U-2 is still in active use (they call it the TR-1 now).
So one of the ironies there is that the U-2 outlasted its replacement.. by a lot.
If anything, it shows that there's still use for long range human recon planes (compared to spy sats).
Though I guess UAVs are gonna completely take over that role soon enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30685876</id>
	<title>I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1262893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</p><p>Me too, but nowhere near as sorry as I would if it didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.Me too , but nowhere near as sorry as I would if it did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.Me too, but nowhere near as sorry as I would if it didn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688140</id>
	<title>Not backward; forward</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the Space Race was basically ending, it was clear there won't be so many resources anymore for space travel. And what NASA did for the next 3 decades? Flew a spacecraft wasting almost 100 tonnes of cargo in each launch. A spacecraft that was not only a result of compromise, but properties of which weren't really utilized. Those 100 tonnes wasted in each launch meant no circular space station. No mission further on.</p><p>Heck, even Russians got sucked in and wanted to have a spacecraft with comparable capabilities for defensive balance. They actually did slightly better, getting out of it a super-heavy launcher capable of operating independently (what NASA only now does with Ares V), but the whole project bled them financially, possibly even greatly contributing to the death of Soviet Union, and the launcher died with it. If not for their shuttles...who knows, they could have been on Mars by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Space Race was basically ending , it was clear there wo n't be so many resources anymore for space travel .
And what NASA did for the next 3 decades ?
Flew a spacecraft wasting almost 100 tonnes of cargo in each launch .
A spacecraft that was not only a result of compromise , but properties of which were n't really utilized .
Those 100 tonnes wasted in each launch meant no circular space station .
No mission further on.Heck , even Russians got sucked in and wanted to have a spacecraft with comparable capabilities for defensive balance .
They actually did slightly better , getting out of it a super-heavy launcher capable of operating independently ( what NASA only now does with Ares V ) , but the whole project bled them financially , possibly even greatly contributing to the death of Soviet Union , and the launcher died with it .
If not for their shuttles...who knows , they could have been on Mars by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Space Race was basically ending, it was clear there won't be so many resources anymore for space travel.
And what NASA did for the next 3 decades?
Flew a spacecraft wasting almost 100 tonnes of cargo in each launch.
A spacecraft that was not only a result of compromise, but properties of which weren't really utilized.
Those 100 tonnes wasted in each launch meant no circular space station.
No mission further on.Heck, even Russians got sucked in and wanted to have a spacecraft with comparable capabilities for defensive balance.
They actually did slightly better, getting out of it a super-heavy launcher capable of operating independently (what NASA only now does with Ares V), but the whole project bled them financially, possibly even greatly contributing to the death of Soviet Union, and the launcher died with it.
If not for their shuttles...who knows, they could have been on Mars by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684768</id>
	<title>Re:On the bright side...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262889240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was a car In NY state, it would have qualified for antique plates years ago!  (vehicle must be 25 years old)  Kind of puts NASA into perspective, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was a car In NY state , it would have qualified for antique plates years ago !
( vehicle must be 25 years old ) Kind of puts NASA into perspective , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was a car In NY state, it would have qualified for antique plates years ago!
(vehicle must be 25 years old)  Kind of puts NASA into perspective, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682618</id>
	<title>The shuttle was worth it</title>
	<author>mcd7756</author>
	<datestamp>1262881020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I grew up on Merritt Island in the 60's and 70's and the space program inspired me in my schooling and life. I hope the shuttle program has inspired some youth with the vision for the next steps in space.

Regardless of our manifest failings, space exploration and travel represent fine qualities of the human spirit and give me some hope for what humanity can achieve. I know, it's pretty easy to be cynical given the sheer brutal, nastiness that we demonstrate, but I prefer to focus on the positive.

That being said, the "Mission Completed" patch really hit home with me, especially the nebula in the background. It is gorgeous. The others are remarkable, the tributes to the lost astronauts are moving and I'd love to have each of these patches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up on Merritt Island in the 60 's and 70 's and the space program inspired me in my schooling and life .
I hope the shuttle program has inspired some youth with the vision for the next steps in space .
Regardless of our manifest failings , space exploration and travel represent fine qualities of the human spirit and give me some hope for what humanity can achieve .
I know , it 's pretty easy to be cynical given the sheer brutal , nastiness that we demonstrate , but I prefer to focus on the positive .
That being said , the " Mission Completed " patch really hit home with me , especially the nebula in the background .
It is gorgeous .
The others are remarkable , the tributes to the lost astronauts are moving and I 'd love to have each of these patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up on Merritt Island in the 60's and 70's and the space program inspired me in my schooling and life.
I hope the shuttle program has inspired some youth with the vision for the next steps in space.
Regardless of our manifest failings, space exploration and travel represent fine qualities of the human spirit and give me some hope for what humanity can achieve.
I know, it's pretty easy to be cynical given the sheer brutal, nastiness that we demonstrate, but I prefer to focus on the positive.
That being said, the "Mission Completed" patch really hit home with me, especially the nebula in the background.
It is gorgeous.
The others are remarkable, the tributes to the lost astronauts are moving and I'd love to have each of these patches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682740</id>
	<title>Proposed Patch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about showing the hind end of a dog, with its tail between its legs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about showing the hind end of a dog , with its tail between its legs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about showing the hind end of a dog, with its tail between its legs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684026</id>
	<title>Bah. "Space Travel" Was Heading To Other WORLDS.</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1262886420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>I've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle. For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel. I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</b>
<p>.</p><p>And for someone as old as me, "space travel" was the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, when we put men on the moon in less than a decade. That was when NASA wasn't afraid to take risks -- yes, to put it bluntly, when we accepted that there would be some casualties.
</p><p>
I'm not making light of the shuttle program, but "Space travel"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i.e., the Space Program -- is a weak shadow of those heady days. Back when I was a kid, everyone wanted to be an astronaut. That was the highest goal for a young geek like me. I actually dreamed that one day I might have at least a fractional chance of setting foot on Mars, or Titan, or Ganymede. Nowadays? Since the "Space Program" has been pared down to a safe, repeatable, predictable, Do-The-Same-Boring-Things and Haul Satellites Into Orbit again and again, no one cares.
</p><p>
Right over our heads are all the raw materials and resources we will need for the conceivable life of the entire human race. Copper? Gold? Iron? Even some basic Organics and aromatics? They're all out there. If we had people with the guts to do "unsafe" things, in spite of what some Nanny Stater might think, we could even encourage private exploration -- and the payoff might be astronomical (pun intended) for the first prospector to lay claim to an asteroid filled with gold, or rhodium, or some other precious metal. (And  yes, it's statistically possible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even likely; look it up.)
</p><p>
Bah. Most kids don't even know what "Space Travel" is. The closest they get is watching Apollo 13, assuming that they're watching special effects and a half-fictitious, dramatized story, when it truth, it was actually a lot tenser than was portrayed in the movie, especially the first 24 hours, and the discussion that led to that last "burn" to get them to earth more quickly. What that movie DID capture was the way that it felt, as I sat there as a young kid watching the TV, as Houston said over and over, "Odyssey, this is Houston, do you copy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." I can remember how my heart went into throat while I waited for them to respond just before splashdown. But you know what? If they had died, I'd have grieved and mourned, but I was have considered it worth it. They would have died for something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle .
For someone my age , the shuttle really * IS * space travel .
I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
.And for someone as old as me , " space travel " was the Mercury , Gemini and Apollo programs , when we put men on the moon in less than a decade .
That was when NASA was n't afraid to take risks -- yes , to put it bluntly , when we accepted that there would be some casualties .
I 'm not making light of the shuttle program , but " Space travel " .. .
i.e. , the Space Program -- is a weak shadow of those heady days .
Back when I was a kid , everyone wanted to be an astronaut .
That was the highest goal for a young geek like me .
I actually dreamed that one day I might have at least a fractional chance of setting foot on Mars , or Titan , or Ganymede .
Nowadays ? Since the " Space Program " has been pared down to a safe , repeatable , predictable , Do-The-Same-Boring-Things and Haul Satellites Into Orbit again and again , no one cares .
Right over our heads are all the raw materials and resources we will need for the conceivable life of the entire human race .
Copper ? Gold ?
Iron ? Even some basic Organics and aromatics ?
They 're all out there .
If we had people with the guts to do " unsafe " things , in spite of what some Nanny Stater might think , we could even encourage private exploration -- and the payoff might be astronomical ( pun intended ) for the first prospector to lay claim to an asteroid filled with gold , or rhodium , or some other precious metal .
( And yes , it 's statistically possible ... even likely ; look it up .
) Bah .
Most kids do n't even know what " Space Travel " is .
The closest they get is watching Apollo 13 , assuming that they 're watching special effects and a half-fictitious , dramatized story , when it truth , it was actually a lot tenser than was portrayed in the movie , especially the first 24 hours , and the discussion that led to that last " burn " to get them to earth more quickly .
What that movie DID capture was the way that it felt , as I sat there as a young kid watching the TV , as Houston said over and over , " Odyssey , this is Houston , do you copy ... " I can remember how my heart went into throat while I waited for them to respond just before splashdown .
But you know what ?
If they had died , I 'd have grieved and mourned , but I was have considered it worth it .
They would have died for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle.
For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel.
I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
.And for someone as old as me, "space travel" was the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, when we put men on the moon in less than a decade.
That was when NASA wasn't afraid to take risks -- yes, to put it bluntly, when we accepted that there would be some casualties.
I'm not making light of the shuttle program, but "Space travel" ...
i.e., the Space Program -- is a weak shadow of those heady days.
Back when I was a kid, everyone wanted to be an astronaut.
That was the highest goal for a young geek like me.
I actually dreamed that one day I might have at least a fractional chance of setting foot on Mars, or Titan, or Ganymede.
Nowadays? Since the "Space Program" has been pared down to a safe, repeatable, predictable, Do-The-Same-Boring-Things and Haul Satellites Into Orbit again and again, no one cares.
Right over our heads are all the raw materials and resources we will need for the conceivable life of the entire human race.
Copper? Gold?
Iron? Even some basic Organics and aromatics?
They're all out there.
If we had people with the guts to do "unsafe" things, in spite of what some Nanny Stater might think, we could even encourage private exploration -- and the payoff might be astronomical (pun intended) for the first prospector to lay claim to an asteroid filled with gold, or rhodium, or some other precious metal.
(And  yes, it's statistically possible ... even likely; look it up.
)

Bah.
Most kids don't even know what "Space Travel" is.
The closest they get is watching Apollo 13, assuming that they're watching special effects and a half-fictitious, dramatized story, when it truth, it was actually a lot tenser than was portrayed in the movie, especially the first 24 hours, and the discussion that led to that last "burn" to get them to earth more quickly.
What that movie DID capture was the way that it felt, as I sat there as a young kid watching the TV, as Houston said over and over, "Odyssey, this is Houston, do you copy ..." I can remember how my heart went into throat while I waited for them to respond just before splashdown.
But you know what?
If they had died, I'd have grieved and mourned, but I was have considered it worth it.
They would have died for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683248</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1262883420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First: I was meant to be funny in some way;<br>
second: you are totally right.. I'm brazillian, totally outsider.. but nevertheless we "trusted" americans..<br>
Some other points:<br>
f22 does exist, works pretty good (as long as it's not needed to cross the IDL..) but it's not as thrilling as it should be..<br>
You are right about the eu and well.. the rest of everything else and that's exactly why it "pisses" me off! "You are my only hope"<br>
Well. but the huskies still impress sometimes.. but.. neeeope<p><div class="quote"><p>Come folks if you don't think the US is doing enough step up to the plate and show us how it is done. Nothing drives the US like a little competition.</p></div><p>That's so right.. should we secretly engineer a second cold war? that would be sooo nice! But who's up to the job? Al Quaeda? no way!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First : I was meant to be funny in some way ; second : you are totally right.. I 'm brazillian , totally outsider.. but nevertheless we " trusted " americans. . Some other points : f22 does exist , works pretty good ( as long as it 's not needed to cross the IDL.. ) but it 's not as thrilling as it should be. . You are right about the eu and well.. the rest of everything else and that 's exactly why it " pisses " me off !
" You are my only hope " Well .
but the huskies still impress sometimes.. but.. neeeopeCome folks if you do n't think the US is doing enough step up to the plate and show us how it is done .
Nothing drives the US like a little competition.That 's so right.. should we secretly engineer a second cold war ?
that would be sooo nice !
But who 's up to the job ?
Al Quaeda ?
no way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First: I was meant to be funny in some way;
second: you are totally right.. I'm brazillian, totally outsider.. but nevertheless we "trusted" americans..
Some other points:
f22 does exist, works pretty good (as long as it's not needed to cross the IDL..) but it's not as thrilling as it should be..
You are right about the eu and well.. the rest of everything else and that's exactly why it "pisses" me off!
"You are my only hope"
Well.
but the huskies still impress sometimes.. but.. neeeopeCome folks if you don't think the US is doing enough step up to the plate and show us how it is done.
Nothing drives the US like a little competition.That's so right.. should we secretly engineer a second cold war?
that would be sooo nice!
But who's up to the job?
Al Quaeda?
no way!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683292</id>
	<title>Not even close</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262883600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On the bright side, commercial space flight is nearing the point of practicality.</i></p><p>The manned commercial ships are strictly suborbital affairs, and achieve a fraction of the velocity needed for orbital flight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the bright side , commercial space flight is nearing the point of practicality.The manned commercial ships are strictly suborbital affairs , and achieve a fraction of the velocity needed for orbital flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the bright side, commercial space flight is nearing the point of practicality.The manned commercial ships are strictly suborbital affairs, and achieve a fraction of the velocity needed for orbital flight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686204</id>
	<title>Don't tell slashdot</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1262895600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder.</p></div><p>
Don't tell slashdot - slashdot can't do anything about that problem.  Tell your US representative.  Tell your US Senator.  Send a letter to the VP and POTUS.  Contact every federal-level elected politician that represents you.  The budget - and hence the missions - for NASA are dictated by congress.  The NASA budget keeps getting cut because the politicians believe the American people are OK with that happening.  If you are not OK with it then you owe it to yourself, your representation, and the rest of the country to say so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder .
Do n't tell slashdot - slashdot ca n't do anything about that problem .
Tell your US representative .
Tell your US Senator .
Send a letter to the VP and POTUS .
Contact every federal-level elected politician that represents you .
The budget - and hence the missions - for NASA are dictated by congress .
The NASA budget keeps getting cut because the politicians believe the American people are OK with that happening .
If you are not OK with it then you owe it to yourself , your representation , and the rest of the country to say so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder.
Don't tell slashdot - slashdot can't do anything about that problem.
Tell your US representative.
Tell your US Senator.
Send a letter to the VP and POTUS.
Contact every federal-level elected politician that represents you.
The budget - and hence the missions - for NASA are dictated by congress.
The NASA budget keeps getting cut because the politicians believe the American people are OK with that happening.
If you are not OK with it then you owe it to yourself, your representation, and the rest of the country to say so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682234</id>
	<title>A photo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262878920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of 12 Afghan schoolchildren dragged out of their beds by U.S. troops, tortured and executed. HOORAY USA! -- CFAFI underground commando</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of 12 Afghan schoolchildren dragged out of their beds by U.S. troops , tortured and executed .
HOORAY USA !
-- CFAFI underground commando</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of 12 Afghan schoolchildren dragged out of their beds by U.S. troops, tortured and executed.
HOORAY USA!
-- CFAFI underground commando</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684596</id>
	<title>Re:Time to move on - agree</title>
	<author>Markvs</author>
	<datestamp>1262888520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It never could! In order to get Nixon to sign off on the Shuttle Program, NASA promised a launch of every three weeks -- something they knew full well would never happen. While it was reusable (well, the orbiter and the boosters anyway), it really was meant to work with a space station -- that is, Skylab. But it wasn't ready in time, so we sat out of space for years. <br>
Now we have a new station that took way longer to build than we expected, which they want to deorbit soon. Frustrating! <br>
<br>
IMO, the US should have run a long-term successor to Apollo from the end of the Apollo Applications Program (read: Skylab + Apollo/Soyuz) with the goal of setting up a permanent base on the moon with an eye on a sucessor for Mars. <br>
<br>
But, as when you live in a house for too long (or have a job for too long), you stop being objective and stop planning for the far future. This is how we got where we are today -- a NASA that does somethings brilliantly and others not so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It never could !
In order to get Nixon to sign off on the Shuttle Program , NASA promised a launch of every three weeks -- something they knew full well would never happen .
While it was reusable ( well , the orbiter and the boosters anyway ) , it really was meant to work with a space station -- that is , Skylab .
But it was n't ready in time , so we sat out of space for years .
Now we have a new station that took way longer to build than we expected , which they want to deorbit soon .
Frustrating ! IMO , the US should have run a long-term successor to Apollo from the end of the Apollo Applications Program ( read : Skylab + Apollo/Soyuz ) with the goal of setting up a permanent base on the moon with an eye on a sucessor for Mars .
But , as when you live in a house for too long ( or have a job for too long ) , you stop being objective and stop planning for the far future .
This is how we got where we are today -- a NASA that does somethings brilliantly and others not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never could!
In order to get Nixon to sign off on the Shuttle Program, NASA promised a launch of every three weeks -- something they knew full well would never happen.
While it was reusable (well, the orbiter and the boosters anyway), it really was meant to work with a space station -- that is, Skylab.
But it wasn't ready in time, so we sat out of space for years.
Now we have a new station that took way longer to build than we expected, which they want to deorbit soon.
Frustrating! 

IMO, the US should have run a long-term successor to Apollo from the end of the Apollo Applications Program (read: Skylab + Apollo/Soyuz) with the goal of setting up a permanent base on the moon with an eye on a sucessor for Mars.
But, as when you live in a house for too long (or have a job for too long), you stop being objective and stop planning for the far future.
This is how we got where we are today -- a NASA that does somethings brilliantly and others not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683448</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1262884200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we do have proper replacements, spy satellites can drop down to 70 miles orbit.  they make the SR-71 look like your great grandma on a walker</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we do have proper replacements , spy satellites can drop down to 70 miles orbit .
they make the SR-71 look like your great grandma on a walker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we do have proper replacements, spy satellites can drop down to 70 miles orbit.
they make the SR-71 look like your great grandma on a walker</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682468</id>
	<title>Preference for #10</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1262880180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like #10 the most, has the most symbology of the bunch without being a ra-ra or bemoaning the passing of the era.  </p><p>I just hope NASA gets its act together and goes <a href="http://www.directlauncher.com/" title="directlauncher.com" rel="nofollow">DIRECT</a> [directlauncher.com] before we loose those talented ground ops staff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like # 10 the most , has the most symbology of the bunch without being a ra-ra or bemoaning the passing of the era .
I just hope NASA gets its act together and goes DIRECT [ directlauncher.com ] before we loose those talented ground ops staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like #10 the most, has the most symbology of the bunch without being a ra-ra or bemoaning the passing of the era.
I just hope NASA gets its act together and goes DIRECT [directlauncher.com] before we loose those talented ground ops staff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688474</id>
	<title>Re:Number Three...</title>
	<author>Daagar</author>
	<datestamp>1262863320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I missed the bit about the stars representing the lost crew. That's an excellent touch. I was thinking #3 with the shuttles in a 'missing man' formation would be the best, but maybe not necessary since the stars already do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I missed the bit about the stars representing the lost crew .
That 's an excellent touch .
I was thinking # 3 with the shuttles in a 'missing man ' formation would be the best , but maybe not necessary since the stars already do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I missed the bit about the stars representing the lost crew.
That's an excellent touch.
I was thinking #3 with the shuttles in a 'missing man' formation would be the best, but maybe not necessary since the stars already do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683012</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262882520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement...</i></p><p>And yet, somehow we seem to be getting along just fine without it.  Perhaps we don't really need an SR-71.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement...And yet , somehow we seem to be getting along just fine without it .
Perhaps we do n't really need an SR-71 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement...And yet, somehow we seem to be getting along just fine without it.
Perhaps we don't really need an SR-71.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684146</id>
	<title>Safe Landing</title>
	<author>4pins</author>
	<datestamp>1262886780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land."
<br>
Challenger breaking up on re-entry hit me very hard.  I will be happy to see it land, safely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
" Challenger breaking up on re-entry hit me very hard .
I will be happy to see it land , safely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
"

Challenger breaking up on re-entry hit me very hard.
I will be happy to see it land, safely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682286</id>
	<title>Software or hardware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262879100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they talking about a software patch (I would have thought they would have the bugs in the software ironed out by now) or a hardware patch (as in to stick over a tile that is damaged at liftoff by falling ice from the external tank).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they talking about a software patch ( I would have thought they would have the bugs in the software ironed out by now ) or a hardware patch ( as in to stick over a tile that is damaged at liftoff by falling ice from the external tank ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they talking about a software patch (I would have thought they would have the bugs in the software ironed out by now) or a hardware patch (as in to stick over a tile that is damaged at liftoff by falling ice from the external tank).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682364</id>
	<title>Well, that depends...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1262879580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What bugs is it supposed to fix?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What bugs is it supposed to fix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bugs is it supposed to fix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687228</id>
	<title>Nixon and Obama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...could be shown shaking hands, while in the background Congress votes another budget cut for NASA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...could be shown shaking hands , while in the background Congress votes another budget cut for NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...could be shown shaking hands, while in the background Congress votes another budget cut for NASA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683962</id>
	<title>Assistance for a Question - Help pls</title>
	<author>AdamThor</author>
	<datestamp>1262886120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Offtopic, perhaps, but I hope someone will read this and have a direction I can go to search...</p><p>When I was young, in the early '80s, publicity for the shuttle and other Nasa stuff was high.  I was at a museum and saw a huge rocket, and there was material on TV, though my memories of it are dim.  Associated with this Nasa material there was some music.  I still remember listening to it and thinking "The future!  Space!  Amazing!"  I was maybe 4-6 years old.</p><p>I've searched for it now and again, but haven't come up with anything remotely close.  Anyone know what I'm talking about?  Anyone know where I can get a copy / hear it again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Offtopic , perhaps , but I hope someone will read this and have a direction I can go to search...When I was young , in the early '80s , publicity for the shuttle and other Nasa stuff was high .
I was at a museum and saw a huge rocket , and there was material on TV , though my memories of it are dim .
Associated with this Nasa material there was some music .
I still remember listening to it and thinking " The future !
Space ! Amazing !
" I was maybe 4-6 years old.I 've searched for it now and again , but have n't come up with anything remotely close .
Anyone know what I 'm talking about ?
Anyone know where I can get a copy / hear it again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offtopic, perhaps, but I hope someone will read this and have a direction I can go to search...When I was young, in the early '80s, publicity for the shuttle and other Nasa stuff was high.
I was at a museum and saw a huge rocket, and there was material on TV, though my memories of it are dim.
Associated with this Nasa material there was some music.
I still remember listening to it and thinking "The future!
Space!  Amazing!
"  I was maybe 4-6 years old.I've searched for it now and again, but haven't come up with anything remotely close.
Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Anyone know where I can get a copy / hear it again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684122</id>
	<title>Re:Agree with you, CT</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1262886720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree. I think unmanned spaceflight is the REAL future, and will provide us with far more useful information than putting meat sacks in a tin can and blasting it into a vacuum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
I think unmanned spaceflight is the REAL future , and will provide us with far more useful information than putting meat sacks in a tin can and blasting it into a vacuum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
I think unmanned spaceflight is the REAL future, and will provide us with far more useful information than putting meat sacks in a tin can and blasting it into a vacuum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686450</id>
	<title>Re:Landing</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1262897040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>rocamargo wants the Shuttle to end its lifespan with a bang, not a whimper.<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rocamargo wants the Shuttle to end its lifespan with a bang , not a whimper .
Thank you , I 'll be here all week .
Tip your waitress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rocamargo wants the Shuttle to end its lifespan with a bang, not a whimper.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Tip your waitress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30689412</id>
	<title>Fly the shuttle</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1262869380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fly the shuttle once per year until Ares is ready. Indeed they should launch it unmanned at least once for R&amp;D purposes. As for the patch design contest. Pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fly the shuttle once per year until Ares is ready .
Indeed they should launch it unmanned at least once for R&amp;D purposes .
As for the patch design contest .
Pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fly the shuttle once per year until Ares is ready.
Indeed they should launch it unmanned at least once for R&amp;D purposes.
As for the patch design contest.
Pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30685868</id>
	<title>'m going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</title>
	<author>dotancohen</author>
	<datestamp>1262893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it would suck even worse if it \_didn't\_ land. We've already had two shuttles that didn't. Here's praying that the remaining flights \_do\_ land as intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it would suck even worse if it \ _did n't \ _ land .
We 've already had two shuttles that did n't .
Here 's praying that the remaining flights \ _do \ _ land as intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it would suck even worse if it \_didn't\_ land.
We've already had two shuttles that didn't.
Here's praying that the remaining flights \_do\_ land as intended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30685654</id>
	<title>My entry</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1262893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A graphic of one hand closing a door while the other reaches through the remaining opening to switch off the lights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A graphic of one hand closing a door while the other reaches through the remaining opening to switch off the lights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A graphic of one hand closing a door while the other reaches through the remaining opening to switch off the lights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682242</id>
	<title>I didn't see mine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262878980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a patch with a pig with wings using a walker.</p><p>The caption was "We kept it flying boys! Pat yourselves on the back!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a patch with a pig with wings using a walker.The caption was " We kept it flying boys !
Pat yourselves on the back !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a patch with a pig with wings using a walker.The caption was "We kept it flying boys!
Pat yourselves on the back!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682428</id>
	<title>Landing</title>
	<author>uksv29</author>
	<datestamp>1262880060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rocamargo writes<br>"I've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle. For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel. I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land."</p><p>I suspect the crew will be really happy to see STS-133 land!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rocamargo writes " I 've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle .
For someone my age , the shuttle really * IS * space travel .
I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
" I suspect the crew will be really happy to see STS-133 land !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rocamargo writes"I've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle.
For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel.
I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
"I suspect the crew will be really happy to see STS-133 land!
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682542</id>
	<title>Sad to see it land?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262880600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.</i> </p><p>So you're saying you'd be happier if it just exploded instead of landing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
So you 're saying you 'd be happier if it just exploded instead of landing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
So you're saying you'd be happier if it just exploded instead of landing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682822</id>
	<title>My favs</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1262881860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#8 appeals to the art deco aficionado in me, and #12 is just beautiful. As others have pointed out, however, it is likely that neither of them will embroider particularly well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 8 appeals to the art deco aficionado in me , and # 12 is just beautiful .
As others have pointed out , however , it is likely that neither of them will embroider particularly well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#8 appeals to the art deco aficionado in me, and #12 is just beautiful.
As others have pointed out, however, it is likely that neither of them will embroider particularly well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30685274</id>
	<title>Crap</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1262891340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already missed all of the Saturn V launches, now I'm probably going to miss seeing the last shuttle launch as well?  I need more vacation time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already missed all of the Saturn V launches , now I 'm probably going to miss seeing the last shuttle launch as well ?
I need more vacation time : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already missed all of the Saturn V launches, now I'm probably going to miss seeing the last shuttle launch as well?
I need more vacation time :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30691074</id>
	<title>Re:Semi-related question</title>
	<author>m0ng0l</author>
	<datestamp>1262888160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others commented, your best bet is to clear out a week or so, with the scheduled launch early in the week, so if it's delayed a couple days, you can still catch it.  That's what the wife and I did a couple years back, to catch a launch.</p><p>As for viewing the launch, as damn\_registrars said, unless you've got a good buddy in high government to get you a pass, or a NASA Press Pass, you won't be all that close.  You can either watch from the Visitors Center, but, IIRC, you can't actually see the launch towers from there, get there early and grab a spot on one of the public roads around the Cape, or, watch from the Astronaut Hall of Fame / Space Camp roof (if they're still doing that)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others commented , your best bet is to clear out a week or so , with the scheduled launch early in the week , so if it 's delayed a couple days , you can still catch it .
That 's what the wife and I did a couple years back , to catch a launch.As for viewing the launch , as damn \ _registrars said , unless you 've got a good buddy in high government to get you a pass , or a NASA Press Pass , you wo n't be all that close .
You can either watch from the Visitors Center , but , IIRC , you ca n't actually see the launch towers from there , get there early and grab a spot on one of the public roads around the Cape , or , watch from the Astronaut Hall of Fame / Space Camp roof ( if they 're still doing that )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others commented, your best bet is to clear out a week or so, with the scheduled launch early in the week, so if it's delayed a couple days, you can still catch it.
That's what the wife and I did a couple years back, to catch a launch.As for viewing the launch, as damn\_registrars said, unless you've got a good buddy in high government to get you a pass, or a NASA Press Pass, you won't be all that close.
You can either watch from the Visitors Center, but, IIRC, you can't actually see the launch towers from there, get there early and grab a spot on one of the public roads around the Cape, or, watch from the Astronaut Hall of Fame / Space Camp roof (if they're still doing that)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683618</id>
	<title>FRIST PS@OT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262884740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for aal pr4ctical</htmltext>
<tokenext>for aal pr4ctical</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for aal pr4ctical</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734</id>
	<title>Semi-related question</title>
	<author>blincoln</author>
	<datestamp>1262881560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How practical is it to travel to Florida to see a shuttle launch in person? It seems like most of the launches these days are delayed weeks or longer from their originally-scheduled dates. I'd like to see the last one, but obviously if it means renting a room there for a month it's not really something I could do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How practical is it to travel to Florida to see a shuttle launch in person ?
It seems like most of the launches these days are delayed weeks or longer from their originally-scheduled dates .
I 'd like to see the last one , but obviously if it means renting a room there for a month it 's not really something I could do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How practical is it to travel to Florida to see a shuttle launch in person?
It seems like most of the launches these days are delayed weeks or longer from their originally-scheduled dates.
I'd like to see the last one, but obviously if it means renting a room there for a month it's not really something I could do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686408</id>
	<title>Re:Agree with you, CT</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1262896860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Much as I appreciate the science going on with what we have, it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, the USA are already working on it, increasing the average weight of mankind all the time - and given that many Americans are already heavy and a sizable number of them are black I think they're making good progress.<br>
<br>
Plus, and I know this is a fairly oblique statement, for everyone tracking the progress of spaceflight it's justified to say that the leading position of the States is actually because they're careful not to overshoot the cap height of what's possible. Even though the Space Shuttle has a poor track record of blowing up due to minuscule damage during the ascender and descender parts of the missions, leaving behind orphans and widows, the safety margins on those things are still pretty impressive, given that they manage to get most astronauts safely into space riding what amounts to a column of fire. Still, it's way past its prime mark and nowhere near as good as initial expectations suggested. I wouldn't call it a capital failure, though.<br>
<br>
I think the whole point of the next-generation vehicle should be to counter small parts punchcutting through the hull in a catastrophic way just because they were out of alignment, providing a measure of safety (yes, I'm hinting at the Shuttle having bad baseline safety here).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much as I appreciate the science going on with what we have , it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder.Well , the USA are already working on it , increasing the average weight of mankind all the time - and given that many Americans are already heavy and a sizable number of them are black I think they 're making good progress .
Plus , and I know this is a fairly oblique statement , for everyone tracking the progress of spaceflight it 's justified to say that the leading position of the States is actually because they 're careful not to overshoot the cap height of what 's possible .
Even though the Space Shuttle has a poor track record of blowing up due to minuscule damage during the ascender and descender parts of the missions , leaving behind orphans and widows , the safety margins on those things are still pretty impressive , given that they manage to get most astronauts safely into space riding what amounts to a column of fire .
Still , it 's way past its prime mark and nowhere near as good as initial expectations suggested .
I would n't call it a capital failure , though .
I think the whole point of the next-generation vehicle should be to counter small parts punchcutting through the hull in a catastrophic way just because they were out of alignment , providing a measure of safety ( yes , I 'm hinting at the Shuttle having bad baseline safety here ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much as I appreciate the science going on with what we have, it sure would be nice if mankind was a little bolder.Well, the USA are already working on it, increasing the average weight of mankind all the time - and given that many Americans are already heavy and a sizable number of them are black I think they're making good progress.
Plus, and I know this is a fairly oblique statement, for everyone tracking the progress of spaceflight it's justified to say that the leading position of the States is actually because they're careful not to overshoot the cap height of what's possible.
Even though the Space Shuttle has a poor track record of blowing up due to minuscule damage during the ascender and descender parts of the missions, leaving behind orphans and widows, the safety margins on those things are still pretty impressive, given that they manage to get most astronauts safely into space riding what amounts to a column of fire.
Still, it's way past its prime mark and nowhere near as good as initial expectations suggested.
I wouldn't call it a capital failure, though.
I think the whole point of the next-generation vehicle should be to counter small parts punchcutting through the hull in a catastrophic way just because they were out of alignment, providing a measure of safety (yes, I'm hinting at the Shuttle having bad baseline safety here).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684524</id>
	<title>Re:Agree with you, CT</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262888280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The shuttle had a fundamental design flaw: it put the vehicle carrying precious human cargo <b>beside</b> the huge disposable booster instead of on top of it like every previous spacecraft. This made the shuttle vulnerable to being damaged by foam dislodging from the booster. While the concept of a reusable launch/reentry vehicle seems laudable, in practice the shuttle's implementation of this idea was far from being economically competitive with less sophisticated methods of getting cargo into orbit. As such, I consider the shuttle a failed experiment, and won't have much trouble letting go of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The shuttle had a fundamental design flaw : it put the vehicle carrying precious human cargo beside the huge disposable booster instead of on top of it like every previous spacecraft .
This made the shuttle vulnerable to being damaged by foam dislodging from the booster .
While the concept of a reusable launch/reentry vehicle seems laudable , in practice the shuttle 's implementation of this idea was far from being economically competitive with less sophisticated methods of getting cargo into orbit .
As such , I consider the shuttle a failed experiment , and wo n't have much trouble letting go of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shuttle had a fundamental design flaw: it put the vehicle carrying precious human cargo beside the huge disposable booster instead of on top of it like every previous spacecraft.
This made the shuttle vulnerable to being damaged by foam dislodging from the booster.
While the concept of a reusable launch/reentry vehicle seems laudable, in practice the shuttle's implementation of this idea was far from being economically competitive with less sophisticated methods of getting cargo into orbit.
As such, I consider the shuttle a failed experiment, and won't have much trouble letting go of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683698</id>
	<title>Re:On the bright side...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1262885040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the bright side?  if you mean at the point NASA was at in the early 60's doing only suborbital flights, then yes you are right.</p><p>Call me when Virgin get's something orbiting  in a stable orbit. Or better yet, can launch and get close enough to the ISS to let tourists take photos with point and shoot cameras.  THEN it's practical.</p><p>ESA, USSR, NASA, and even china are nearly 50 years ahead of commercial spaceflight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the bright side ?
if you mean at the point NASA was at in the early 60 's doing only suborbital flights , then yes you are right.Call me when Virgin get 's something orbiting in a stable orbit .
Or better yet , can launch and get close enough to the ISS to let tourists take photos with point and shoot cameras .
THEN it 's practical.ESA , USSR , NASA , and even china are nearly 50 years ahead of commercial spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the bright side?
if you mean at the point NASA was at in the early 60's doing only suborbital flights, then yes you are right.Call me when Virgin get's something orbiting  in a stable orbit.
Or better yet, can launch and get close enough to the ISS to let tourists take photos with point and shoot cameras.
THEN it's practical.ESA, USSR, NASA, and even china are nearly 50 years ahead of commercial spaceflight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682784</id>
	<title>I too will be sad to see the shuttle go</title>
	<author>BigBadBus</author>
	<datestamp>1262881740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I made a few comments about this End of an Era on my blog a few days ago. Follow the link in my signature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I made a few comments about this End of an Era on my blog a few days ago .
Follow the link in my signature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I made a few comments about this End of an Era on my blog a few days ago.
Follow the link in my signature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683838</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1262885700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SR71 replacement,  It's called SPY satellites, we can see things from space that the antique SR71 could not do for us in it's heyday.<br>Shuttle Replacement, already designed. a "spaceplane was never practical. It's why the Russians abandoned their shuttle and stuck with what works. What we need is a big heavy reliable lifting platform, not a SCiFi knock off designed to look pretty. We need to get big stuff into space if we will ever make it to mars. the Mars trip vehicle will have to be assembled in orbit.</p><p>IIS? yup gonna be de-orbited like Space-lab and we will get another 25+ years without a space station.</p><p>Now the military is better funded. the GPS replacement is already being launched. and yes, your GPS constellation will eventually be de-orbited as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SR71 replacement , It 's called SPY satellites , we can see things from space that the antique SR71 could not do for us in it 's heyday.Shuttle Replacement , already designed .
a " spaceplane was never practical .
It 's why the Russians abandoned their shuttle and stuck with what works .
What we need is a big heavy reliable lifting platform , not a SCiFi knock off designed to look pretty .
We need to get big stuff into space if we will ever make it to mars .
the Mars trip vehicle will have to be assembled in orbit.IIS ?
yup gon na be de-orbited like Space-lab and we will get another 25 + years without a space station.Now the military is better funded .
the GPS replacement is already being launched .
and yes , your GPS constellation will eventually be de-orbited as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SR71 replacement,  It's called SPY satellites, we can see things from space that the antique SR71 could not do for us in it's heyday.Shuttle Replacement, already designed.
a "spaceplane was never practical.
It's why the Russians abandoned their shuttle and stuck with what works.
What we need is a big heavy reliable lifting platform, not a SCiFi knock off designed to look pretty.
We need to get big stuff into space if we will ever make it to mars.
the Mars trip vehicle will have to be assembled in orbit.IIS?
yup gonna be de-orbited like Space-lab and we will get another 25+ years without a space station.Now the military is better funded.
the GPS replacement is already being launched.
and yes, your GPS constellation will eventually be de-orbited as well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684696</id>
	<title>Cowboy</title>
	<author>jdc18</author>
	<datestamp>1262888940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought at least one of the patches had a cowboy riding a shuttle or at least a cowboy hat on a shuttle</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought at least one of the patches had a cowboy riding a shuttle or at least a cowboy hat on a shuttle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought at least one of the patches had a cowboy riding a shuttle or at least a cowboy hat on a shuttle</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683706</id>
	<title>Oh really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262885160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have they sent anything into orbit? Have they made a trip to the ISS? Private space companies haven't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.</p><p>I had a conversation with one of the people who works at Canaveral. He said it's sad that they're about to destroy decades of work and knowledge of a community that knows how to build, maintain, and successfully launch vehicles into space. A lot of the real brains there are getting old, and if they aren't able to pass on their experiences to the new generation of spaceflight engineers, we are going to find ourselves severely behind in space travel and technology in general.</p><p>It's really a pity. The American idea of progress has turned inside out. Investment in spaceflight and the technologies to improve it is apparently is not equal to a month of spending for foreign military invasions. Not exactly a way forward if you ask me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they sent anything into orbit ?
Have they made a trip to the ISS ?
Private space companies have n't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.I had a conversation with one of the people who works at Canaveral .
He said it 's sad that they 're about to destroy decades of work and knowledge of a community that knows how to build , maintain , and successfully launch vehicles into space .
A lot of the real brains there are getting old , and if they are n't able to pass on their experiences to the new generation of spaceflight engineers , we are going to find ourselves severely behind in space travel and technology in general.It 's really a pity .
The American idea of progress has turned inside out .
Investment in spaceflight and the technologies to improve it is apparently is not equal to a month of spending for foreign military invasions .
Not exactly a way forward if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they sent anything into orbit?
Have they made a trip to the ISS?
Private space companies haven't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.I had a conversation with one of the people who works at Canaveral.
He said it's sad that they're about to destroy decades of work and knowledge of a community that knows how to build, maintain, and successfully launch vehicles into space.
A lot of the real brains there are getting old, and if they aren't able to pass on their experiences to the new generation of spaceflight engineers, we are going to find ourselves severely behind in space travel and technology in general.It's really a pity.
The American idea of progress has turned inside out.
Investment in spaceflight and the technologies to improve it is apparently is not equal to a month of spending for foreign military invasions.
Not exactly a way forward if you ask me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688768</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1262864700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Have they sent anything into orbit? Have they made a trip to the ISS? Private space companies haven't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.</p></div></blockquote><p>Private companies have been launching (and owning) satellites since the early 60's.<br>
&nbsp; <br>That is, if you use the usual definition of private companies which equates to public ownership.  (E.G. Boeing.)  Private companies have only 'not accomplished anything' if you use the NewSpace/new speak meaning that equates to "only space fanboi approved recently founded companies". (E.G. SpaceX)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they sent anything into orbit ?
Have they made a trip to the ISS ?
Private space companies have n't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.Private companies have been launching ( and owning ) satellites since the early 60 's .
  That is , if you use the usual definition of private companies which equates to public ownership .
( E.G. Boeing .
) Private companies have only 'not accomplished anything ' if you use the NewSpace/new speak meaning that equates to " only space fanboi approved recently founded companies " .
( E.G. SpaceX )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they sent anything into orbit?
Have they made a trip to the ISS?
Private space companies haven't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.Private companies have been launching (and owning) satellites since the early 60's.
  That is, if you use the usual definition of private companies which equates to public ownership.
(E.G. Boeing.
)  Private companies have only 'not accomplished anything' if you use the NewSpace/new speak meaning that equates to "only space fanboi approved recently founded companies".
(E.G. SpaceX)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688084</id>
	<title>Forget the Orion Program, and go with the original</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262861640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orion Project - go 6\% of the speed of light on nuclear power:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Orion\_(nuclear\_propulsion)</p><p>Now that is space travel!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orion Project - go 6 \ % of the speed of light on nuclear power : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project \ _Orion \ _ ( nuclear \ _propulsion ) Now that is space travel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orion Project - go 6\% of the speed of light on nuclear power:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Orion\_(nuclear\_propulsion)Now that is space travel!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683922</id>
	<title>Open source shuttle?</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1262886000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>For a second there, I thought they were talking about a <i>software</i> patch. WTF? NASA is open-sourcing the shuttle???</p><p>When I realized they were talking about embroidery...boy, talk about a buzz-kill!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a second there , I thought they were talking about a software patch .
WTF ? NASA is open-sourcing the shuttle ? ?
? When I realized they were talking about embroidery...boy , talk about a buzz-kill !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
For a second there, I thought they were talking about a software patch.
WTF? NASA is open-sourcing the shuttle??
?When I realized they were talking about embroidery...boy, talk about a buzz-kill!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683664</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sick of this!</title>
	<author>virg\_mattes</author>
	<datestamp>1262884920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement...</p></div><p>
There's no need for a super high speed surveillance plane any more.  The job the <i>Blackbird</i> did (and did well, I might add) can now be done just as well by spy satellites that are cheaper and safer.  The SR-71 was simply made obsolete by advancing technology, so it disappeared just like the P-51 Mustang.<br>
<br>
Virg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement.. . There 's no need for a super high speed surveillance plane any more .
The job the Blackbird did ( and did well , I might add ) can now be done just as well by spy satellites that are cheaper and safer .
The SR-71 was simply made obsolete by advancing technology , so it disappeared just like the P-51 Mustang .
Virg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they retire the SR-71 without ANY proper replacement...
There's no need for a super high speed surveillance plane any more.
The job the Blackbird did (and did well, I might add) can now be done just as well by spy satellites that are cheaper and safer.
The SR-71 was simply made obsolete by advancing technology, so it disappeared just like the P-51 Mustang.
Virg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683852</id>
	<title>Re:On the bright side...</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1262885760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends on your definition of "nearing".  Private companies have, so far, sent a man into suborbital flight (technically "space", but not high enough to do anything useful, like sustain an orbit).  That was almost 6 years ago.  Since then, there's been a lot of talk about space tourism, but nothing concrete has materialized.  Sure, some companies have taken deposits from people who want to go up, but it's still all suborbital, and it's still unknown when they'll actually make even that happen.  They've talked a big game, and taken some pictures of some nice looking airplanes like the carrier for SpaceShip Two, but it's still basically all vapor so far.
<br> <br>
Yes, private companies are pretty good at sending small satellites into orbit, but there's no real indication they'll be able to send people even into LEO anytime soon, and you can forget about them doing any kind of exploration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your definition of " nearing " .
Private companies have , so far , sent a man into suborbital flight ( technically " space " , but not high enough to do anything useful , like sustain an orbit ) .
That was almost 6 years ago .
Since then , there 's been a lot of talk about space tourism , but nothing concrete has materialized .
Sure , some companies have taken deposits from people who want to go up , but it 's still all suborbital , and it 's still unknown when they 'll actually make even that happen .
They 've talked a big game , and taken some pictures of some nice looking airplanes like the carrier for SpaceShip Two , but it 's still basically all vapor so far .
Yes , private companies are pretty good at sending small satellites into orbit , but there 's no real indication they 'll be able to send people even into LEO anytime soon , and you can forget about them doing any kind of exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your definition of "nearing".
Private companies have, so far, sent a man into suborbital flight (technically "space", but not high enough to do anything useful, like sustain an orbit).
That was almost 6 years ago.
Since then, there's been a lot of talk about space tourism, but nothing concrete has materialized.
Sure, some companies have taken deposits from people who want to go up, but it's still all suborbital, and it's still unknown when they'll actually make even that happen.
They've talked a big game, and taken some pictures of some nice looking airplanes like the carrier for SpaceShip Two, but it's still basically all vapor so far.
Yes, private companies are pretty good at sending small satellites into orbit, but there's no real indication they'll be able to send people even into LEO anytime soon, and you can forget about them doing any kind of exploration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30689016</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Landing</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1262866380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Challenger</i> was destroyed during ascent.  <i>Columbia</i> broke up during re entry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Challenger was destroyed during ascent .
Columbia broke up during re entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Challenger was destroyed during ascent.
Columbia broke up during re entry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687908</id>
	<title>These designs are so clutterred they hurt my eyes</title>
	<author>Doghouse Riley</author>
	<datestamp>1262860800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>#3 and #15, sort of OK, the rest - forget it.<p>

Take a look at the <a href="http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-8/apollo-8-patch.jpg" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">Apollo 8 patch </a> [nasa.gov] if you want to see a good design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 3 and # 15 , sort of OK , the rest - forget it .
Take a look at the Apollo 8 patch [ nasa.gov ] if you want to see a good design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#3 and #15, sort of OK, the rest - forget it.
Take a look at the Apollo 8 patch  [nasa.gov] if you want to see a good design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684532</id>
	<title>From the title I though software patch</title>
	<author>101010\_or\_0x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1262888280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and they would choose the best entry to upgrade some of the software on board the shuttle..thank god they have better mechanisms in place for that sort of thing</htmltext>
<tokenext>and they would choose the best entry to upgrade some of the software on board the shuttle..thank god they have better mechanisms in place for that sort of thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and they would choose the best entry to upgrade some of the software on board the shuttle..thank god they have better mechanisms in place for that sort of thing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688986</id>
	<title>Re:Shuttle Wasted 30 years</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1262866260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel. I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land." -- Well for someone MY age, the Shuttle with its false promises of cheap access to space is what destroyed the Apollo-Saturn progression of vehicles and stagnated real manned space exploration for 30 years.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's because your generation is apparently shockingly ignorant of space history and content to repeat slogans and memes rather than educating themselves.<br>
&nbsp; <br>In the 1950's the emphasis was on steadily going higher and faster in reusable aerospacecraft, like the X-15.  Then space became political and speed and stunts were of paramount importance, so an Air Force study called MISS (Man In Space Soonest) was dusted off and became the Mercury program.  This emphasis on stunts and dick size is what has stagnated space exploration for all these decades.<br>
&nbsp; <br>On top of that, you've got your chronology all wrong.  Apollo was essentially, if informally, canceled during the budget cutbacks of 65-67.  (Yes, that's right - hardware procurement was capped <i>four years before it even flew!</i>)  The earliest formal Shuttle contracts weren't however signed until 1969.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" For someone my age , the shuttle really * IS * space travel .
I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
" -- Well for someone MY age , the Shuttle with its false promises of cheap access to space is what destroyed the Apollo-Saturn progression of vehicles and stagnated real manned space exploration for 30 years.That 's because your generation is apparently shockingly ignorant of space history and content to repeat slogans and memes rather than educating themselves .
  In the 1950 's the emphasis was on steadily going higher and faster in reusable aerospacecraft , like the X-15 .
Then space became political and speed and stunts were of paramount importance , so an Air Force study called MISS ( Man In Space Soonest ) was dusted off and became the Mercury program .
This emphasis on stunts and dick size is what has stagnated space exploration for all these decades .
  On top of that , you 've got your chronology all wrong .
Apollo was essentially , if informally , canceled during the budget cutbacks of 65-67 .
( Yes , that 's right - hardware procurement was capped four years before it even flew !
) The earliest formal Shuttle contracts were n't however signed until 1969 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel.
I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
" -- Well for someone MY age, the Shuttle with its false promises of cheap access to space is what destroyed the Apollo-Saturn progression of vehicles and stagnated real manned space exploration for 30 years.That's because your generation is apparently shockingly ignorant of space history and content to repeat slogans and memes rather than educating themselves.
  In the 1950's the emphasis was on steadily going higher and faster in reusable aerospacecraft, like the X-15.
Then space became political and speed and stunts were of paramount importance, so an Air Force study called MISS (Man In Space Soonest) was dusted off and became the Mercury program.
This emphasis on stunts and dick size is what has stagnated space exploration for all these decades.
  On top of that, you've got your chronology all wrong.
Apollo was essentially, if informally, canceled during the budget cutbacks of 65-67.
(Yes, that's right - hardware procurement was capped four years before it even flew!
)  The earliest formal Shuttle contracts weren't however signed until 1969.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682310</id>
	<title>And Unemployment is UP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262879280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>September the unemployment will go up about 0.5 to 1\% as a result.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>September the unemployment will go up about 0.5 to 1 \ % as a result.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>September the unemployment will go up about 0.5 to 1\% as a result.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682184</id>
	<title>KABOOM!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262878620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land."</p><p>Who said it was going to land?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land .
" Who said it was going to land ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
"Who said it was going to land?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682124</id>
	<title>cue 4chan and hidden goatse</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1262878320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nt</htmltext>
<tokenext>nt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686470</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262897100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If any country with an extremist Muslim dictator were to get nuclear weapons, nothing about the space program or science will matter for long. Do you have a good solution for the massive Muslim youth bubble that is being brainwashed by extremists?</p><p>I guess common sense and facts do not go well with your ignorant, mindless, liberal ranting. The dumbest people alive jump on the Internet and act like they have such a simple solution for some of the biggest problems. Because you are a genius right? Everyone else is much less intelligent than you and should follow your lead? Give us a break and go back to banging your sister. Let the military handle military problems. You obviously have no clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If any country with an extremist Muslim dictator were to get nuclear weapons , nothing about the space program or science will matter for long .
Do you have a good solution for the massive Muslim youth bubble that is being brainwashed by extremists ? I guess common sense and facts do not go well with your ignorant , mindless , liberal ranting .
The dumbest people alive jump on the Internet and act like they have such a simple solution for some of the biggest problems .
Because you are a genius right ?
Everyone else is much less intelligent than you and should follow your lead ?
Give us a break and go back to banging your sister .
Let the military handle military problems .
You obviously have no clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any country with an extremist Muslim dictator were to get nuclear weapons, nothing about the space program or science will matter for long.
Do you have a good solution for the massive Muslim youth bubble that is being brainwashed by extremists?I guess common sense and facts do not go well with your ignorant, mindless, liberal ranting.
The dumbest people alive jump on the Internet and act like they have such a simple solution for some of the biggest problems.
Because you are a genius right?
Everyone else is much less intelligent than you and should follow your lead?
Give us a break and go back to banging your sister.
Let the military handle military problems.
You obviously have no clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684312</id>
	<title>Re:How Many shuttles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262887320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patch should include the letters:  WOB, TFO, SBU.   (way over budget, tiles fell off, some blew up.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patch should include the letters : WOB , TFO , SBU .
( way over budget , tiles fell off , some blew up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patch should include the letters:  WOB, TFO, SBU.
(way over budget, tiles fell off, some blew up.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686110</id>
	<title>Re:Agree with you, CT</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262895120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I disagree. I think unmanned spaceflight is the REAL future, and will provide us with far more useful information than putting meat sacks in a tin can and blasting it into a vacuum.</p></div><p>Ok, here's a challenge for you. How much would it cost to duplicate the scientific output of the Apollo program with unmanned missions? Your budget is a heady $130 billion dollars (the inflation-adjusted cost of Apollo program, possibly including Skylab). Key things you need to be able to do:<br> <br>

1) return 382 kg of samples from the Moon in at least six missions. You can conduct far more missions, if you desire.<br> <br>

2) At least three of those sample return missions must use rovers capable of traveling up to 40 km to conduct the sample collections. At least three more should have some means of collecting samples several up to several hundred meters away from the landing spot.<br> <br>

3) Drop off and deploy maybe up to two thousand kg total of equipment (not sure of the mass figures, but a bunch of long sensors and other equipment were deployed by astronauts with each mission).<br> <br>

4) Return a bunch of pretty video while you're trucking along doing all this work.<br> <br>

5) In order for these to be proper "flag and footprints" missions, plant six Apollo-sized US flags to flap in the lunar breeze. Leave something (like rover tread marks) that can be classified as a footprint.<br> <br>

6) Include development costs for any launch vehicles or other infrastructure you need (like payload integration facilities), even if they already exist (this is to provide a fairer comparison since virtually all Apollo and Saturn development and infrastructure had to be built from scratch).<br> <br>

The question is how much cheaper and better can you do this with unmanned probes?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
I think unmanned spaceflight is the REAL future , and will provide us with far more useful information than putting meat sacks in a tin can and blasting it into a vacuum.Ok , here 's a challenge for you .
How much would it cost to duplicate the scientific output of the Apollo program with unmanned missions ?
Your budget is a heady $ 130 billion dollars ( the inflation-adjusted cost of Apollo program , possibly including Skylab ) .
Key things you need to be able to do : 1 ) return 382 kg of samples from the Moon in at least six missions .
You can conduct far more missions , if you desire .
2 ) At least three of those sample return missions must use rovers capable of traveling up to 40 km to conduct the sample collections .
At least three more should have some means of collecting samples several up to several hundred meters away from the landing spot .
3 ) Drop off and deploy maybe up to two thousand kg total of equipment ( not sure of the mass figures , but a bunch of long sensors and other equipment were deployed by astronauts with each mission ) .
4 ) Return a bunch of pretty video while you 're trucking along doing all this work .
5 ) In order for these to be proper " flag and footprints " missions , plant six Apollo-sized US flags to flap in the lunar breeze .
Leave something ( like rover tread marks ) that can be classified as a footprint .
6 ) Include development costs for any launch vehicles or other infrastructure you need ( like payload integration facilities ) , even if they already exist ( this is to provide a fairer comparison since virtually all Apollo and Saturn development and infrastructure had to be built from scratch ) .
The question is how much cheaper and better can you do this with unmanned probes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
I think unmanned spaceflight is the REAL future, and will provide us with far more useful information than putting meat sacks in a tin can and blasting it into a vacuum.Ok, here's a challenge for you.
How much would it cost to duplicate the scientific output of the Apollo program with unmanned missions?
Your budget is a heady $130 billion dollars (the inflation-adjusted cost of Apollo program, possibly including Skylab).
Key things you need to be able to do: 

1) return 382 kg of samples from the Moon in at least six missions.
You can conduct far more missions, if you desire.
2) At least three of those sample return missions must use rovers capable of traveling up to 40 km to conduct the sample collections.
At least three more should have some means of collecting samples several up to several hundred meters away from the landing spot.
3) Drop off and deploy maybe up to two thousand kg total of equipment (not sure of the mass figures, but a bunch of long sensors and other equipment were deployed by astronauts with each mission).
4) Return a bunch of pretty video while you're trucking along doing all this work.
5) In order for these to be proper "flag and footprints" missions, plant six Apollo-sized US flags to flap in the lunar breeze.
Leave something (like rover tread marks) that can be classified as a footprint.
6) Include development costs for any launch vehicles or other infrastructure you need (like payload integration facilities), even if they already exist (this is to provide a fairer comparison since virtually all Apollo and Saturn development and infrastructure had to be built from scratch).
The question is how much cheaper and better can you do this with unmanned probes?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684122</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30689016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30691074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_1331241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30691074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30687230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30689016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30688140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30686110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30684688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30683344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_1331241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_1331241.30682364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
