<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_15_2017242</id>
	<title>ESA Wants ISS Extended To 2020</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263553860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"BBC reports that the European Space Agency's (ESA) Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain says that uncertainty is undermining the best use of the ISS and that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8456632.stm">only guaranteeing the ISS's longevity</a> would cause more scientists to come forward to run experiments on the orbiting laboratory. 'I am convinced that stopping the station in 2015 would be a mistake because we cannot attract the best scientists if we are telling them today "you are welcome on the space station but you'd better be quick because in 2015 we close the shop,'' says Dordain. One of the biggest issues holding up an agreement on station-life extension is the human spaceflight review ordered by US President Barack Obama and the future of US participation in the ISS is intimately tied to the outcome of that review. Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity going forward."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " BBC reports that the European Space Agency 's ( ESA ) Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain says that uncertainty is undermining the best use of the ISS and that only guaranteeing the ISS 's longevity would cause more scientists to come forward to run experiments on the orbiting laboratory .
'I am convinced that stopping the station in 2015 would be a mistake because we can not attract the best scientists if we are telling them today " you are welcome on the space station but you 'd better be quick because in 2015 we close the shop,' ' says Dordain .
One of the biggest issues holding up an agreement on station-life extension is the human spaceflight review ordered by US President Barack Obama and the future of US participation in the ISS is intimately tied to the outcome of that review .
Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity going forward .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that the European Space Agency's (ESA) Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain says that uncertainty is undermining the best use of the ISS and that only guaranteeing the ISS's longevity would cause more scientists to come forward to run experiments on the orbiting laboratory.
'I am convinced that stopping the station in 2015 would be a mistake because we cannot attract the best scientists if we are telling them today "you are welcome on the space station but you'd better be quick because in 2015 we close the shop,'' says Dordain.
One of the biggest issues holding up an agreement on station-life extension is the human spaceflight review ordered by US President Barack Obama and the future of US participation in the ISS is intimately tied to the outcome of that review.
Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity going forward.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30789354</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>Trapezium Artist</author>
	<datestamp>1263645660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Because atmospheric drag will slowly bring the ISS lower in altitude until it re-enters. If you just let it do it on its own timescale, the decay will be unpredictable and there's always a chance it'll come down somewhere unpalatable, such as Miami. (I mean that it'd be unpalatable for it to fall on Miami, not that Miami is unpalatable. Or do I?)

</p><p>
After all, some large chunks of the ISS will survive re-entry more or less whole. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is due to be attached later this year and its main magnetic torus is a pretty solid thing with a mass of over two tonnes. Ouch.

</p><p>
So, rather than have it come down somewhere unpredictable, NASA and its partners are committed to a controlled de-orbiting over a pretty empty ocean, presumably the Pacific. Yes, you could keep revisiting it with unmanned tankers to reboost the orbit, but it kind of misses the point if you're trying to close it down and save money. (I agree, it'd be very little money compared to the amount spent so far and yes, I think it'd be the right thing to do, keep it up there for future use. But that's not how bureaucrats think, I'm afraid).

</p><p>
Same goes for the Hubble Space Telescope: it'll come down in time as well. Unfortunately, it's too heavy and/or no longer properly man-rated (since it has been substantially modified since launch) to allow it to be brought back in a shuttle, which'd be nice. So, it either needs to be de-orbited in a controlled manner or (my choice) boosted to a much higher "museum orbit", where it could be retrieved much (much) later when we have the appropriate hardware.

</p><p>
Of course, rather than invest hundreds of millions in developing a robotic de-orbiting solution for HST (the shuttle won't revisit it again), NASA could take out tens of millions in insurance policies against the very remote chance that it landed on anyone. I half imagine you'd have some terminally-ill folk people trying to work out where HST might indeed come down and try to get themselves under it, just for the glory (and a big pile of cash for their heirs). But the US government doesn't think that way, for a number of understandable reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because atmospheric drag will slowly bring the ISS lower in altitude until it re-enters .
If you just let it do it on its own timescale , the decay will be unpredictable and there 's always a chance it 'll come down somewhere unpalatable , such as Miami .
( I mean that it 'd be unpalatable for it to fall on Miami , not that Miami is unpalatable .
Or do I ?
) After all , some large chunks of the ISS will survive re-entry more or less whole .
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is due to be attached later this year and its main magnetic torus is a pretty solid thing with a mass of over two tonnes .
Ouch . So , rather than have it come down somewhere unpredictable , NASA and its partners are committed to a controlled de-orbiting over a pretty empty ocean , presumably the Pacific .
Yes , you could keep revisiting it with unmanned tankers to reboost the orbit , but it kind of misses the point if you 're trying to close it down and save money .
( I agree , it 'd be very little money compared to the amount spent so far and yes , I think it 'd be the right thing to do , keep it up there for future use .
But that 's not how bureaucrats think , I 'm afraid ) .
Same goes for the Hubble Space Telescope : it 'll come down in time as well .
Unfortunately , it 's too heavy and/or no longer properly man-rated ( since it has been substantially modified since launch ) to allow it to be brought back in a shuttle , which 'd be nice .
So , it either needs to be de-orbited in a controlled manner or ( my choice ) boosted to a much higher " museum orbit " , where it could be retrieved much ( much ) later when we have the appropriate hardware .
Of course , rather than invest hundreds of millions in developing a robotic de-orbiting solution for HST ( the shuttle wo n't revisit it again ) , NASA could take out tens of millions in insurance policies against the very remote chance that it landed on anyone .
I half imagine you 'd have some terminally-ill folk people trying to work out where HST might indeed come down and try to get themselves under it , just for the glory ( and a big pile of cash for their heirs ) .
But the US government does n't think that way , for a number of understandable reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Because atmospheric drag will slowly bring the ISS lower in altitude until it re-enters.
If you just let it do it on its own timescale, the decay will be unpredictable and there's always a chance it'll come down somewhere unpalatable, such as Miami.
(I mean that it'd be unpalatable for it to fall on Miami, not that Miami is unpalatable.
Or do I?
)


After all, some large chunks of the ISS will survive re-entry more or less whole.
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is due to be attached later this year and its main magnetic torus is a pretty solid thing with a mass of over two tonnes.
Ouch.


So, rather than have it come down somewhere unpredictable, NASA and its partners are committed to a controlled de-orbiting over a pretty empty ocean, presumably the Pacific.
Yes, you could keep revisiting it with unmanned tankers to reboost the orbit, but it kind of misses the point if you're trying to close it down and save money.
(I agree, it'd be very little money compared to the amount spent so far and yes, I think it'd be the right thing to do, keep it up there for future use.
But that's not how bureaucrats think, I'm afraid).
Same goes for the Hubble Space Telescope: it'll come down in time as well.
Unfortunately, it's too heavy and/or no longer properly man-rated (since it has been substantially modified since launch) to allow it to be brought back in a shuttle, which'd be nice.
So, it either needs to be de-orbited in a controlled manner or (my choice) boosted to a much higher "museum orbit", where it could be retrieved much (much) later when we have the appropriate hardware.
Of course, rather than invest hundreds of millions in developing a robotic de-orbiting solution for HST (the shuttle won't revisit it again), NASA could take out tens of millions in insurance policies against the very remote chance that it landed on anyone.
I half imagine you'd have some terminally-ill folk people trying to work out where HST might indeed come down and try to get themselves under it, just for the glory (and a big pile of cash for their heirs).
But the US government doesn't think that way, for a number of understandable reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785996</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the big science I heard about?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1263560940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more doesn't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.</p></div><p>After the ISS is completed, the annual cost of maintaining it will be $4.5 billion a year. By comparison, the total budget of the ESA for 2010 is $5.4 billion (3.74 billion Euros). Keep in mind that's what the ESA spends for all of its projects -- the portion for human spaceflight and exploration is <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaMI/About\_ESA/SEMNQ4FVL2F\_0.html" title="esa.int">half a billion dollars</a> [esa.int].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more does n't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.After the ISS is completed , the annual cost of maintaining it will be $ 4.5 billion a year .
By comparison , the total budget of the ESA for 2010 is $ 5.4 billion ( 3.74 billion Euros ) .
Keep in mind that 's what the ESA spends for all of its projects -- the portion for human spaceflight and exploration is half a billion dollars [ esa.int ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more doesn't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.After the ISS is completed, the annual cost of maintaining it will be $4.5 billion a year.
By comparison, the total budget of the ESA for 2010 is $5.4 billion (3.74 billion Euros).
Keep in mind that's what the ESA spends for all of its projects -- the portion for human spaceflight and exploration is half a billion dollars [esa.int].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30790350</id>
	<title>Subsidized space programs</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1263657960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they do! Russia and Europe love having their meager space programs subsidized by US tax payers, and want it to continue. ISS access gives them prestige they do not merit. Throw the foreigners off of the Space Station Freedom!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do !
Russia and Europe love having their meager space programs subsidized by US tax payers , and want it to continue .
ISS access gives them prestige they do not merit .
Throw the foreigners off of the Space Station Freedom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they do!
Russia and Europe love having their meager space programs subsidized by US tax payers, and want it to continue.
ISS access gives them prestige they do not merit.
Throw the foreigners off of the Space Station Freedom!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786134</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263562020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I remember reading that the Russians are keeping their modules to the ISS, maybe to form a Mir II?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I remember reading that the Russians are keeping their modules to the ISS , maybe to form a Mir II ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I remember reading that the Russians are keeping their modules to the ISS, maybe to form a Mir II?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787482</id>
	<title>Re:Centrifuge Accommodations Module</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1263573720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much of a blow to low-g biological research was the cancellation of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module?</p> </div><p>I think it was a very serious blow to the value of the ISS, but that is IMHO. It's worth noting that the European modules have some centrifuges as well, so we may still get some low gravity research. I don't know the capabilities of these other centrifuges though.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO, but doing the serious research needed. After five years or so of low-g biological research on the ISS, long term human exposure tests could be done in a spinning "habitat on a cable attached to a counterweight". That way, after ten years of accelerated rover exploration and materials and technology development, we would have the knowledge to plan a serious mars mission, quite possible involving one-way trips and permanent stays.</p></div><p>A common problem with our history of space development is simply that we haven't done the research to determine how to do a number of our goals in space or what the problems associated with doing that sort of thing in space. Low gravity research should be an obvious focus of biological science in space because there are long term plans for humans and other biological lifeforms to live in these environments. There are many other things that also haven't been done, but would be a lot less risky, if they were tried, even once. This process is called "retirement" of risk and occurs any time you figure out a risk, problem, or new technology for the first time.<br> <br>

Anyway, in addition to the effects of low gravity research, we also need to develop at some point technologies like more sophisticated orbital assembly techniques, propellant depots, high launch frequency rockets, aerocapture, nuclear propulsion (in space), etc. I think it's shameful that so much, that we know we'll need for the space program, both manned and unmanned, isn't worked out even with decades of opportunity to do so.<br> <br>

One key effect of risk retirement, which I particularly like, is that it reduces the barrier to entry for commercial activity in space. For example, suppose I wanted to make a business out of sending colonists to Mars (they pay me to go to Mars). I pick this example precisely because it is currently wholly unrealistic. One of the bigger reasons it is unrealistic is that I have no clue about many huge risks of moving people in space and colonization. In addition to the completely unknown effects of Mars level gravity (which is a third that of Earth), I have no idea how to bring people there in a cost effective and reliable manner, how to land them on Mars, where they will live, nor what they will do. This is before you even consider the cost of doing these activities (which probably will remain epically expensive for decades to come). Even a dozen competing groups would all have to deal with this problem. Without any sort of coordination, they'll all have to pay to solve the same tremendous problems. Some sort of communal problem solving makes sense.<br> <br>

Most of these risks are solvable (or at least, we'd be able to accept and plan for the consequences of them, once we know what those consequences are), but you can't even been to discuss a business plan with the paltry knowledge and technology we currently have. It just doesn't make a bit of sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of a blow to low-g biological research was the cancellation of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module ?
I think it was a very serious blow to the value of the ISS , but that is IMHO .
It 's worth noting that the European modules have some centrifuges as well , so we may still get some low gravity research .
I do n't know the capabilities of these other centrifuges though.Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO , but doing the serious research needed .
After five years or so of low-g biological research on the ISS , long term human exposure tests could be done in a spinning " habitat on a cable attached to a counterweight " .
That way , after ten years of accelerated rover exploration and materials and technology development , we would have the knowledge to plan a serious mars mission , quite possible involving one-way trips and permanent stays.A common problem with our history of space development is simply that we have n't done the research to determine how to do a number of our goals in space or what the problems associated with doing that sort of thing in space .
Low gravity research should be an obvious focus of biological science in space because there are long term plans for humans and other biological lifeforms to live in these environments .
There are many other things that also have n't been done , but would be a lot less risky , if they were tried , even once .
This process is called " retirement " of risk and occurs any time you figure out a risk , problem , or new technology for the first time .
Anyway , in addition to the effects of low gravity research , we also need to develop at some point technologies like more sophisticated orbital assembly techniques , propellant depots , high launch frequency rockets , aerocapture , nuclear propulsion ( in space ) , etc .
I think it 's shameful that so much , that we know we 'll need for the space program , both manned and unmanned , is n't worked out even with decades of opportunity to do so .
One key effect of risk retirement , which I particularly like , is that it reduces the barrier to entry for commercial activity in space .
For example , suppose I wanted to make a business out of sending colonists to Mars ( they pay me to go to Mars ) .
I pick this example precisely because it is currently wholly unrealistic .
One of the bigger reasons it is unrealistic is that I have no clue about many huge risks of moving people in space and colonization .
In addition to the completely unknown effects of Mars level gravity ( which is a third that of Earth ) , I have no idea how to bring people there in a cost effective and reliable manner , how to land them on Mars , where they will live , nor what they will do .
This is before you even consider the cost of doing these activities ( which probably will remain epically expensive for decades to come ) .
Even a dozen competing groups would all have to deal with this problem .
Without any sort of coordination , they 'll all have to pay to solve the same tremendous problems .
Some sort of communal problem solving makes sense .
Most of these risks are solvable ( or at least , we 'd be able to accept and plan for the consequences of them , once we know what those consequences are ) , but you ca n't even been to discuss a business plan with the paltry knowledge and technology we currently have .
It just does n't make a bit of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of a blow to low-g biological research was the cancellation of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module?
I think it was a very serious blow to the value of the ISS, but that is IMHO.
It's worth noting that the European modules have some centrifuges as well, so we may still get some low gravity research.
I don't know the capabilities of these other centrifuges though.Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO, but doing the serious research needed.
After five years or so of low-g biological research on the ISS, long term human exposure tests could be done in a spinning "habitat on a cable attached to a counterweight".
That way, after ten years of accelerated rover exploration and materials and technology development, we would have the knowledge to plan a serious mars mission, quite possible involving one-way trips and permanent stays.A common problem with our history of space development is simply that we haven't done the research to determine how to do a number of our goals in space or what the problems associated with doing that sort of thing in space.
Low gravity research should be an obvious focus of biological science in space because there are long term plans for humans and other biological lifeforms to live in these environments.
There are many other things that also haven't been done, but would be a lot less risky, if they were tried, even once.
This process is called "retirement" of risk and occurs any time you figure out a risk, problem, or new technology for the first time.
Anyway, in addition to the effects of low gravity research, we also need to develop at some point technologies like more sophisticated orbital assembly techniques, propellant depots, high launch frequency rockets, aerocapture, nuclear propulsion (in space), etc.
I think it's shameful that so much, that we know we'll need for the space program, both manned and unmanned, isn't worked out even with decades of opportunity to do so.
One key effect of risk retirement, which I particularly like, is that it reduces the barrier to entry for commercial activity in space.
For example, suppose I wanted to make a business out of sending colonists to Mars (they pay me to go to Mars).
I pick this example precisely because it is currently wholly unrealistic.
One of the bigger reasons it is unrealistic is that I have no clue about many huge risks of moving people in space and colonization.
In addition to the completely unknown effects of Mars level gravity (which is a third that of Earth), I have no idea how to bring people there in a cost effective and reliable manner, how to land them on Mars, where they will live, nor what they will do.
This is before you even consider the cost of doing these activities (which probably will remain epically expensive for decades to come).
Even a dozen competing groups would all have to deal with this problem.
Without any sort of coordination, they'll all have to pay to solve the same tremendous problems.
Some sort of communal problem solving makes sense.
Most of these risks are solvable (or at least, we'd be able to accept and plan for the consequences of them, once we know what those consequences are), but you can't even been to discuss a business plan with the paltry knowledge and technology we currently have.
It just doesn't make a bit of sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785938</id>
	<title>Re:What about using it as a Mars spaceship?</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1263560520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.</p></div><p>+1 Interesting. That sir, is the coolest idea I've heard this week</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars. + 1 Interesting .
That sir , is the coolest idea I 've heard this week</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.+1 Interesting.
That sir, is the coolest idea I've heard this week
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786142</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263562080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In that case, you would just have to occasionally use orbital corrections to compensate for atmospheric drag. So why deorbit it, ever? Is the cost of a few kilo's of propellant really that high?</p></div><p>
Yes, the cost is that high. The ISS isn't just a tiny little tin can space station, it's a huge, 300,000+ kg space laboratory that was designed for human habitation. Just 'leaving it up there' would be an enormous waste of resources just to boost it back up in orbit (a great deal of which would just be dead mass, since if there are no humans aboard, there's no need for life support systems, toilets, observation decks, etc.) Couple that with no permanent American launch vehicle available to even service the station for many of the last few years of its operation, without which you will get very little or no American support for the station, and it's a really, really hard sell. But that doesn't mean we should give up hope.
<br> <br>
If we were to keep it longer, and I strongly hope and believe that we will end up keeping it in space, we should keep it doing what it was intended to do in the first place. It should be the premiere space research facility, and it should be manned by willing scientists and, hopefully, more wealthy tourists willing to risk their lives and a huge chunk of their fortunes to spend a couple weeks floating around and not touching anything. We should start thinking about deorbiting it whenever chunks start coming off of it, or like with Mir, fires start cropping up and the place becomes uninhabitable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case , you would just have to occasionally use orbital corrections to compensate for atmospheric drag .
So why deorbit it , ever ?
Is the cost of a few kilo 's of propellant really that high ?
Yes , the cost is that high .
The ISS is n't just a tiny little tin can space station , it 's a huge , 300,000 + kg space laboratory that was designed for human habitation .
Just 'leaving it up there ' would be an enormous waste of resources just to boost it back up in orbit ( a great deal of which would just be dead mass , since if there are no humans aboard , there 's no need for life support systems , toilets , observation decks , etc .
) Couple that with no permanent American launch vehicle available to even service the station for many of the last few years of its operation , without which you will get very little or no American support for the station , and it 's a really , really hard sell .
But that does n't mean we should give up hope .
If we were to keep it longer , and I strongly hope and believe that we will end up keeping it in space , we should keep it doing what it was intended to do in the first place .
It should be the premiere space research facility , and it should be manned by willing scientists and , hopefully , more wealthy tourists willing to risk their lives and a huge chunk of their fortunes to spend a couple weeks floating around and not touching anything .
We should start thinking about deorbiting it whenever chunks start coming off of it , or like with Mir , fires start cropping up and the place becomes uninhabitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case, you would just have to occasionally use orbital corrections to compensate for atmospheric drag.
So why deorbit it, ever?
Is the cost of a few kilo's of propellant really that high?
Yes, the cost is that high.
The ISS isn't just a tiny little tin can space station, it's a huge, 300,000+ kg space laboratory that was designed for human habitation.
Just 'leaving it up there' would be an enormous waste of resources just to boost it back up in orbit (a great deal of which would just be dead mass, since if there are no humans aboard, there's no need for life support systems, toilets, observation decks, etc.
) Couple that with no permanent American launch vehicle available to even service the station for many of the last few years of its operation, without which you will get very little or no American support for the station, and it's a really, really hard sell.
But that doesn't mean we should give up hope.
If we were to keep it longer, and I strongly hope and believe that we will end up keeping it in space, we should keep it doing what it was intended to do in the first place.
It should be the premiere space research facility, and it should be manned by willing scientists and, hopefully, more wealthy tourists willing to risk their lives and a huge chunk of their fortunes to spend a couple weeks floating around and not touching anything.
We should start thinking about deorbiting it whenever chunks start coming off of it, or like with Mir, fires start cropping up and the place becomes uninhabitable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786338</id>
	<title>The Space program is a mess...</title>
	<author>Time\_Warped</author>
	<datestamp>1263563580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neither party in the US take space exploration at all seriously, because there is no short term quick money to be made. So we are spending roughly
1/3 of the budget that we really need to "do space right". We need to adopt a more "Japanese " style long term approach to research and profit making. But
this requires the American people to rethink their mindset, which shows no probability of occurring.

Having said that, it is idiotic to throw away a station we spent so many years building away. We have it, and it is much cheaper to maintain it than to
build another one later. For that matter I have yet to see a valid reason given to retire the shuttle. Now there may be safety reasons for doing so, but I've never seen them in print, most of what I've seen is that "the shuttle is old, we need new and shiny", at they very least it should be used until new technology has been fully tested.

We have too many "pointy haired bosses of BOTH parties" running the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither party in the US take space exploration at all seriously , because there is no short term quick money to be made .
So we are spending roughly 1/3 of the budget that we really need to " do space right " .
We need to adopt a more " Japanese " style long term approach to research and profit making .
But this requires the American people to rethink their mindset , which shows no probability of occurring .
Having said that , it is idiotic to throw away a station we spent so many years building away .
We have it , and it is much cheaper to maintain it than to build another one later .
For that matter I have yet to see a valid reason given to retire the shuttle .
Now there may be safety reasons for doing so , but I 've never seen them in print , most of what I 've seen is that " the shuttle is old , we need new and shiny " , at they very least it should be used until new technology has been fully tested .
We have too many " pointy haired bosses of BOTH parties " running the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither party in the US take space exploration at all seriously, because there is no short term quick money to be made.
So we are spending roughly
1/3 of the budget that we really need to "do space right".
We need to adopt a more "Japanese " style long term approach to research and profit making.
But
this requires the American people to rethink their mindset, which shows no probability of occurring.
Having said that, it is idiotic to throw away a station we spent so many years building away.
We have it, and it is much cheaper to maintain it than to
build another one later.
For that matter I have yet to see a valid reason given to retire the shuttle.
Now there may be safety reasons for doing so, but I've never seen them in print, most of what I've seen is that "the shuttle is old, we need new and shiny", at they very least it should be used until new technology has been fully tested.
We have too many "pointy haired bosses of BOTH parties" running the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785764</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the big science I heard about?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1263559320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the funding that allows the ISS to continue comes from the US.  What concerns me is whether or not the other space agencies have the funding to pick up where NASA left off and continue the research there.  In any case, the station is far too yound to just be abandoned and it would be a shame if that were to come to pass because of the US's decision to withdraw support from the station in 2015.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the funding that allows the ISS to continue comes from the US .
What concerns me is whether or not the other space agencies have the funding to pick up where NASA left off and continue the research there .
In any case , the station is far too yound to just be abandoned and it would be a shame if that were to come to pass because of the US 's decision to withdraw support from the station in 2015 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the funding that allows the ISS to continue comes from the US.
What concerns me is whether or not the other space agencies have the funding to pick up where NASA left off and continue the research there.
In any case, the station is far too yound to just be abandoned and it would be a shame if that were to come to pass because of the US's decision to withdraw support from the station in 2015.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786132</id>
	<title>Who can still fly up there?</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1263561960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the Space Shuttle is going to be retired. So only the Russian Soyuz can make manned flights to the ISS. It's a bit strange though to imagine that in five years there might not be any more manned space flights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the Space Shuttle is going to be retired .
So only the Russian Soyuz can make manned flights to the ISS .
It 's a bit strange though to imagine that in five years there might not be any more manned space flights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the Space Shuttle is going to be retired.
So only the Russian Soyuz can make manned flights to the ISS.
It's a bit strange though to imagine that in five years there might not be any more manned space flights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786836</id>
	<title>Centrifuge Accommodations Module</title>
	<author>4181</author>
	<datestamp>1263566940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of a blow to low-g biological research was the cancellation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge\_Accommodations\_Module" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Centrifuge Accommodations Module</a> [wikipedia.org]?  It seems that a good amount micro-g biological research has been done (and hopefully will continue to be done during the next ten years), but very little is known about low-g effects.  I would think that multiple generation vertebrate (lab rat) study of the effects of prolonged 1/3 and 1/6 g exposure would be critical to understanding the issues of a mars mission or a lunar base.</p><p>We have one spare shuttle external tank beyond the current manifest, so even if the shuttle is retired, the program could be extended for one more flight.  (Early Augustine Commission discussions suggested this as a good idea for a number of reasons.)  Could CAM construction be restarted and rushed to completion in time for a launch 18 months of so from now?</p><p>Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO, but doing the serious research needed.  After five years or so of low-g biological research on the ISS, long term human exposure tests could be done in a spinning "habitat on a cable attached to a counterweight".  That way, after ten years of accelerated rover exploration and materials and technology development, we would have the knowledge to plan a serious mars mission, quite possible involving one-way trips and permanent stays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of a blow to low-g biological research was the cancellation of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module [ wikipedia.org ] ?
It seems that a good amount micro-g biological research has been done ( and hopefully will continue to be done during the next ten years ) , but very little is known about low-g effects .
I would think that multiple generation vertebrate ( lab rat ) study of the effects of prolonged 1/3 and 1/6 g exposure would be critical to understanding the issues of a mars mission or a lunar base.We have one spare shuttle external tank beyond the current manifest , so even if the shuttle is retired , the program could be extended for one more flight .
( Early Augustine Commission discussions suggested this as a good idea for a number of reasons .
) Could CAM construction be restarted and rushed to completion in time for a launch 18 months of so from now ? Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO , but doing the serious research needed .
After five years or so of low-g biological research on the ISS , long term human exposure tests could be done in a spinning " habitat on a cable attached to a counterweight " .
That way , after ten years of accelerated rover exploration and materials and technology development , we would have the knowledge to plan a serious mars mission , quite possible involving one-way trips and permanent stays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of a blow to low-g biological research was the cancellation of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module [wikipedia.org]?
It seems that a good amount micro-g biological research has been done (and hopefully will continue to be done during the next ten years), but very little is known about low-g effects.
I would think that multiple generation vertebrate (lab rat) study of the effects of prolonged 1/3 and 1/6 g exposure would be critical to understanding the issues of a mars mission or a lunar base.We have one spare shuttle external tank beyond the current manifest, so even if the shuttle is retired, the program could be extended for one more flight.
(Early Augustine Commission discussions suggested this as a good idea for a number of reasons.
)  Could CAM construction be restarted and rushed to completion in time for a launch 18 months of so from now?Imagine an ambitious mars program that spent the next decade with humans not traveling beyond LEO, but doing the serious research needed.
After five years or so of low-g biological research on the ISS, long term human exposure tests could be done in a spinning "habitat on a cable attached to a counterweight".
That way, after ten years of accelerated rover exploration and materials and technology development, we would have the knowledge to plan a serious mars mission, quite possible involving one-way trips and permanent stays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785876</id>
	<title>Who else will maintain it?</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1263560160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If NASA does not want to pay for supply and maintenance, will the other participating nations step up and pay for the flights?<br>If yes, an extension should be easy to negotiate. After all, de-orbiting the ISS won't bring any NASA Money back.<br>If no, you might as well de-orbit the station.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If NASA does not want to pay for supply and maintenance , will the other participating nations step up and pay for the flights ? If yes , an extension should be easy to negotiate .
After all , de-orbiting the ISS wo n't bring any NASA Money back.If no , you might as well de-orbit the station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If NASA does not want to pay for supply and maintenance, will the other participating nations step up and pay for the flights?If yes, an extension should be easy to negotiate.
After all, de-orbiting the ISS won't bring any NASA Money back.If no, you might as well de-orbit the station.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786520</id>
	<title>Re:What about using it as a Mars spaceship?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1263564660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.</p></div></blockquote><p>If by 'awesome' you actually mean 'utterly and completely unsuitable', sure.  Otherwise no.<br>
&nbsp; <br>It's structure isn't designed to take the stresses that pushing out of Earth orbit will entail.  (And no, ion engines aren't the answer.  They aren't up to the job.)  Even if it were designed to take those stresses, passing through the Van Allen belts will fry it's unshielded electronics and crew.  Their corpses will then be nicely frozen when the environmental control systems, designed for the relatively toasty environment of LEO, fails in the freezing environment of interplanetary space.  Anything left alive/functioning after being blasted with radiation and being deep frozen will die as the ISS loses electric power as the intensity of sunlight hitting it's solar panel decreases as it moves away from the sun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.If by 'awesome ' you actually mean 'utterly and completely unsuitable ' , sure .
Otherwise no .
  It 's structure is n't designed to take the stresses that pushing out of Earth orbit will entail .
( And no , ion engines are n't the answer .
They are n't up to the job .
) Even if it were designed to take those stresses , passing through the Van Allen belts will fry it 's unshielded electronics and crew .
Their corpses will then be nicely frozen when the environmental control systems , designed for the relatively toasty environment of LEO , fails in the freezing environment of interplanetary space .
Anything left alive/functioning after being blasted with radiation and being deep frozen will die as the ISS loses electric power as the intensity of sunlight hitting it 's solar panel decreases as it moves away from the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.If by 'awesome' you actually mean 'utterly and completely unsuitable', sure.
Otherwise no.
  It's structure isn't designed to take the stresses that pushing out of Earth orbit will entail.
(And no, ion engines aren't the answer.
They aren't up to the job.
)  Even if it were designed to take those stresses, passing through the Van Allen belts will fry it's unshielded electronics and crew.
Their corpses will then be nicely frozen when the environmental control systems, designed for the relatively toasty environment of LEO, fails in the freezing environment of interplanetary space.
Anything left alive/functioning after being blasted with radiation and being deep frozen will die as the ISS loses electric power as the intensity of sunlight hitting it's solar panel decreases as it moves away from the sun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787106</id>
	<title>Re:why bother</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1263569340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>everything useful there is to know about [constant free fall] vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.</p></div><p>Fixed your typo</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>everything useful there is to know about [ constant free fall ] vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.Fixed your typo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everything useful there is to know about [constant free fall] vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.Fixed your typo
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785670</id>
	<title>ESA Wants ISS Extended To 2020</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263558720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In response NASA stuck out it's hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In response NASA stuck out it 's hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response NASA stuck out it's hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786384</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263563820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The basic problem is that the ISS isn't designed to operate unattended and requires a small support army on the ground to monitor it's system, orbit, attitude, etc...  (And no, it's not going to be neither cheap nor trivial to change either.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic problem is that the ISS is n't designed to operate unattended and requires a small support army on the ground to monitor it 's system , orbit , attitude , etc... ( And no , it 's not going to be neither cheap nor trivial to change either .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic problem is that the ISS isn't designed to operate unattended and requires a small support army on the ground to monitor it's system, orbit, attitude, etc...  (And no, it's not going to be neither cheap nor trivial to change either.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785898</id>
	<title>Re:why bother</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263560280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter would have a hard time anyway, with its usage of nuclear reactor...</p><p>As for ISS - remember toilet breakage? Problems with old treadmill necessitating designing and sending Colbert? Such simple stuff..and yet we are far from getting things <i>really</i> right when it comes to space travel - better try in LEO. Deep space differs mostly in radiation and engine parts, and we can model those easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter would have a hard time anyway , with its usage of nuclear reactor...As for ISS - remember toilet breakage ?
Problems with old treadmill necessitating designing and sending Colbert ?
Such simple stuff..and yet we are far from getting things really right when it comes to space travel - better try in LEO .
Deep space differs mostly in radiation and engine parts , and we can model those easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter would have a hard time anyway, with its usage of nuclear reactor...As for ISS - remember toilet breakage?
Problems with old treadmill necessitating designing and sending Colbert?
Such simple stuff..and yet we are far from getting things really right when it comes to space travel - better try in LEO.
Deep space differs mostly in radiation and engine parts, and we can model those easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785530</id>
	<title>FROSTY PISS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263557940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you call a nigger priest?  HOLY SHIT!
<br> <br>
Frosty Piss, it's water from your dick!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you call a nigger priest ?
HOLY SHIT !
Frosty Piss , it 's water from your dick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you call a nigger priest?
HOLY SHIT!
Frosty Piss, it's water from your dick!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785666</id>
	<title>Where's the big problem?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263558720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the station complete, needing only resupply that will be provided by Russian, European or US commercial launches (I'm hearing NASA wants to mostly buy the flights from them, as far as resupply goes), perhaps even Japanese cargo launcher, where's the really big problem in extending ISS life?</p><p>The worse thing for NASA then would be facing responsibility for the final fate of their modules - but I'm sure a deal "you can use them as long as you will properly deorbit them" (ESA and Roskosmos are certainly capable of this) isn't a problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the station complete , needing only resupply that will be provided by Russian , European or US commercial launches ( I 'm hearing NASA wants to mostly buy the flights from them , as far as resupply goes ) , perhaps even Japanese cargo launcher , where 's the really big problem in extending ISS life ? The worse thing for NASA then would be facing responsibility for the final fate of their modules - but I 'm sure a deal " you can use them as long as you will properly deorbit them " ( ESA and Roskosmos are certainly capable of this ) is n't a problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the station complete, needing only resupply that will be provided by Russian, European or US commercial launches (I'm hearing NASA wants to mostly buy the flights from them, as far as resupply goes), perhaps even Japanese cargo launcher, where's the really big problem in extending ISS life?The worse thing for NASA then would be facing responsibility for the final fate of their modules - but I'm sure a deal "you can use them as long as you will properly deorbit them" (ESA and Roskosmos are certainly capable of this) isn't a problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785544</id>
	<title>Where's the big science I heard about?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263558060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more doesn't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.<br> <br>I fully support the efforts of any nation to keep the science going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more does n't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything .
I fully support the efforts of any nation to keep the science going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is all Obama and I am an American but... to think that just because one nation wants to let their science programs slip even more doesn't mean that anyone should pull the plug on anything.
I fully support the efforts of any nation to keep the science going.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786654</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the big science I heard about?</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1263565680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what do we need to do in that environment any more?</p><p>Marshall McLuhan wrote a book titled "The Medium is the Message", and as far as the ISS is concerned, "Building it taught us what we wanted to know."</p><p>It wasn't about how peas grow in zero G, or manufacturing taking place in zero G.  It was about how can we build something really big and complex in zero G.</p><p>Having done so, I wonder if there is any science left to do that is capable of being done there, given the size constraints.</p><p>Its a fragile structure in an dangerous environment. One collapsed strut and the thing could be a tangled mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what do we need to do in that environment any more ? Marshall McLuhan wrote a book titled " The Medium is the Message " , and as far as the ISS is concerned , " Building it taught us what we wanted to know .
" It was n't about how peas grow in zero G , or manufacturing taking place in zero G. It was about how can we build something really big and complex in zero G.Having done so , I wonder if there is any science left to do that is capable of being done there , given the size constraints.Its a fragile structure in an dangerous environment .
One collapsed strut and the thing could be a tangled mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what do we need to do in that environment any more?Marshall McLuhan wrote a book titled "The Medium is the Message", and as far as the ISS is concerned, "Building it taught us what we wanted to know.
"It wasn't about how peas grow in zero G, or manufacturing taking place in zero G.  It was about how can we build something really big and complex in zero G.Having done so, I wonder if there is any science left to do that is capable of being done there, given the size constraints.Its a fragile structure in an dangerous environment.
One collapsed strut and the thing could be a tangled mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30789988</id>
	<title>Sure almost everyone would agree,</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1263653940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> that ending a project that took over 15 years and over
a hundred shuttle launches, less than 5 years after
we finished building it, would be a stupid waste of
money. Now the ISS is up there and complete, (couple
more launches to go), we should milk it for every use
we can get out of it, it cost enough, its unique, and
new space station isn't going to happen soon.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/space\%20craft/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Space Craft</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that ending a project that took over 15 years and over a hundred shuttle launches , less than 5 years after we finished building it , would be a stupid waste of money .
Now the ISS is up there and complete , ( couple more launches to go ) , we should milk it for every use we can get out of it , it cost enough , its unique , and new space station is n't going to happen soon .
--- Space Craft [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> that ending a project that took over 15 years and over
a hundred shuttle launches, less than 5 years after
we finished building it, would be a stupid waste of
money.
Now the ISS is up there and complete, (couple
more launches to go), we should milk it for every use
we can get out of it, it cost enough, its unique, and
new space station isn't going to happen soon.
---

Space Craft [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30788644</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1263633660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought space exploration was about overcoming new challenges. Maybe it would not be cheep or trivial, but it would yield very  valuable space automation engineering / research experience. It would also keep one of the big space land marks in place for some more time.</p><p>Isn't de-orbiting the ISS culturally somewhat equivalent to tearing down the statue of freedom because it's too much hassle to paint it?</p><p>2500 AD on education space voyage: Here you can see the 3rd ever build space station, a landmark of great importance. The first two would obviously much more interesting, but they were trashed..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought space exploration was about overcoming new challenges .
Maybe it would not be cheep or trivial , but it would yield very valuable space automation engineering / research experience .
It would also keep one of the big space land marks in place for some more time.Is n't de-orbiting the ISS culturally somewhat equivalent to tearing down the statue of freedom because it 's too much hassle to paint it ? 2500 AD on education space voyage : Here you can see the 3rd ever build space station , a landmark of great importance .
The first two would obviously much more interesting , but they were trashed. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought space exploration was about overcoming new challenges.
Maybe it would not be cheep or trivial, but it would yield very  valuable space automation engineering / research experience.
It would also keep one of the big space land marks in place for some more time.Isn't de-orbiting the ISS culturally somewhat equivalent to tearing down the statue of freedom because it's too much hassle to paint it?2500 AD on education space voyage: Here you can see the 3rd ever build space station, a landmark of great importance.
The first two would obviously much more interesting, but they were trashed..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552</id>
	<title>I don't understand</title>
	<author>ctachme</author>
	<datestamp>1263558060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It isn't clear to me what the rationale for getting rid of the Space Station would be. As far as I can tell, if you didn't want to pay for shipping people up and down, you could still use it as a platform for scientific instruments. In that case, you would just have to occasionally use orbital corrections to compensate  for atmospheric drag. So why deorbit it, ever? Is the cost of a few kilo's of propellant really that high? If you're talking about removing the crew that's one thing, but that's an incredible resource that you'd just be wasting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't clear to me what the rationale for getting rid of the Space Station would be .
As far as I can tell , if you did n't want to pay for shipping people up and down , you could still use it as a platform for scientific instruments .
In that case , you would just have to occasionally use orbital corrections to compensate for atmospheric drag .
So why deorbit it , ever ?
Is the cost of a few kilo 's of propellant really that high ?
If you 're talking about removing the crew that 's one thing , but that 's an incredible resource that you 'd just be wasting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't clear to me what the rationale for getting rid of the Space Station would be.
As far as I can tell, if you didn't want to pay for shipping people up and down, you could still use it as a platform for scientific instruments.
In that case, you would just have to occasionally use orbital corrections to compensate  for atmospheric drag.
So why deorbit it, ever?
Is the cost of a few kilo's of propellant really that high?
If you're talking about removing the crew that's one thing, but that's an incredible resource that you'd just be wasting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900</id>
	<title>What about using it as a Mars spaceship?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263560280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard this suggested somewhere before that ISS would make an awesome vehicle for getting to mars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785952</id>
	<title>Until 2020?</title>
	<author>TheWizardTim</author>
	<datestamp>1263560580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want the ISS to stay up until 20/20? I just don't see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want the ISS to stay up until 20/20 ?
I just do n't see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want the ISS to stay up until 20/20?
I just don't see it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30792458</id>
	<title>Mindless Business Babble Cliche (Re:  TFS)</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1263674160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are two sentences:<ul>
<li>"Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity."</li>

<li>"Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity going forward."</li>
</ul><p>

Is there a difference in meaning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are two sentences : " Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity .
" " Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity going forward .
" Is there a difference in meaning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are two sentences:
"Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity.
"

"Dordain says that no one partner in the ISS project could unilaterally call an end to the platform and that a meeting would be held in Japan later in the year where he hoped the partners could get some clarity going forward.
"


Is there a difference in meaning?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785978</id>
	<title>Re:What about using it as a Mars spaceship?</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1263560820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think that would work.  You'd need quite a bit of thrust to push the ISS (plus the fuel and drive to do the pushing) out of Earth's orbit and I doubt very much that the entire structure would have been designed to take the strain.  It's not going to do you much good if as soon as you fire the engines the solar panels snap off and the lights go out...<br> <br>

You <em>might</em> be able to do something using a low thrust Ion drive, but you'd still need to spend an awfully long time going round and round in ever increasing circles while you build up enough momentum to break orbit.  In short, and if you'll excuse the pun, it's nice idea, but I just don't think it's going to fly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that would work .
You 'd need quite a bit of thrust to push the ISS ( plus the fuel and drive to do the pushing ) out of Earth 's orbit and I doubt very much that the entire structure would have been designed to take the strain .
It 's not going to do you much good if as soon as you fire the engines the solar panels snap off and the lights go out.. . You might be able to do something using a low thrust Ion drive , but you 'd still need to spend an awfully long time going round and round in ever increasing circles while you build up enough momentum to break orbit .
In short , and if you 'll excuse the pun , it 's nice idea , but I just do n't think it 's going to fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that would work.
You'd need quite a bit of thrust to push the ISS (plus the fuel and drive to do the pushing) out of Earth's orbit and I doubt very much that the entire structure would have been designed to take the strain.
It's not going to do you much good if as soon as you fire the engines the solar panels snap off and the lights go out... 

You might be able to do something using a low thrust Ion drive, but you'd still need to spend an awfully long time going round and round in ever increasing circles while you build up enough momentum to break orbit.
In short, and if you'll excuse the pun, it's nice idea, but I just don't think it's going to fly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786478</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the big science I heard about?</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1263564360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sort of puzzled:  What sort of costs are associated with continued operations on the ISS?</p><p>Building the thing in the first place was certainly incredibly expensive, and things like the electrical generation capacity of that vehicle is amazing for doing all sorts of test... space solar power tests just to give an example.  It certainly is the equivalent of a small municipal power generation facility in terms of the watts generated.  How much has been suggested to be spent on just that one idea alone, that is already in operation and in space?</p><p>The only real expenses that I see are maneuvering thruster fuel, food and other general consumables, and of course the ground support stations and centers.  The ESA has even addressed this particular issue, and questioned some of the incredibly wasteful spending just to accomplish this task alone that could be done at a much cheaper price.</p><p>It is sad that NASA won't even consider other alternatives for access to the ISS or that there may be legitimate solutions to keep it going for at least another decade if not longer.  Then again, it was NASA that forced MIR to crash into the Pacific by playing political games.  It wasn't costs that were so great that MIR couldn't have stayed aloft, nor congressional budget considerations either.  Russia wanted to keep MIR going, but NASA threatened to kick them out of the ISS if MIR wasn't deorbited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sort of puzzled : What sort of costs are associated with continued operations on the ISS ? Building the thing in the first place was certainly incredibly expensive , and things like the electrical generation capacity of that vehicle is amazing for doing all sorts of test... space solar power tests just to give an example .
It certainly is the equivalent of a small municipal power generation facility in terms of the watts generated .
How much has been suggested to be spent on just that one idea alone , that is already in operation and in space ? The only real expenses that I see are maneuvering thruster fuel , food and other general consumables , and of course the ground support stations and centers .
The ESA has even addressed this particular issue , and questioned some of the incredibly wasteful spending just to accomplish this task alone that could be done at a much cheaper price.It is sad that NASA wo n't even consider other alternatives for access to the ISS or that there may be legitimate solutions to keep it going for at least another decade if not longer .
Then again , it was NASA that forced MIR to crash into the Pacific by playing political games .
It was n't costs that were so great that MIR could n't have stayed aloft , nor congressional budget considerations either .
Russia wanted to keep MIR going , but NASA threatened to kick them out of the ISS if MIR was n't deorbited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sort of puzzled:  What sort of costs are associated with continued operations on the ISS?Building the thing in the first place was certainly incredibly expensive, and things like the electrical generation capacity of that vehicle is amazing for doing all sorts of test... space solar power tests just to give an example.
It certainly is the equivalent of a small municipal power generation facility in terms of the watts generated.
How much has been suggested to be spent on just that one idea alone, that is already in operation and in space?The only real expenses that I see are maneuvering thruster fuel, food and other general consumables, and of course the ground support stations and centers.
The ESA has even addressed this particular issue, and questioned some of the incredibly wasteful spending just to accomplish this task alone that could be done at a much cheaper price.It is sad that NASA won't even consider other alternatives for access to the ISS or that there may be legitimate solutions to keep it going for at least another decade if not longer.
Then again, it was NASA that forced MIR to crash into the Pacific by playing political games.
It wasn't costs that were so great that MIR couldn't have stayed aloft, nor congressional budget considerations either.
Russia wanted to keep MIR going, but NASA threatened to kick them out of the ISS if MIR wasn't deorbited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786100</id>
	<title>Re:What about using it as a Mars spaceship?</title>
	<author>t0qer</author>
	<datestamp>1263561720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey guys found the source, it was a Washington post article.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html" title="washingtonpost.com">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guys found the source , it was a Washington post article.http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html [ washingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guys found the source, it was a Washington post article.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394.html [washingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787036</id>
	<title>Re:why bother</title>
	<author>ortholattice</author>
	<datestamp>1263568680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You mean like they wanted to shut down the patent office
because there was nothing left to be patented?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, U.S. Commissioner of Patents (1899)
(Actually, this is a myth, but it seemed amusingly appropriate here...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface .
You mean like they wanted to shut down the patent office because there was nothing left to be patented ?
" Everything that can be invented has been invented .
" Charles H. Duell , U.S. Commissioner of Patents ( 1899 ) ( Actually , this is a myth , but it seemed amusingly appropriate here... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.
You mean like they wanted to shut down the patent office
because there was nothing left to be patented?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented.
"
Charles H. Duell, U.S. Commissioner of Patents (1899)
(Actually, this is a myth, but it seemed amusingly appropriate here...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785722</id>
	<title>what the ISS needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263559020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..is a good dunk in the Pacific. Flying people around in low earth orbit is neither science nor particularly inspirational as human spaceflight, and uses up billions that could fund real space science missions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..is a good dunk in the Pacific .
Flying people around in low earth orbit is neither science nor particularly inspirational as human spaceflight , and uses up billions that could fund real space science missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..is a good dunk in the Pacific.
Flying people around in low earth orbit is neither science nor particularly inspirational as human spaceflight, and uses up billions that could fund real space science missions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785734</id>
	<title>Location, Location, Location</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1263559020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If NASA doesn't want it, they should sell it, or at least their share in it. Of course they can't because that's be slapping their own face. Kind of a handicap, being able to build something but nit maintain it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If NASA does n't want it , they should sell it , or at least their share in it .
Of course they ca n't because that 's be slapping their own face .
Kind of a handicap , being able to build something but nit maintain it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If NASA doesn't want it, they should sell it, or at least their share in it.
Of course they can't because that's be slapping their own face.
Kind of a handicap, being able to build something but nit maintain it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785870</id>
	<title>Just look at whose paying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263560100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously they want the ISS to continue to be operational.  They get to use it and the US tax payer gets to pay for it.</p><p>Yes I am aware that they pay for part of it, but it is a fraction of what NASA pays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously they want the ISS to continue to be operational .
They get to use it and the US tax payer gets to pay for it.Yes I am aware that they pay for part of it , but it is a fraction of what NASA pays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously they want the ISS to continue to be operational.
They get to use it and the US tax payer gets to pay for it.Yes I am aware that they pay for part of it, but it is a fraction of what NASA pays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786296</id>
	<title>Re:Who can still fly up there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263563220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, SpaceX is set to start supply flights to the ISS by 2012, with a human rated lift vehicle capable of astronaut launches by 2015.  Check out SpaceX.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , SpaceX is set to start supply flights to the ISS by 2012 , with a human rated lift vehicle capable of astronaut launches by 2015 .
Check out SpaceX.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, SpaceX is set to start supply flights to the ISS by 2012, with a human rated lift vehicle capable of astronaut launches by 2015.
Check out SpaceX.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30793162</id>
	<title>ESA and the other partners</title>
	<author>mhenriday</author>
	<datestamp>1263636960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are going to have to force the United States to realise that the policy of denying the Chinese access to the global effort known as the International Space Station is bankrupt. Like it or not, the Chinese possess both the scientific and the economic muscle to play an important role in humanity's attempt to jump out of our gravity well, coupled with a burning desire to do so, and we can no longer allow the vagaries of US foreign policy to hinder them from contributing to this task....

Henri</htmltext>
<tokenext>are going to have to force the United States to realise that the policy of denying the Chinese access to the global effort known as the International Space Station is bankrupt .
Like it or not , the Chinese possess both the scientific and the economic muscle to play an important role in humanity 's attempt to jump out of our gravity well , coupled with a burning desire to do so , and we can no longer allow the vagaries of US foreign policy to hinder them from contributing to this task... . Henri</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are going to have to force the United States to realise that the policy of denying the Chinese access to the global effort known as the International Space Station is bankrupt.
Like it or not, the Chinese possess both the scientific and the economic muscle to play an important role in humanity's attempt to jump out of our gravity well, coupled with a burning desire to do so, and we can no longer allow the vagaries of US foreign policy to hinder them from contributing to this task....

Henri</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646</id>
	<title>why bother</title>
	<author>spike hay</author>
	<datestamp>1263558540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.</p><p>Put more money into unmanned probes, where the real science is getting done. Keep in mind they cancelled the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter to pump more money into this piece of crap. That probe would have unbelievably expanded our knowledge of the Jovian system. I know sending humans into LEO is super neat and all, but weve been doing it for nearly 50 years.- Theres more useful things that can be done with NASAs very limited budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.Put more money into unmanned probes , where the real science is getting done .
Keep in mind they cancelled the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter to pump more money into this piece of crap .
That probe would have unbelievably expanded our knowledge of the Jovian system .
I know sending humans into LEO is super neat and all , but weve been doing it for nearly 50 years.- Theres more useful things that can be done with NASAs very limited budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.Put more money into unmanned probes, where the real science is getting done.
Keep in mind they cancelled the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter to pump more money into this piece of crap.
That probe would have unbelievably expanded our knowledge of the Jovian system.
I know sending humans into LEO is super neat and all, but weve been doing it for nearly 50 years.- Theres more useful things that can be done with NASAs very limited budget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30788644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_2017242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30789354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30789354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30788644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30786836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_2017242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30785898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_2017242.30787106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
