<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_031252</id>
	<title>NASA Prepping Plans For Flexible Path To Mars</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264413660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FleaPlus writes <i>"A group at NASA has been formulating a <a href="http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/taking-aim-phobos-nasa-flexible-path-precursor-mars/">'Flexible Path' to Mars</a> architecture, which many expect will be part of the soon-to-be-announced reboot of NASA's future plans. <a href="http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/why-not-just-fund-the-program-of-record/">NASA's prior architecture</a> spends much of its budget on creating two in-house rockets, the Ares I and V, and would yield no beyond-LEO human activity until a lunar landing sometime in the 2030s. In contrast, the Flexible Path would produce results sooner, using NASA's limited budget to develop and gain experience with the technologies (human and robotic) needed to progressively explore and establish waypoints at Lagrange points, <a href="http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/nasas-flexible-path-2025-human-mission-visit-asteroid/">near-Earth asteroids</a>, the Martian moon Phobos, Mars, and other possible locations (e.g. the Moon, Venus flyby). Suggested interim goals include constructing <a href="http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/">giant telescopes in deep space</a>, learning how to protect Earth from asteroids, establishing in-space propellant depots, and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FleaPlus writes " A group at NASA has been formulating a 'Flexible Path ' to Mars architecture , which many expect will be part of the soon-to-be-announced reboot of NASA 's future plans .
NASA 's prior architecture spends much of its budget on creating two in-house rockets , the Ares I and V , and would yield no beyond-LEO human activity until a lunar landing sometime in the 2030s .
In contrast , the Flexible Path would produce results sooner , using NASA 's limited budget to develop and gain experience with the technologies ( human and robotic ) needed to progressively explore and establish waypoints at Lagrange points , near-Earth asteroids , the Martian moon Phobos , Mars , and other possible locations ( e.g .
the Moon , Venus flyby ) .
Suggested interim goals include constructing giant telescopes in deep space , learning how to protect Earth from asteroids , establishing in-space propellant depots , and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FleaPlus writes "A group at NASA has been formulating a 'Flexible Path' to Mars architecture, which many expect will be part of the soon-to-be-announced reboot of NASA's future plans.
NASA's prior architecture spends much of its budget on creating two in-house rockets, the Ares I and V, and would yield no beyond-LEO human activity until a lunar landing sometime in the 2030s.
In contrast, the Flexible Path would produce results sooner, using NASA's limited budget to develop and gain experience with the technologies (human and robotic) needed to progressively explore and establish waypoints at Lagrange points, near-Earth asteroids, the Martian moon Phobos, Mars, and other possible locations (e.g.
the Moon, Venus flyby).
Suggested interim goals include constructing giant telescopes in deep space, learning how to protect Earth from asteroids, establishing in-space propellant depots, and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</id>
	<title>An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e. a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion). Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership ' , i.e .
a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid , complete with its own gravity ( out of rotation ) and nuclear propulsion ( project Orion ) .
Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets , it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system , and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e.
a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion).
Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30893178</id>
	<title>Flexible Path Already Incorrectly Prioritized.</title>
	<author>JohnFornaro</author>
	<datestamp>1264446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Flexible Path option would be an excellent example of a pay-go approach to exploring the inner solar system.  In theory, it could be able to accomodate different missions based on the value of the scientific discoveries as the program progresses, and our evolving technical abilities.  However, the fact that it has no specific goal, opens the Flexible Path to political manipulation which will probably adversely affect its execution.  In other words, it seems to be too flexible to ensure success in its endeavors, given the liklihood of the American political system to tinker with programs as vaguely expressed as the Flexible Path.</p><p>Although the economy is currently in a trough, an optimistic long term prediction would envision a return to healthy economic growth.  In any case, the cost of a space program must be budgeted and the current costs and benefits of that program must be funded by Congress.  The current situation clearly forces the prioritization of space program missions.  It is crucial that the Flexible Path propose initial missions which are prioritized on cost and time to implement.</p><p>There are many possible missions which could be encompassed in the Flexible Path, including the visit to Phobos, which is discussed briefly in the linked article.  A cursory examination of that portion of the article, by an interested voter, would reveal at least two fundamental, common sense flaws in the suggestion of this particular mission.  These flaws are fatal in the sense that they prove that this particular mission should have a priority much later than a less ambitious Flexible Path mission of a lunar return mission, to pick but one example.</p><p>The first flaw is scientific in nature.  While Phobos is a "large, dramatic world", per the article, the Moon is larger, more dramatic, and much closer.  The terms "large" and "dramatic" are emotionally laden marketing terms and distinctly unscientific reasons to embark on such a mission.  The term "closer" is a scientific fact, readily verified, and intrinsically linked with the cost of either mission.  The second flaw is also scientific.  The article suggests that the "mystery of the origin of Phobos can be resolved".  If that is indeed true, then a similar lunar mission could resolve, to the same accuracy, the currently unsolved mystery of the Moon's origin.</p><p>Other flaws in that particular Phobos mission pertain to the ease of returning samples, the establishment of the initial inventory of water on either Mars or Phobos, the suggestion that material color is a sufficient criteria for collection, the implication that rover operation would be easier there than closer to Earth, and the further implication that a Phobos mission could demonstrate solutions to these problems that other missions could not.</p><p>These types of arguments will be used to prioritize other Flexible Path missions as well, but they are clearly incomplete and do not seem to pass a simple analysis for ranking on a rational basis.  The major obstacles to such an ambitious mission as a Phobos visit, cost and time, are given short shrift in the article, and seem to exemplify serious problems in the early determination of the Flexible Path itself.</p><p>In contrast to the Phobos mission, for example, many people argue that any lunar mission is futile, based solely on the idea that we have been there and have done that.  This particular argument can only be interpreted that human space missions are only a game to be won or lost one time, and one time only.  Having won the game, one can study science at that location no longer by this immature and incomplete analysis.  With respect to human spaceflight, the "been there, done that" argument is always false, and should be rejected by the voter and the scientific community every time it is brought up.</p><p>The larger issue, no matter one's preferred mission, is the question:  What is the purpose of human space flight?  Today, there is no shared, common sense of what this purpose should be.  Part of this purpose is surely the expansion of human</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Flexible Path option would be an excellent example of a pay-go approach to exploring the inner solar system .
In theory , it could be able to accomodate different missions based on the value of the scientific discoveries as the program progresses , and our evolving technical abilities .
However , the fact that it has no specific goal , opens the Flexible Path to political manipulation which will probably adversely affect its execution .
In other words , it seems to be too flexible to ensure success in its endeavors , given the liklihood of the American political system to tinker with programs as vaguely expressed as the Flexible Path.Although the economy is currently in a trough , an optimistic long term prediction would envision a return to healthy economic growth .
In any case , the cost of a space program must be budgeted and the current costs and benefits of that program must be funded by Congress .
The current situation clearly forces the prioritization of space program missions .
It is crucial that the Flexible Path propose initial missions which are prioritized on cost and time to implement.There are many possible missions which could be encompassed in the Flexible Path , including the visit to Phobos , which is discussed briefly in the linked article .
A cursory examination of that portion of the article , by an interested voter , would reveal at least two fundamental , common sense flaws in the suggestion of this particular mission .
These flaws are fatal in the sense that they prove that this particular mission should have a priority much later than a less ambitious Flexible Path mission of a lunar return mission , to pick but one example.The first flaw is scientific in nature .
While Phobos is a " large , dramatic world " , per the article , the Moon is larger , more dramatic , and much closer .
The terms " large " and " dramatic " are emotionally laden marketing terms and distinctly unscientific reasons to embark on such a mission .
The term " closer " is a scientific fact , readily verified , and intrinsically linked with the cost of either mission .
The second flaw is also scientific .
The article suggests that the " mystery of the origin of Phobos can be resolved " .
If that is indeed true , then a similar lunar mission could resolve , to the same accuracy , the currently unsolved mystery of the Moon 's origin.Other flaws in that particular Phobos mission pertain to the ease of returning samples , the establishment of the initial inventory of water on either Mars or Phobos , the suggestion that material color is a sufficient criteria for collection , the implication that rover operation would be easier there than closer to Earth , and the further implication that a Phobos mission could demonstrate solutions to these problems that other missions could not.These types of arguments will be used to prioritize other Flexible Path missions as well , but they are clearly incomplete and do not seem to pass a simple analysis for ranking on a rational basis .
The major obstacles to such an ambitious mission as a Phobos visit , cost and time , are given short shrift in the article , and seem to exemplify serious problems in the early determination of the Flexible Path itself.In contrast to the Phobos mission , for example , many people argue that any lunar mission is futile , based solely on the idea that we have been there and have done that .
This particular argument can only be interpreted that human space missions are only a game to be won or lost one time , and one time only .
Having won the game , one can study science at that location no longer by this immature and incomplete analysis .
With respect to human spaceflight , the " been there , done that " argument is always false , and should be rejected by the voter and the scientific community every time it is brought up.The larger issue , no matter one 's preferred mission , is the question : What is the purpose of human space flight ?
Today , there is no shared , common sense of what this purpose should be .
Part of this purpose is surely the expansion of human</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Flexible Path option would be an excellent example of a pay-go approach to exploring the inner solar system.
In theory, it could be able to accomodate different missions based on the value of the scientific discoveries as the program progresses, and our evolving technical abilities.
However, the fact that it has no specific goal, opens the Flexible Path to political manipulation which will probably adversely affect its execution.
In other words, it seems to be too flexible to ensure success in its endeavors, given the liklihood of the American political system to tinker with programs as vaguely expressed as the Flexible Path.Although the economy is currently in a trough, an optimistic long term prediction would envision a return to healthy economic growth.
In any case, the cost of a space program must be budgeted and the current costs and benefits of that program must be funded by Congress.
The current situation clearly forces the prioritization of space program missions.
It is crucial that the Flexible Path propose initial missions which are prioritized on cost and time to implement.There are many possible missions which could be encompassed in the Flexible Path, including the visit to Phobos, which is discussed briefly in the linked article.
A cursory examination of that portion of the article, by an interested voter, would reveal at least two fundamental, common sense flaws in the suggestion of this particular mission.
These flaws are fatal in the sense that they prove that this particular mission should have a priority much later than a less ambitious Flexible Path mission of a lunar return mission, to pick but one example.The first flaw is scientific in nature.
While Phobos is a "large, dramatic world", per the article, the Moon is larger, more dramatic, and much closer.
The terms "large" and "dramatic" are emotionally laden marketing terms and distinctly unscientific reasons to embark on such a mission.
The term "closer" is a scientific fact, readily verified, and intrinsically linked with the cost of either mission.
The second flaw is also scientific.
The article suggests that the "mystery of the origin of Phobos can be resolved".
If that is indeed true, then a similar lunar mission could resolve, to the same accuracy, the currently unsolved mystery of the Moon's origin.Other flaws in that particular Phobos mission pertain to the ease of returning samples, the establishment of the initial inventory of water on either Mars or Phobos, the suggestion that material color is a sufficient criteria for collection, the implication that rover operation would be easier there than closer to Earth, and the further implication that a Phobos mission could demonstrate solutions to these problems that other missions could not.These types of arguments will be used to prioritize other Flexible Path missions as well, but they are clearly incomplete and do not seem to pass a simple analysis for ranking on a rational basis.
The major obstacles to such an ambitious mission as a Phobos visit, cost and time, are given short shrift in the article, and seem to exemplify serious problems in the early determination of the Flexible Path itself.In contrast to the Phobos mission, for example, many people argue that any lunar mission is futile, based solely on the idea that we have been there and have done that.
This particular argument can only be interpreted that human space missions are only a game to be won or lost one time, and one time only.
Having won the game, one can study science at that location no longer by this immature and incomplete analysis.
With respect to human spaceflight, the "been there, done that" argument is always false, and should be rejected by the voter and the scientific community every time it is brought up.The larger issue, no matter one's preferred mission, is the question:  What is the purpose of human space flight?
Today, there is no shared, common sense of what this purpose should be.
Part of this purpose is surely the expansion of human</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889126</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264431300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, no.  The Bush plan was underfunded and overplanned.  Ares has proven to be a colossal money sink, using a contracting method that has been incapable of creating an actual working vehicle since the space shuttle, and kept alive by political considerations rather than practical reasons.</p><p>The flexible path provides new and early 'Firsts' that can be accomplished much more cheaply and fits better within expected budgets.  It moves to take NASA out of the LEO ferry game, and keep it doing what it does best -- Exploration.   The mission steps outlined by the Augustine commission were designed specifically to deal with the always changing political goalposts.  The flexibility means that if funding changes our the target changes its not a cessation of an entire program, just some relatively minor revisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , no .
The Bush plan was underfunded and overplanned .
Ares has proven to be a colossal money sink , using a contracting method that has been incapable of creating an actual working vehicle since the space shuttle , and kept alive by political considerations rather than practical reasons.The flexible path provides new and early 'Firsts ' that can be accomplished much more cheaply and fits better within expected budgets .
It moves to take NASA out of the LEO ferry game , and keep it doing what it does best -- Exploration .
The mission steps outlined by the Augustine commission were designed specifically to deal with the always changing political goalposts .
The flexibility means that if funding changes our the target changes its not a cessation of an entire program , just some relatively minor revisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, no.
The Bush plan was underfunded and overplanned.
Ares has proven to be a colossal money sink, using a contracting method that has been incapable of creating an actual working vehicle since the space shuttle, and kept alive by political considerations rather than practical reasons.The flexible path provides new and early 'Firsts' that can be accomplished much more cheaply and fits better within expected budgets.
It moves to take NASA out of the LEO ferry game, and keep it doing what it does best -- Exploration.
The mission steps outlined by the Augustine commission were designed specifically to deal with the always changing political goalposts.
The flexibility means that if funding changes our the target changes its not a cessation of an entire program, just some relatively minor revisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30901260</id>
	<title>Well it's back to...</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1264538520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back to the drawing board for poor old <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YcA7FzSgIQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow"> <b> Mrs Gupta!  </b> </a> [youtube.com] <br>
 <br>
And of course, her faithful water-buffalo "Steve".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back to the drawing board for poor old Mrs Gupta !
[ youtube.com ] And of course , her faithful water-buffalo " Steve " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back to the drawing board for poor old   Mrs Gupta!
[youtube.com] 
 
And of course, her faithful water-buffalo "Steve".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890008</id>
	<title>Experience bullshit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264434960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA needs to grow some balls and stop wasting the budget on gaining "experience"... We've spent the last 30 years in earth orbit pissing around with small scale experiments, sending robots to mars and other planets. We know enough to have a go at engineering a solution. Surely there would be plenty of astronauts willing to take the risk rather than waiting 30 years and watching NASA blow the budget on a "flexible plan".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA needs to grow some balls and stop wasting the budget on gaining " experience " ... We 've spent the last 30 years in earth orbit pissing around with small scale experiments , sending robots to mars and other planets .
We know enough to have a go at engineering a solution .
Surely there would be plenty of astronauts willing to take the risk rather than waiting 30 years and watching NASA blow the budget on a " flexible plan " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA needs to grow some balls and stop wasting the budget on gaining "experience"... We've spent the last 30 years in earth orbit pissing around with small scale experiments, sending robots to mars and other planets.
We know enough to have a go at engineering a solution.
Surely there would be plenty of astronauts willing to take the risk rather than waiting 30 years and watching NASA blow the budget on a "flexible plan".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889262</id>
	<title>Re:They have no Idea</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264432020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity, then the asteroids may be our best bet.</p></div><p>If the rotation rate is low, then centripetal acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity at the human scale except for subtle effects (like things not falling straight down or a slight decline in acceleration with height). We have done experiments with people in long term rotating systems and below 1 revolution per minute there's no obvious effect (no nausea, etc). Even in faster rotating systems, people tend to adapt rather quickly. I believe current thought is that even 10 revolutions per minute should be adaptable, if the person doesn't move much (say as in a bed on the side of a rotating cylinder). So you can generate 1 gee of acceleration with roughly 9 meter radius at 10 revolutions per minute and 900 meter radius at 1 revolution per minute.<br> <br>

The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity , then the asteroids may be our best bet.If the rotation rate is low , then centripetal acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity at the human scale except for subtle effects ( like things not falling straight down or a slight decline in acceleration with height ) .
We have done experiments with people in long term rotating systems and below 1 revolution per minute there 's no obvious effect ( no nausea , etc ) .
Even in faster rotating systems , people tend to adapt rather quickly .
I believe current thought is that even 10 revolutions per minute should be adaptable , if the person does n't move much ( say as in a bed on the side of a rotating cylinder ) .
So you can generate 1 gee of acceleration with roughly 9 meter radius at 10 revolutions per minute and 900 meter radius at 1 revolution per minute .
The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity, then the asteroids may be our best bet.If the rotation rate is low, then centripetal acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity at the human scale except for subtle effects (like things not falling straight down or a slight decline in acceleration with height).
We have done experiments with people in long term rotating systems and below 1 revolution per minute there's no obvious effect (no nausea, etc).
Even in faster rotating systems, people tend to adapt rather quickly.
I believe current thought is that even 10 revolutions per minute should be adaptable, if the person doesn't move much (say as in a bed on the side of a rotating cylinder).
So you can generate 1 gee of acceleration with roughly 9 meter radius at 10 revolutions per minute and 900 meter radius at 1 revolution per minute.
The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887966</id>
	<title>Sounds Great but...</title>
	<author>AllyGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1264419720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need to settle on a plan and stick to it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to settle on a plan and stick to it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to settle on a plan and stick to it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888538</id>
	<title>They do, and immediately reject it</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1264426620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't mind going back to the Stone Age while we divert all the earth's engineering and energy resources for a decade or so, feel free to assemble enough like minded people to put it to an electorate that screams when oil goes to $4/US gallon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't mind going back to the Stone Age while we divert all the earth 's engineering and energy resources for a decade or so , feel free to assemble enough like minded people to put it to an electorate that screams when oil goes to $ 4/US gallon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't mind going back to the Stone Age while we divert all the earth's engineering and energy resources for a decade or so, feel free to assemble enough like minded people to put it to an electorate that screams when oil goes to $4/US gallon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888514</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>BodhiCat</author>
	<datestamp>1264426320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>um yea, i think Auther C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrik has that idea in um, 1968.</htmltext>
<tokenext>um yea , i think Auther C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrik has that idea in um , 1968 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um yea, i think Auther C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrik has that idea in um, 1968.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888184</id>
	<title>Orbiting Fuel Depots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time.  Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes!  Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orbiting Fuel Depots , 'bout time .
Use of the LaGrange points , asteroids , yes !
Scifi has known this for years , 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time.
Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes!
Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842</id>
	<title>You're kidding.</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1264418340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are asteroids hitting earth such a high probability we need to protect ourselves? Won't this be an unnecessary drain on taxpayers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are asteroids hitting earth such a high probability we need to protect ourselves ?
Wo n't this be an unnecessary drain on taxpayers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are asteroids hitting earth such a high probability we need to protect ourselves?
Won't this be an unnecessary drain on taxpayers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888678</id>
	<title>NASA will never get to Mars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264428000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they keep getting "rebooted" every 10 years</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they keep getting " rebooted " every 10 years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they keep getting "rebooted" every 10 years</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892614</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264443720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reusable is certainly a better idea in space but that's why we have the ISS.<br>smaller craft with the updated technology is the future. I think what's more likely is a simple reusable shell or a pod<br>which has the habitat for a human(s) - cryo-chamber/toilet/exercise bike/ communications/control room. It could be designed so that it has a template<br>of connection and all modules connected to it would connect in the same way. The old engines/hydroponic/recycling system/computers/comm. systems could easily be removed and updated with new ones. I see it as being very modular.</p><p>What I hope is NASA, and the others (government and private) all work to some international standards convention.<br>I do think it should be very modular allowing reuse of existing adults for efficiency and to conserve resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reusable is certainly a better idea in space but that 's why we have the ISS.smaller craft with the updated technology is the future .
I think what 's more likely is a simple reusable shell or a podwhich has the habitat for a human ( s ) - cryo-chamber/toilet/exercise bike/ communications/control room .
It could be designed so that it has a templateof connection and all modules connected to it would connect in the same way .
The old engines/hydroponic/recycling system/computers/comm .
systems could easily be removed and updated with new ones .
I see it as being very modular.What I hope is NASA , and the others ( government and private ) all work to some international standards convention.I do think it should be very modular allowing reuse of existing adults for efficiency and to conserve resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reusable is certainly a better idea in space but that's why we have the ISS.smaller craft with the updated technology is the future.
I think what's more likely is a simple reusable shell or a podwhich has the habitat for a human(s) - cryo-chamber/toilet/exercise bike/ communications/control room.
It could be designed so that it has a templateof connection and all modules connected to it would connect in the same way.
The old engines/hydroponic/recycling system/computers/comm.
systems could easily be removed and updated with new ones.
I see it as being very modular.What I hope is NASA, and the others (government and private) all work to some international standards convention.I do think it should be very modular allowing reuse of existing adults for efficiency and to conserve resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888136</id>
	<title>translation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We have no money. We know it sucks, but it's the economy. Sorry folks! Maybe private enterprise will get us there sooner!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We have no money .
We know it sucks , but it 's the economy .
Sorry folks !
Maybe private enterprise will get us there sooner !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We have no money.
We know it sucks, but it's the economy.
Sorry folks!
Maybe private enterprise will get us there sooner!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30900832</id>
	<title>Re:They have no Idea</title>
	<author>Torino10</author>
	<datestamp>1264446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans.</p></div><p>Which is why I'm upset that the CAM was never flown to the ISS, it was specifically designed to do research of that nature among other things, unfortunately it is sitting in a parking lot in Japan.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge\_Accommodations\_Module" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge\_Accommodations\_Module</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>We need to know exactly where and what it will take to establish off world colonies now, even if it will take decades to actually establish them, in order to know where manned space exploration should concentrate it's energies. I'm pretty sure a rotating space station with a radius of 150 to 200 meters will be sufficient as it will have a rotation of around 2 to 3 rpm , but centripetal acceleration is not gravity and there is the possibility that even mild Coriolis effects could have drastic implications on fetal development.</p><p>I seriously doubt that the 1/3 gravity will be enough to allow people to have children.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans.Which is why I 'm upset that the CAM was never flown to the ISS , it was specifically designed to do research of that nature among other things , unfortunately it is sitting in a parking lot in Japan.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge \ _Accommodations \ _Module [ wikipedia.org ] We need to know exactly where and what it will take to establish off world colonies now , even if it will take decades to actually establish them , in order to know where manned space exploration should concentrate it 's energies .
I 'm pretty sure a rotating space station with a radius of 150 to 200 meters will be sufficient as it will have a rotation of around 2 to 3 rpm , but centripetal acceleration is not gravity and there is the possibility that even mild Coriolis effects could have drastic implications on fetal development.I seriously doubt that the 1/3 gravity will be enough to allow people to have children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans.Which is why I'm upset that the CAM was never flown to the ISS, it was specifically designed to do research of that nature among other things, unfortunately it is sitting in a parking lot in Japan.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge\_Accommodations\_Module [wikipedia.org]We need to know exactly where and what it will take to establish off world colonies now, even if it will take decades to actually establish them, in order to know where manned space exploration should concentrate it's energies.
I'm pretty sure a rotating space station with a radius of 150 to 200 meters will be sufficient as it will have a rotation of around 2 to 3 rpm , but centripetal acceleration is not gravity and there is the possibility that even mild Coriolis effects could have drastic implications on fetal development.I seriously doubt that the 1/3 gravity will be enough to allow people to have children.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890210</id>
	<title>Re:They have no Idea</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1264435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a somewhat related topic I just finished Planetes, which I highly recommend.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Its suppose to be hard SciFi for the most part, but one thing that I've always wondered about and I can't really find anything about it is human growth in low gravity.  One of the secondary characters was born on the moon, and she was 12y/o and was I guess about 6' tall.  I was wondering if there was any truth to that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a somewhat related topic I just finished Planetes , which I highly recommend .
  Its suppose to be hard SciFi for the most part , but one thing that I 've always wondered about and I ca n't really find anything about it is human growth in low gravity .
One of the secondary characters was born on the moon , and she was 12y/o and was I guess about 6 ' tall .
I was wondering if there was any truth to that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a somewhat related topic I just finished Planetes, which I highly recommend.
  Its suppose to be hard SciFi for the most part, but one thing that I've always wondered about and I can't really find anything about it is human growth in low gravity.
One of the secondary characters was born on the moon, and she was 12y/o and was I guess about 6' tall.
I was wondering if there was any truth to that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890962</id>
	<title>Re:You're kidding.</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1264438440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But to me, it seems fear driven. I wish I could find this quote from many years back. But, I think it was regarding communism, terrorism, then asteroid impacts.</p><p>Someone mentioned $1 billion per year. Well, let's see if that jumps multiple times-fold in the coming years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But to me , it seems fear driven .
I wish I could find this quote from many years back .
But , I think it was regarding communism , terrorism , then asteroid impacts.Someone mentioned $ 1 billion per year .
Well , let 's see if that jumps multiple times-fold in the coming years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But to me, it seems fear driven.
I wish I could find this quote from many years back.
But, I think it was regarding communism, terrorism, then asteroid impacts.Someone mentioned $1 billion per year.
Well, let's see if that jumps multiple times-fold in the coming years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888266</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1264423620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if it gets "rebooted" very 4/8 years by new president/administration</p></div><p>Yes, it seems to be a shell game. Making an "exciting new announcement" every couple of years creates the illusion of things happening without ever producing any tangible results. I've pretty well lost faith in the proposition that we're going to be going anywhere in my lifetime again. John Derbyshire wrote an <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjY2ZmY2OWQzMDEyNDFkZjdlZDJiYzdkNjIxYzg2YzE=" title="nationalreview.com" rel="nofollow">insightful article</a> [nationalreview.com] detailing a number of reasons why. I think he's hit it on the head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if it gets " rebooted " very 4/8 years by new president/administrationYes , it seems to be a shell game .
Making an " exciting new announcement " every couple of years creates the illusion of things happening without ever producing any tangible results .
I 've pretty well lost faith in the proposition that we 're going to be going anywhere in my lifetime again .
John Derbyshire wrote an insightful article [ nationalreview.com ] detailing a number of reasons why .
I think he 's hit it on the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it gets "rebooted" very 4/8 years by new president/administrationYes, it seems to be a shell game.
Making an "exciting new announcement" every couple of years creates the illusion of things happening without ever producing any tangible results.
I've pretty well lost faith in the proposition that we're going to be going anywhere in my lifetime again.
John Derbyshire wrote an insightful article [nationalreview.com] detailing a number of reasons why.
I think he's hit it on the head.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888620</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264427340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and i wish ppl would stop calling it defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and i wish ppl would stop calling it defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and i wish ppl would stop calling it defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816</id>
	<title>Going Nowhere</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1264417920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA is going nowhere unless the gov't stops the loss of our prosperity overseas.  Yes, I mean outsourcing.  Good manufacturing jobs get replaced with crap-wages retail jobs so more and more people live near the poverty line.  You can't tax people like that to pay for sky adventures by NASA, and there's fewer and fewer rich people to tax, too.  Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money, and that'll be that for a whale of a lot of things, with things like NASA getting the axe first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is going nowhere unless the gov't stops the loss of our prosperity overseas .
Yes , I mean outsourcing .
Good manufacturing jobs get replaced with crap-wages retail jobs so more and more people live near the poverty line .
You ca n't tax people like that to pay for sky adventures by NASA , and there 's fewer and fewer rich people to tax , too .
Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money , and that 'll be that for a whale of a lot of things , with things like NASA getting the axe first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is going nowhere unless the gov't stops the loss of our prosperity overseas.
Yes, I mean outsourcing.
Good manufacturing jobs get replaced with crap-wages retail jobs so more and more people live near the poverty line.
You can't tax people like that to pay for sky adventures by NASA, and there's fewer and fewer rich people to tax, too.
Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money, and that'll be that for a whale of a lot of things, with things like NASA getting the axe first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890574</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1264437060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, a Bush plan has turned out to be non-workable and only resulted in gov't money being sent to contractors. Say it ain't so!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , a Bush plan has turned out to be non-workable and only resulted in gov't money being sent to contractors .
Say it ai n't so !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, a Bush plan has turned out to be non-workable and only resulted in gov't money being sent to contractors.
Say it ain't so!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888432</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1264425300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you can't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years?</p><p>Come on, this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969...</p><p>[/sarcasm]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you ca n't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years ? Come on , this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969... [ /sarcasm ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you can't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years?Come on, this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969...[/sarcasm]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888950</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>OldBus</author>
	<datestamp>1264430160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know they never consider it?  I've not heard anything specific from NASA, but they do seem to have plenty of people who do dream up long terms plans and ideas.  Don't forget that most of the people there read/watched science fiction just like we did and many of them were inspired to take up their careers at NASA because of it (see various bios on the NASA sire if you don't believe me).
</p><p>
The problem comes in turning those blue-sky ideas into reality.  There is no 'just' when it comes to space.  Whenever you find yourself asking, "Why can't they just..." it is almost always for a good reason.  A mothership's a great idea, but how do you build one.  You've got to get the parts into space.  Are you going to test the nuclear propulsion?  How long will this project last and will Congress give you the funds?  These are the sort of real questions that need to be answered and have scuppered programmes before now (and look likely to scupper NASA's current plans - which are less ambitious than the mothership idea).
</p><p>
The way I look at things, I ask are they likely to cost a lot more than what is happening now.  To do this, you need to assume there will be no miracle leap in technology in the short-medium term.  For example, if raising parts to space cheaply relies on a space elevator, then rule out the short-medium term.  Obviously, we have ideas that one could be built, but technological breakthroughs need to happen to make it a reality.  While this is possible (and even likely, I hope), don't assume that we will have a functioning elevator within 20 years.
</p><p>
So, using only slight advances in current tech, could we build a mothership for approximately the same as what the ISS cost?  I don't believe so - it would clearly need to be bigger and would involve research and testing in propulsion systems.  Given that the US, Russia, ESA, Canada and Japan are struggling to find the cash to keep the ISS up beyond 2015 (when most of it is already built) who is going to fund and build the mothership?
</p><p>
Sorry to sound so negative, but I get fed up with all the unrealistic ideas and whining about NASA on Slashdot.  Being a Brit with a government that does no funding of a manned space programme at all, I think they do a fantastic job given the resources they have to work with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know they never consider it ?
I 've not heard anything specific from NASA , but they do seem to have plenty of people who do dream up long terms plans and ideas .
Do n't forget that most of the people there read/watched science fiction just like we did and many of them were inspired to take up their careers at NASA because of it ( see various bios on the NASA sire if you do n't believe me ) .
The problem comes in turning those blue-sky ideas into reality .
There is no 'just ' when it comes to space .
Whenever you find yourself asking , " Why ca n't they just... " it is almost always for a good reason .
A mothership 's a great idea , but how do you build one .
You 've got to get the parts into space .
Are you going to test the nuclear propulsion ?
How long will this project last and will Congress give you the funds ?
These are the sort of real questions that need to be answered and have scuppered programmes before now ( and look likely to scupper NASA 's current plans - which are less ambitious than the mothership idea ) .
The way I look at things , I ask are they likely to cost a lot more than what is happening now .
To do this , you need to assume there will be no miracle leap in technology in the short-medium term .
For example , if raising parts to space cheaply relies on a space elevator , then rule out the short-medium term .
Obviously , we have ideas that one could be built , but technological breakthroughs need to happen to make it a reality .
While this is possible ( and even likely , I hope ) , do n't assume that we will have a functioning elevator within 20 years .
So , using only slight advances in current tech , could we build a mothership for approximately the same as what the ISS cost ?
I do n't believe so - it would clearly need to be bigger and would involve research and testing in propulsion systems .
Given that the US , Russia , ESA , Canada and Japan are struggling to find the cash to keep the ISS up beyond 2015 ( when most of it is already built ) who is going to fund and build the mothership ?
Sorry to sound so negative , but I get fed up with all the unrealistic ideas and whining about NASA on Slashdot .
Being a Brit with a government that does no funding of a manned space programme at all , I think they do a fantastic job given the resources they have to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know they never consider it?
I've not heard anything specific from NASA, but they do seem to have plenty of people who do dream up long terms plans and ideas.
Don't forget that most of the people there read/watched science fiction just like we did and many of them were inspired to take up their careers at NASA because of it (see various bios on the NASA sire if you don't believe me).
The problem comes in turning those blue-sky ideas into reality.
There is no 'just' when it comes to space.
Whenever you find yourself asking, "Why can't they just..." it is almost always for a good reason.
A mothership's a great idea, but how do you build one.
You've got to get the parts into space.
Are you going to test the nuclear propulsion?
How long will this project last and will Congress give you the funds?
These are the sort of real questions that need to be answered and have scuppered programmes before now (and look likely to scupper NASA's current plans - which are less ambitious than the mothership idea).
The way I look at things, I ask are they likely to cost a lot more than what is happening now.
To do this, you need to assume there will be no miracle leap in technology in the short-medium term.
For example, if raising parts to space cheaply relies on a space elevator, then rule out the short-medium term.
Obviously, we have ideas that one could be built, but technological breakthroughs need to happen to make it a reality.
While this is possible (and even likely, I hope), don't assume that we will have a functioning elevator within 20 years.
So, using only slight advances in current tech, could we build a mothership for approximately the same as what the ISS cost?
I don't believe so - it would clearly need to be bigger and would involve research and testing in propulsion systems.
Given that the US, Russia, ESA, Canada and Japan are struggling to find the cash to keep the ISS up beyond 2015 (when most of it is already built) who is going to fund and build the mothership?
Sorry to sound so negative, but I get fed up with all the unrealistic ideas and whining about NASA on Slashdot.
Being a Brit with a government that does no funding of a manned space programme at all, I think they do a fantastic job given the resources they have to work with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888280</id>
	<title>You forgot to mention...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264423860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pissing away dollars chasing unfounded "scientific" claims about global warming.  Another inconvenient truth for the Church of Gaia: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pissing away dollars chasing unfounded " scientific " claims about global warming .
Another inconvenient truth for the Church of Gaia : http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html [ dailymail.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pissing away dollars chasing unfounded "scientific" claims about global warming.
Another inconvenient truth for the Church of Gaia: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html [dailymail.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892690</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Next stupid question?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264444020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is, I imagine, around $1 billion per annum. The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that. Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance, on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation, and it makes a lot of sense.</b></p><p>FYI, the estimated annual cost for finding 90\% of near-Earth asteroids more than 140m in diameter is expected to be at least $50 million; currently only $4 million a year is spent on this. Here's a recent summary of the situation:</p><p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=new-report-warns-against-smaller-ne-2010-01-22" title="scientificamerican.com">http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=new-report-warns-against-smaller-ne-2010-01-22</a> [scientificamerican.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The bad news in the report from the National Research Council is that the $4 million in annual funding that several major NEO detection programs receive is nowhere near enough to meet a 2020 deadline set by Congress in 2005 for scientists to find 90 percent of near-Earth objects greater than 140-meters in diameter--space rocks of this size are likely to cause regional, rather than global, damage, though global damage is still possible. The mandate has yet to receive any funding. One of these regional-threat objects strikes Earth on average every 30,000 years, the report states.</p><p>Even $10 million in annual funds "would not allow completion on any time scale" of the Congressionally mandated survey of the threats, according to the report. Meeting Congress's goal would take at least $50 million in annual funding; even better would be $250 million in annual funding, with the latter allowing for completion of the survey and support for a space mission to test a mitigation plan.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is , I imagine , around $ 1 billion per annum .
The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that .
Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance , on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation , and it makes a lot of sense.FYI , the estimated annual cost for finding 90 \ % of near-Earth asteroids more than 140m in diameter is expected to be at least $ 50 million ; currently only $ 4 million a year is spent on this .
Here 's a recent summary of the situation : http : //www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm ? id = new-report-warns-against-smaller-ne-2010-01-22 [ scientificamerican.com ] The bad news in the report from the National Research Council is that the $ 4 million in annual funding that several major NEO detection programs receive is nowhere near enough to meet a 2020 deadline set by Congress in 2005 for scientists to find 90 percent of near-Earth objects greater than 140-meters in diameter--space rocks of this size are likely to cause regional , rather than global , damage , though global damage is still possible .
The mandate has yet to receive any funding .
One of these regional-threat objects strikes Earth on average every 30,000 years , the report states.Even $ 10 million in annual funds " would not allow completion on any time scale " of the Congressionally mandated survey of the threats , according to the report .
Meeting Congress 's goal would take at least $ 50 million in annual funding ; even better would be $ 250 million in annual funding , with the latter allowing for completion of the survey and support for a space mission to test a mitigation plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is, I imagine, around $1 billion per annum.
The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that.
Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance, on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation, and it makes a lot of sense.FYI, the estimated annual cost for finding 90\% of near-Earth asteroids more than 140m in diameter is expected to be at least $50 million; currently only $4 million a year is spent on this.
Here's a recent summary of the situation:http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=new-report-warns-against-smaller-ne-2010-01-22 [scientificamerican.com] The bad news in the report from the National Research Council is that the $4 million in annual funding that several major NEO detection programs receive is nowhere near enough to meet a 2020 deadline set by Congress in 2005 for scientists to find 90 percent of near-Earth objects greater than 140-meters in diameter--space rocks of this size are likely to cause regional, rather than global, damage, though global damage is still possible.
The mandate has yet to receive any funding.
One of these regional-threat objects strikes Earth on average every 30,000 years, the report states.Even $10 million in annual funds "would not allow completion on any time scale" of the Congressionally mandated survey of the threats, according to the report.
Meeting Congress's goal would take at least $50 million in annual funding; even better would be $250 million in annual funding, with the latter allowing for completion of the survey and support for a space mission to test a mitigation plan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890754</id>
	<title>Re:Reading Between the Lines</title>
	<author>Domint</author>
	<datestamp>1264437660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>. . . in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing, such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and can't pay its bills . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</i> <br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>

The money allocated to NASA from the 2009 Federal Budget was 0.55\%. Saying that NASA is the source of our financial woes (or that its complete dismantling will do anything to correct them) is like arguing that the reason a person is going bankrupt is due to the 1$ they give to the Salvation Army bell ringer every Christmas. It's a retarded argument, and one that really needs to stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing , such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and ca n't pay its bills .
. .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA \ _Budget [ wikipedia.org ] The money allocated to NASA from the 2009 Federal Budget was 0.55 \ % .
Saying that NASA is the source of our financial woes ( or that its complete dismantling will do anything to correct them ) is like arguing that the reason a person is going bankrupt is due to the 1 $ they give to the Salvation Army bell ringer every Christmas .
It 's a retarded argument , and one that really needs to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing, such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and can't pay its bills .
. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget [wikipedia.org] 

The money allocated to NASA from the 2009 Federal Budget was 0.55\%.
Saying that NASA is the source of our financial woes (or that its complete dismantling will do anything to correct them) is like arguing that the reason a person is going bankrupt is due to the 1$ they give to the Salvation Army bell ringer every Christmas.
It's a retarded argument, and one that really needs to stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891802</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1264441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, pretty cool stuff.  Where can I read more?  Google got me to one blog, but it might as well be yours?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , pretty cool stuff .
Where can I read more ?
Google got me to one blog , but it might as well be yours ?
: &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, pretty cool stuff.
Where can I read more?
Google got me to one blog, but it might as well be yours?
:&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888606</id>
	<title>Reading Between the Lines</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1264427160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>tells me this: "We're not going to Mars".
<p>
 This is a bureaucratic method of killing the overall project of a Mars mission. What happens is each sub project runs into "unexpected delays and expenses" that make it impossible to complete the sub project, or delay it so that it splits up the co-ordination with the other projects for a Mars Mission. Apologists will take up the side of NASA, and they should, but in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing, such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and can't pay its bills, and (according to the <a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil\_Peaking\_NETL.pdf" title="doe.gov">Hirsch Report from the DoE</a> [doe.gov]) the USA needs to spend 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars converting itself to a non-fossil fuel culture if it hopes to maintain a technical civilisation at all.
</p><p>
In short: good luck with this new plan - cool if it works out - but it has "Cover My Ass" and "Plausible Deniability for Mission Failure" written all over it.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tells me this : " We 're not going to Mars " .
This is a bureaucratic method of killing the overall project of a Mars mission .
What happens is each sub project runs into " unexpected delays and expenses " that make it impossible to complete the sub project , or delay it so that it splits up the co-ordination with the other projects for a Mars Mission .
Apologists will take up the side of NASA , and they should , but in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing , such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and ca n't pay its bills , and ( according to the Hirsch Report from the DoE [ doe.gov ] ) the USA needs to spend 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars converting itself to a non-fossil fuel culture if it hopes to maintain a technical civilisation at all .
In short : good luck with this new plan - cool if it works out - but it has " Cover My Ass " and " Plausible Deniability for Mission Failure " written all over it .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tells me this: "We're not going to Mars".
This is a bureaucratic method of killing the overall project of a Mars mission.
What happens is each sub project runs into "unexpected delays and expenses" that make it impossible to complete the sub project, or delay it so that it splits up the co-ordination with the other projects for a Mars Mission.
Apologists will take up the side of NASA, and they should, but in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing, such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and can't pay its bills, and (according to the Hirsch Report from the DoE [doe.gov]) the USA needs to spend 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars converting itself to a non-fossil fuel culture if it hopes to maintain a technical civilisation at all.
In short: good luck with this new plan - cool if it works out - but it has "Cover My Ass" and "Plausible Deniability for Mission Failure" written all over it.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889342</id>
	<title>Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264432500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support space travel, but this makes no sense. What's the limiting factor on supporting people on Earth?</p><p>If it's land (either to live on, or to grow food), you're still better off colonising deserts or Antartica, than other planets. If it's resources like oil, I'm not sure what good other planets will do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support space travel , but this makes no sense .
What 's the limiting factor on supporting people on Earth ? If it 's land ( either to live on , or to grow food ) , you 're still better off colonising deserts or Antartica , than other planets .
If it 's resources like oil , I 'm not sure what good other planets will do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support space travel, but this makes no sense.
What's the limiting factor on supporting people on Earth?If it's land (either to live on, or to grow food), you're still better off colonising deserts or Antartica, than other planets.
If it's resources like oil, I'm not sure what good other planets will do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889032</id>
	<title>Re:You're kidding.</title>
	<author>Mattskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1264430700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're certainly a bigger threat than terrorism, if that's what you mean. Imagine the Tunguska object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska\_Event) had entered the atmosphere a few hours later over a city, say Paris or London. Within seconds it would have killed orders of magnitude more people than terrorism ever has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're certainly a bigger threat than terrorism , if that 's what you mean .
Imagine the Tunguska object ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska \ _Event ) had entered the atmosphere a few hours later over a city , say Paris or London .
Within seconds it would have killed orders of magnitude more people than terrorism ever has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're certainly a bigger threat than terrorism, if that's what you mean.
Imagine the Tunguska object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska\_Event) had entered the atmosphere a few hours later over a city, say Paris or London.
Within seconds it would have killed orders of magnitude more people than terrorism ever has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30937748</id>
	<title>Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time. Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes! Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.</p></div></blockquote><p>This. Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel. Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups).</p></div></blockquote><p>Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea?  No?  Well, that's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that's only useful for those in the near vicinity.  The other 99.9999999\% of us are fucked because now we have to pay someone to ship the fuel from Maine to wherever we happen to be.</p></div><p>Your analogy doesn't hold, to anything in LEO and possibly up to GEO the single fuel depot would be in the "near vicinity".  This is because it doesn't take that much fuel, relative to either launching from Earth or interplanetary travel, to change your orbit around Earth.  Also, using either currently existing or foreseeable near-term technology any vehicle with a payload significantly larger than current robotic probes will have to stop in some sort of Earth orbit before it can go anywhere else.  Now I'm not saying there couldn't or shouldn't eventually be more than one orbital fuel depot, but your argument is fundamentally flawed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orbiting Fuel Depots , 'bout time .
Use of the LaGrange points , asteroids , yes !
Scifi has known this for years , 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.This .
Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions ( particularly those beyond Earth orbit ) is fuel .
Fuel itself is cheap , and nobody cares if you lose it , so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is ( making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups ) .Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea ?
No ? Well , that 's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that 's only useful for those in the near vicinity .
The other 99.9999999 \ % of us are fucked because now we have to pay someone to ship the fuel from Maine to wherever we happen to be.Your analogy does n't hold , to anything in LEO and possibly up to GEO the single fuel depot would be in the " near vicinity " .
This is because it does n't take that much fuel , relative to either launching from Earth or interplanetary travel , to change your orbit around Earth .
Also , using either currently existing or foreseeable near-term technology any vehicle with a payload significantly larger than current robotic probes will have to stop in some sort of Earth orbit before it can go anywhere else .
Now I 'm not saying there could n't or should n't eventually be more than one orbital fuel depot , but your argument is fundamentally flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time.
Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes!
Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.This.
Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel.
Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups).Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea?
No?  Well, that's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that's only useful for those in the near vicinity.
The other 99.9999999\% of us are fucked because now we have to pay someone to ship the fuel from Maine to wherever we happen to be.Your analogy doesn't hold, to anything in LEO and possibly up to GEO the single fuel depot would be in the "near vicinity".
This is because it doesn't take that much fuel, relative to either launching from Earth or interplanetary travel, to change your orbit around Earth.
Also, using either currently existing or foreseeable near-term technology any vehicle with a payload significantly larger than current robotic probes will have to stop in some sort of Earth orbit before it can go anywhere else.
Now I'm not saying there couldn't or shouldn't eventually be more than one orbital fuel depot, but your argument is fundamentally flawed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888530</id>
	<title>Re:You're kidding.</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1264426560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Won't this be an unnecessary drain on taxpayers?</b>
<p>.</p><p>
It never ceases to amaze me how often this objection is raised. The original drive to the moon in the 1960's is one of the very few examples of a government program that WORKED, and that paid for itself many times over. This point has been raised many times over as well: a quick Google search, in fact, led to this comment from September of 2007 right here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.:
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=297045&amp;cid=20594993" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">...from a poster named "Tausin," with plenty of links to prove the point.</a> [slashdot.org]
</p><p>
Besides, even if it did cost, why not invest in the future in the most tangible way? Rather that sitting on this planet whining about resources running out, why not go "out there" and FIND MORE? Rather than worrying about overpopulation, why not go find some more real estate??? Man, even if we never make it to Mars, putting viable colony/way stations at the Lagrange points would be cooler than liquid helium.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
It's time for us to stop whining and tightening our belts and worrying about the future. It's time to start MAKING IT.
</p><p>
As for a change of administrations killing this new initiative, it won't happen if the people get behind it. That's a simple sales job. And to quote Jerry Pournelle, one great way to start is just to ask everyone to go outside tonight and look up at the stars for a while.
</p><p>
Just look at them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't this be an unnecessary drain on taxpayers ?
. It never ceases to amaze me how often this objection is raised .
The original drive to the moon in the 1960 's is one of the very few examples of a government program that WORKED , and that paid for itself many times over .
This point has been raised many times over as well : a quick Google search , in fact , led to this comment from September of 2007 right here on / .
: ...from a poster named " Tausin , " with plenty of links to prove the point .
[ slashdot.org ] Besides , even if it did cost , why not invest in the future in the most tangible way ?
Rather that sitting on this planet whining about resources running out , why not go " out there " and FIND MORE ?
Rather than worrying about overpopulation , why not go find some more real estate ? ? ?
Man , even if we never make it to Mars , putting viable colony/way stations at the Lagrange points would be cooler than liquid helium .
: ) It 's time for us to stop whining and tightening our belts and worrying about the future .
It 's time to start MAKING IT .
As for a change of administrations killing this new initiative , it wo n't happen if the people get behind it .
That 's a simple sales job .
And to quote Jerry Pournelle , one great way to start is just to ask everyone to go outside tonight and look up at the stars for a while .
Just look at them .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't this be an unnecessary drain on taxpayers?
.
It never ceases to amaze me how often this objection is raised.
The original drive to the moon in the 1960's is one of the very few examples of a government program that WORKED, and that paid for itself many times over.
This point has been raised many times over as well: a quick Google search, in fact, led to this comment from September of 2007 right here on /.
:
 ...from a poster named "Tausin," with plenty of links to prove the point.
[slashdot.org]

Besides, even if it did cost, why not invest in the future in the most tangible way?
Rather that sitting on this planet whining about resources running out, why not go "out there" and FIND MORE?
Rather than worrying about overpopulation, why not go find some more real estate???
Man, even if we never make it to Mars, putting viable colony/way stations at the Lagrange points would be cooler than liquid helium.
:)

It's time for us to stop whining and tightening our belts and worrying about the future.
It's time to start MAKING IT.
As for a change of administrations killing this new initiative, it won't happen if the people get behind it.
That's a simple sales job.
And to quote Jerry Pournelle, one great way to start is just to ask everyone to go outside tonight and look up at the stars for a while.
Just look at them.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889022</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1264430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlikely.  The Chinese buy US T-bills because they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/have to/, to maintain their dollar-yuan peg which helps keep their currency low, and their squillions of workers employed.  They're doing this to contain unrest and prop up their odious totalitarian regime.  As always with the Chinese, this is COMPLETELY about naked Chinese self-interest, or rather, the naked self-interest of the Chinese government.</p><p>As an aside, the US could play some financial games to make life REALLY hard for the Chinese government. Perhaps our friends in Beijing needs a timely little reminder of who's the superpower -- and who's the wannabe middle-power...</p><p>Remember, US overconsumption is funded by the Chinese government forcing their own people to be underpaid in sweatshops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlikely .
The Chinese buy US T-bills because they /have to/ , to maintain their dollar-yuan peg which helps keep their currency low , and their squillions of workers employed .
They 're doing this to contain unrest and prop up their odious totalitarian regime .
As always with the Chinese , this is COMPLETELY about naked Chinese self-interest , or rather , the naked self-interest of the Chinese government.As an aside , the US could play some financial games to make life REALLY hard for the Chinese government .
Perhaps our friends in Beijing needs a timely little reminder of who 's the superpower -- and who 's the wannabe middle-power...Remember , US overconsumption is funded by the Chinese government forcing their own people to be underpaid in sweatshops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlikely.
The Chinese buy US T-bills because they /have to/, to maintain their dollar-yuan peg which helps keep their currency low, and their squillions of workers employed.
They're doing this to contain unrest and prop up their odious totalitarian regime.
As always with the Chinese, this is COMPLETELY about naked Chinese self-interest, or rather, the naked self-interest of the Chinese government.As an aside, the US could play some financial games to make life REALLY hard for the Chinese government.
Perhaps our friends in Beijing needs a timely little reminder of who's the superpower -- and who's the wannabe middle-power...Remember, US overconsumption is funded by the Chinese government forcing their own people to be underpaid in sweatshops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888800</id>
	<title>interesting but</title>
	<author>phrostie</author>
	<datestamp>1264429080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>interesting but, this sounds vague enough to be part of an election campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interesting but , this sounds vague enough to be part of an election campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interesting but, this sounds vague enough to be part of an election campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890178</id>
	<title>cant even get people into orbit after 2010</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1264435560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The successor NASA manned programs are underfunded and behind schedule.  Its optimistic that NASA will be able to put people into Earth orbit by 2020.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The successor NASA manned programs are underfunded and behind schedule .
Its optimistic that NASA will be able to put people into Earth orbit by 2020 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The successor NASA manned programs are underfunded and behind schedule.
Its optimistic that NASA will be able to put people into Earth orbit by 2020.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898996</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264429380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People think that creating gravity is as easy as creating a centripetal acceleration, but if you were to do the calculations for what happens in a non-inertial frame, you'd find it a pretty disturbing world of coriolis acceleration for suspended objects along with an absence of true freefall, as tossed objects will follow a path of constant velocity in inertial space, or even worse a slow decaying orbit towards the nearest planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People think that creating gravity is as easy as creating a centripetal acceleration , but if you were to do the calculations for what happens in a non-inertial frame , you 'd find it a pretty disturbing world of coriolis acceleration for suspended objects along with an absence of true freefall , as tossed objects will follow a path of constant velocity in inertial space , or even worse a slow decaying orbit towards the nearest planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People think that creating gravity is as easy as creating a centripetal acceleration, but if you were to do the calculations for what happens in a non-inertial frame, you'd find it a pretty disturbing world of coriolis acceleration for suspended objects along with an absence of true freefall, as tossed objects will follow a path of constant velocity in inertial space, or even worse a slow decaying orbit towards the nearest planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887962</id>
	<title>Space: faster, further, sooner</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1264419660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't wait until we all start spending loads of money on space programs again.</p><p>I believe that it's all money well spent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait until we all start spending loads of money on space programs again.I believe that it 's all money well spent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait until we all start spending loads of money on space programs again.I believe that it's all money well spent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887902</id>
	<title>Take the froggy path!</title>
	<author>Xinvoker</author>
	<datestamp>1264418940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the flexible path is a step in the right direction. Rather than landing on the Moon and Mars every 50 years, NASA should move to establish permanent bases.Experience with asteroids is an important bonus too. Leaving LEO for private companies can also save them a lot of money to deal with that. Ares I can be scrapped, but Ares V could still be useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the flexible path is a step in the right direction .
Rather than landing on the Moon and Mars every 50 years , NASA should move to establish permanent bases.Experience with asteroids is an important bonus too .
Leaving LEO for private companies can also save them a lot of money to deal with that .
Ares I can be scrapped , but Ares V could still be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the flexible path is a step in the right direction.
Rather than landing on the Moon and Mars every 50 years, NASA should move to establish permanent bases.Experience with asteroids is an important bonus too.
Leaving LEO for private companies can also save them a lot of money to deal with that.
Ares I can be scrapped, but Ares V could still be useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887998</id>
	<title>The Necessity of ..</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1264420260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news: <a href="http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/10/01/24/1655235/A-Case-For-the-Necessity-of-Science-Fiction?from=rss&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+Slashdot\%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> A Case For the Necessity of Science Fiction </a> [slashdot.org] <br>
I would really love to see that stuff (and it really sounds a good idea) but.. such things have been said so many times that I can't help but make this connection..</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news : A Case For the Necessity of Science Fiction [ slashdot.org ] I would really love to see that stuff ( and it really sounds a good idea ) but.. such things have been said so many times that I ca n't help but make this connection. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news:  A Case For the Necessity of Science Fiction  [slashdot.org] 
I would really love to see that stuff (and it really sounds a good idea) but.. such things have been said so many times that I can't help but make this connection..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888486</id>
	<title>Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264426080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earth can sustainably support 3-5 billion people. The solar system can sustainably support 20-40 billion. We have 6.7 billion. Get our asses to not just to Mars, but also Europa and Titan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earth can sustainably support 3-5 billion people .
The solar system can sustainably support 20-40 billion .
We have 6.7 billion .
Get our asses to not just to Mars , but also Europa and Titan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earth can sustainably support 3-5 billion people.
The solar system can sustainably support 20-40 billion.
We have 6.7 billion.
Get our asses to not just to Mars, but also Europa and Titan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887890</id>
	<title>Flexible Path</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264418880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Flexible Path" ? Would that be a space elevator that didn't stop at geosync orbit, and went all the way to Mars. It would certainly need to be flexible with both planets moving and the sun in the way sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Flexible Path " ?
Would that be a space elevator that did n't stop at geosync orbit , and went all the way to Mars .
It would certainly need to be flexible with both planets moving and the sun in the way sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Flexible Path" ?
Would that be a space elevator that didn't stop at geosync orbit, and went all the way to Mars.
It would certainly need to be flexible with both planets moving and the sun in the way sometimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891700</id>
	<title>Re:Reading Between the Lines</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1264440660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"We're not going to Mars".</p></div></blockquote><p>

You just now figured THAT out. Actually, its more accurate to say "NASA isn't going to Mars." One day a man *will* set foot on Mars, but there won't be a NASA logo on their spacesuit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're not going to Mars " .
You just now figured THAT out .
Actually , its more accurate to say " NASA is n't going to Mars .
" One day a man * will * set foot on Mars , but there wo n't be a NASA logo on their spacesuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're not going to Mars".
You just now figured THAT out.
Actually, its more accurate to say "NASA isn't going to Mars.
" One day a man *will* set foot on Mars, but there won't be a NASA logo on their spacesuit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888276</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere</title>
	<author>JackieBrown</author>
	<datestamp>1264423740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare that to World War II and consider that we use technology more and (as a result) less Americans have died (then include inflation..)<br><a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/art14\_world\_war\_ii\_spending.html" title="usgovernmentspending.com">http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/art14\_world\_war\_ii\_spending.html</a> [usgovernmentspending.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare that to World War II and consider that we use technology more and ( as a result ) less Americans have died ( then include inflation.. ) http : //www.usgovernmentspending.com/art14 \ _world \ _war \ _ii \ _spending.html [ usgovernmentspending.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare that to World War II and consider that we use technology more and (as a result) less Americans have died (then include inflation..)http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/art14\_world\_war\_ii\_spending.html [usgovernmentspending.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892394</id>
	<title>A JOURNEY OF A MILLION MILES BEGINS WITH ...</title>
	<author>whyfreakout</author>
	<datestamp>1264443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you who haven&rsquo;t read the article yet, it essentially continues the endless speculation on the &ldquo;new&rdquo; US space policy and suggests the possibility of using the &ldquo;Flexible Path&rdquo; concept introduced by the Augustine commission as a spring board to future human exploration missions to Mars. These types of articles have been about as abundant as up-and-coming-stars/waitresses in Hollywood ever since President Obama took office, and I&rsquo;m just about sick of them thank you very much.</p><p>Since the election of the new administration, we&rsquo;ve had a much discussed transition team unable to maintain a professional dialog (anybody remember the &ldquo;library spat&rdquo; between Griffin and Garver?), a million dollar Augustine committee with insufficient political backbone to actually issue any clear directions, and a new NASA administrator whose only public visibility is when he makes appearances at local high schools.</p><p>Meanwhile, the rest of NASA seems engaged in a game of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for a better view and never mind the iceberg ahead for the last 30 years: why is it that every &ldquo;new&rdquo; space architecture touted by one mastermind or another ignores the problem of lowering the cost of space access? The history of US human launch vehicle development since the Shuttle is so pathetic that it now leaves us bemoaning the day when a 30 year old system will be decommissioned leaving us with   what, the brilliant new strategy of private industry providing human space access? We&rsquo;ve been there before, it was called Orbital Space Plane &ndash; and it didn&rsquo;t work then either.</p><p>The truth of the matter is that Earth-To orbit is hard, and the development of a truly innovative launch vehicle is an expensive and long-term effort. Unfortunately, the US government&rsquo;s space investment policies have been about as long-lived as a common house-fly. After Shuttle there was National Aerospace Plane (NASP), after NASP there was 2nd Gen RLV, then there was VentureStar, Orbital Space Plane, Space Launch Initiative, Next Generation Launch Technologies, Constellation, and the most recent slated for the chopping block the Ares I &amp; V launch family. Every program was shorter in duration than its predecessor, and each one was at a lower TRL than the previous one when it got canceled. When it comes to launch vehicle development, the only NASA solution to any kind of problem (technical or cost/schedule) seems to be to reset the clock and start over.</p><p>The current state of affairs is so discouraging, that even stalwart advocates of US human spaceflight programs have now resigned themselves to acting blas&#233; towards the efforts by other nations &ndash; since the US can&rsquo;t compete anymore, we talk of taking on a &ldquo;mentoring&rdquo; role, giving other nations an imperial pad on the back when they make it to their next space program milestones. We&rsquo;ve been there a long time ago, good for you to catch up  ? All the while the US celebrates its own most recent &ndash; highly dramatic - space accomplishments: we can now get Twitter feeds from our ISS astronauts so the world is immediately informed the next time s/he uses the urine collection device! Sign me up - not. Maybe it&rsquo;s not all that surprising that this should be the flavor of US space accomplishments going forward, since marketing is about the only industry where this country still is a global leader. Let me do some marketing of my own then and apply some of the cutting edge tools of the trade: &ldquo;it&rsquo;s not how you feel about the product, but how the product makes you feel about yourself&rdquo;. Well I don&rsquo;t know how you feel about the US human space program these days, but I&rsquo;m getting to the point where I&rsquo;m embarrassed to tell people that I toiled in it for the last 15 years, with exactly zero to show for it.</p><p>Maybe President Obama will surprise us all and take the leash of Charlie Bolden so he can actually exercise some of his leadershi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you who haven    t read the article yet , it essentially continues the endless speculation on the    new    US space policy and suggests the possibility of using the    Flexible Path    concept introduced by the Augustine commission as a spring board to future human exploration missions to Mars .
These types of articles have been about as abundant as up-and-coming-stars/waitresses in Hollywood ever since President Obama took office , and I    m just about sick of them thank you very much.Since the election of the new administration , we    ve had a much discussed transition team unable to maintain a professional dialog ( anybody remember the    library spat    between Griffin and Garver ?
) , a million dollar Augustine committee with insufficient political backbone to actually issue any clear directions , and a new NASA administrator whose only public visibility is when he makes appearances at local high schools.Meanwhile , the rest of NASA seems engaged in a game of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for a better view and never mind the iceberg ahead for the last 30 years : why is it that every    new    space architecture touted by one mastermind or another ignores the problem of lowering the cost of space access ?
The history of US human launch vehicle development since the Shuttle is so pathetic that it now leaves us bemoaning the day when a 30 year old system will be decommissioned leaving us with what , the brilliant new strategy of private industry providing human space access ?
We    ve been there before , it was called Orbital Space Plane    and it didn    t work then either.The truth of the matter is that Earth-To orbit is hard , and the development of a truly innovative launch vehicle is an expensive and long-term effort .
Unfortunately , the US government    s space investment policies have been about as long-lived as a common house-fly .
After Shuttle there was National Aerospace Plane ( NASP ) , after NASP there was 2nd Gen RLV , then there was VentureStar , Orbital Space Plane , Space Launch Initiative , Next Generation Launch Technologies , Constellation , and the most recent slated for the chopping block the Ares I &amp; V launch family .
Every program was shorter in duration than its predecessor , and each one was at a lower TRL than the previous one when it got canceled .
When it comes to launch vehicle development , the only NASA solution to any kind of problem ( technical or cost/schedule ) seems to be to reset the clock and start over.The current state of affairs is so discouraging , that even stalwart advocates of US human spaceflight programs have now resigned themselves to acting blas   towards the efforts by other nations    since the US can    t compete anymore , we talk of taking on a    mentoring    role , giving other nations an imperial pad on the back when they make it to their next space program milestones .
We    ve been there a long time ago , good for you to catch up ?
All the while the US celebrates its own most recent    highly dramatic - space accomplishments : we can now get Twitter feeds from our ISS astronauts so the world is immediately informed the next time s/he uses the urine collection device !
Sign me up - not .
Maybe it    s not all that surprising that this should be the flavor of US space accomplishments going forward , since marketing is about the only industry where this country still is a global leader .
Let me do some marketing of my own then and apply some of the cutting edge tools of the trade :    it    s not how you feel about the product , but how the product makes you feel about yourself    .
Well I don    t know how you feel about the US human space program these days , but I    m getting to the point where I    m embarrassed to tell people that I toiled in it for the last 15 years , with exactly zero to show for it.Maybe President Obama will surprise us all and take the leash of Charlie Bolden so he can actually exercise some of his leadershi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you who haven’t read the article yet, it essentially continues the endless speculation on the “new” US space policy and suggests the possibility of using the “Flexible Path” concept introduced by the Augustine commission as a spring board to future human exploration missions to Mars.
These types of articles have been about as abundant as up-and-coming-stars/waitresses in Hollywood ever since President Obama took office, and I’m just about sick of them thank you very much.Since the election of the new administration, we’ve had a much discussed transition team unable to maintain a professional dialog (anybody remember the “library spat” between Griffin and Garver?
), a million dollar Augustine committee with insufficient political backbone to actually issue any clear directions, and a new NASA administrator whose only public visibility is when he makes appearances at local high schools.Meanwhile, the rest of NASA seems engaged in a game of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for a better view and never mind the iceberg ahead for the last 30 years: why is it that every “new” space architecture touted by one mastermind or another ignores the problem of lowering the cost of space access?
The history of US human launch vehicle development since the Shuttle is so pathetic that it now leaves us bemoaning the day when a 30 year old system will be decommissioned leaving us with   what, the brilliant new strategy of private industry providing human space access?
We’ve been there before, it was called Orbital Space Plane – and it didn’t work then either.The truth of the matter is that Earth-To orbit is hard, and the development of a truly innovative launch vehicle is an expensive and long-term effort.
Unfortunately, the US government’s space investment policies have been about as long-lived as a common house-fly.
After Shuttle there was National Aerospace Plane (NASP), after NASP there was 2nd Gen RLV, then there was VentureStar, Orbital Space Plane, Space Launch Initiative, Next Generation Launch Technologies, Constellation, and the most recent slated for the chopping block the Ares I &amp; V launch family.
Every program was shorter in duration than its predecessor, and each one was at a lower TRL than the previous one when it got canceled.
When it comes to launch vehicle development, the only NASA solution to any kind of problem (technical or cost/schedule) seems to be to reset the clock and start over.The current state of affairs is so discouraging, that even stalwart advocates of US human spaceflight programs have now resigned themselves to acting blasé towards the efforts by other nations – since the US can’t compete anymore, we talk of taking on a “mentoring” role, giving other nations an imperial pad on the back when they make it to their next space program milestones.
We’ve been there a long time ago, good for you to catch up  ?
All the while the US celebrates its own most recent – highly dramatic - space accomplishments: we can now get Twitter feeds from our ISS astronauts so the world is immediately informed the next time s/he uses the urine collection device!
Sign me up - not.
Maybe it’s not all that surprising that this should be the flavor of US space accomplishments going forward, since marketing is about the only industry where this country still is a global leader.
Let me do some marketing of my own then and apply some of the cutting edge tools of the trade: “it’s not how you feel about the product, but how the product makes you feel about yourself”.
Well I don’t know how you feel about the US human space program these days, but I’m getting to the point where I’m embarrassed to tell people that I toiled in it for the last 15 years, with exactly zero to show for it.Maybe President Obama will surprise us all and take the leash of Charlie Bolden so he can actually exercise some of his leadershi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30905612</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer. That way when the first booster is built it will work first time. The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design, it was vaguely similar in profile but it wasn't a test flight in the traditional sense. The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations. It was about sensors.</p></div><p>I strongly disagree. The goal of Ares is to build Ares I. The simulation nonsense is simply a convenient way to rationalize the Ares I without leaving an opening for rational debate. Anyone knowledgeable has been bought off (check out the contracts that Lockheed, Boeing, and ULA have from NASA). The less knowledgeable? Well, they're arguing against <i>NASA supercomputers</i> running <i>state of the art</i> models so ignore them.<br> <br>

If NASA were serious about developing rocket simulation software, then they'd test it against more than just a single rocket. For example, it'd be inexpensive to build sounding rockets by the thousands to test borderline test cases and develop better flight avionics and testing equipment.<br> <br>

camperdave, who <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1522788&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=1&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30898860#30899698" title="slashdot.org">also replied</a> [slashdot.org] to your post had it right. Every time the Ares I turned out not to have the capabilities that NASA needs for its mission, they've compromised the mission. We found out years later about the initial assumptions that went into the Exploration Space Architecture Study (ESAS), the report that justified the Ares I. It turns out that the ESAS made many assumptions about reliability, safety, and cost that are one-sided, these all favor Shuttle-derived rockets with an ATK solid fuel first stage. This kind of rocket just so happens to be the rocket that Griffin, the former Administrator of NASA, had advocated prior to his appointment.<br> <br>

Now how about the Ares V and other components of the Constellation program? It's worth noting here that Ares V is a promise, not something that is actually being worked on. Putting off heavy lift development for at least ten years after the start of Ares in 2005 is suspicious in my view. I consider this a case of bait-and-switch. NASA promises a heavy lift, Saturn V-class vehicle and delivers the Ares I along with a vapid promise to start on the Ares V at some future date. Same goes for all the other components of the Constellation system. They ended the Altair lunar lander. The only things that remain active, can fly on the Ares I. In other words, there's no bridge being built from now to the heavy lift, beyond Earth orbit future promised by Griffin.<br> <br>

The Delta IV Heavy has roughly equivalent performance, reliability, and it's flying now. Yet NASA still plods on with the Ares I.<br> <br>

So to summarize, NASA uses a really shifty set of initial assumptions to justify the Ares I, weak and impossible to replicate methods to design and test the Ares I, compromises the mission every time Ares I fails to deliver, develops only the parts of the Constellation program that will fly on Ares I with Ares V development being postponed to some vague date in the future, and ignores an existing rocket that could do what NASA needs from Ares I. This is just a huge gift to ATK Aerospace. I seriously think we'll find some massive corruption scandal at the bottom of this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer .
That way when the first booster is built it will work first time .
The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design , it was vaguely similar in profile but it was n't a test flight in the traditional sense .
The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations .
It was about sensors.I strongly disagree .
The goal of Ares is to build Ares I. The simulation nonsense is simply a convenient way to rationalize the Ares I without leaving an opening for rational debate .
Anyone knowledgeable has been bought off ( check out the contracts that Lockheed , Boeing , and ULA have from NASA ) .
The less knowledgeable ?
Well , they 're arguing against NASA supercomputers running state of the art models so ignore them .
If NASA were serious about developing rocket simulation software , then they 'd test it against more than just a single rocket .
For example , it 'd be inexpensive to build sounding rockets by the thousands to test borderline test cases and develop better flight avionics and testing equipment .
camperdave , who also replied [ slashdot.org ] to your post had it right .
Every time the Ares I turned out not to have the capabilities that NASA needs for its mission , they 've compromised the mission .
We found out years later about the initial assumptions that went into the Exploration Space Architecture Study ( ESAS ) , the report that justified the Ares I. It turns out that the ESAS made many assumptions about reliability , safety , and cost that are one-sided , these all favor Shuttle-derived rockets with an ATK solid fuel first stage .
This kind of rocket just so happens to be the rocket that Griffin , the former Administrator of NASA , had advocated prior to his appointment .
Now how about the Ares V and other components of the Constellation program ?
It 's worth noting here that Ares V is a promise , not something that is actually being worked on .
Putting off heavy lift development for at least ten years after the start of Ares in 2005 is suspicious in my view .
I consider this a case of bait-and-switch .
NASA promises a heavy lift , Saturn V-class vehicle and delivers the Ares I along with a vapid promise to start on the Ares V at some future date .
Same goes for all the other components of the Constellation system .
They ended the Altair lunar lander .
The only things that remain active , can fly on the Ares I. In other words , there 's no bridge being built from now to the heavy lift , beyond Earth orbit future promised by Griffin .
The Delta IV Heavy has roughly equivalent performance , reliability , and it 's flying now .
Yet NASA still plods on with the Ares I . So to summarize , NASA uses a really shifty set of initial assumptions to justify the Ares I , weak and impossible to replicate methods to design and test the Ares I , compromises the mission every time Ares I fails to deliver , develops only the parts of the Constellation program that will fly on Ares I with Ares V development being postponed to some vague date in the future , and ignores an existing rocket that could do what NASA needs from Ares I. This is just a huge gift to ATK Aerospace .
I seriously think we 'll find some massive corruption scandal at the bottom of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer.
That way when the first booster is built it will work first time.
The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design, it was vaguely similar in profile but it wasn't a test flight in the traditional sense.
The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations.
It was about sensors.I strongly disagree.
The goal of Ares is to build Ares I. The simulation nonsense is simply a convenient way to rationalize the Ares I without leaving an opening for rational debate.
Anyone knowledgeable has been bought off (check out the contracts that Lockheed, Boeing, and ULA have from NASA).
The less knowledgeable?
Well, they're arguing against NASA supercomputers running state of the art models so ignore them.
If NASA were serious about developing rocket simulation software, then they'd test it against more than just a single rocket.
For example, it'd be inexpensive to build sounding rockets by the thousands to test borderline test cases and develop better flight avionics and testing equipment.
camperdave, who also replied [slashdot.org] to your post had it right.
Every time the Ares I turned out not to have the capabilities that NASA needs for its mission, they've compromised the mission.
We found out years later about the initial assumptions that went into the Exploration Space Architecture Study (ESAS), the report that justified the Ares I. It turns out that the ESAS made many assumptions about reliability, safety, and cost that are one-sided, these all favor Shuttle-derived rockets with an ATK solid fuel first stage.
This kind of rocket just so happens to be the rocket that Griffin, the former Administrator of NASA, had advocated prior to his appointment.
Now how about the Ares V and other components of the Constellation program?
It's worth noting here that Ares V is a promise, not something that is actually being worked on.
Putting off heavy lift development for at least ten years after the start of Ares in 2005 is suspicious in my view.
I consider this a case of bait-and-switch.
NASA promises a heavy lift, Saturn V-class vehicle and delivers the Ares I along with a vapid promise to start on the Ares V at some future date.
Same goes for all the other components of the Constellation system.
They ended the Altair lunar lander.
The only things that remain active, can fly on the Ares I. In other words, there's no bridge being built from now to the heavy lift, beyond Earth orbit future promised by Griffin.
The Delta IV Heavy has roughly equivalent performance, reliability, and it's flying now.
Yet NASA still plods on with the Ares I. 

So to summarize, NASA uses a really shifty set of initial assumptions to justify the Ares I, weak and impossible to replicate methods to design and test the Ares I, compromises the mission every time Ares I fails to deliver, develops only the parts of the Constellation program that will fly on Ares I with Ares V development being postponed to some vague date in the future, and ignores an existing rocket that could do what NASA needs from Ares I. This is just a huge gift to ATK Aerospace.
I seriously think we'll find some massive corruption scandal at the bottom of this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890716</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1264437600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e. a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion). Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.</p></div><p>To build such a ship would require lifting a hell of a lot of material into space, a very expensive proposition for rockets and they are the only definite, we've-done-it-before way to get into space (although sending up lumps of raw material sounds like a great use for a space gun, if any ever get built). Whether that comes from Earth or any other planet, the difficulty remains (although at least on Earth we are already here, with heavy machinery, manufacturing, people and fuel). In my opinion, if you're going to send up chunks of metal by rocket then they may as well have electronics built in and do some exploring whilst we're lifting up the rest. An alternative source of materials would be asteroids, many of which are rich in metals, and their miniscule gravity doesn't present the same problem as that of planets. However, doing any serious construction and refinement is beyond our robots' control ability at the moment, and remote control would likely be too laggy to prevent serious mishaps. This means we must either send people to the asteroids, a task for which getting them to Mars is a stepping stone, or bring the asteroids closer to Earth, in which case we'd better have a decent defense system to deflect those that go astray.</p><p>In short, everything we're doing/planning at the moment (robotic exploration (although we don't currently retrieve our probes for recycling, this is, as far as the outer planets are concerned, just a matter of choosing their route, since the Sun can do the hard work of bringing them back, but as it stands we can usually get a lot of great data by smashing them into things instead), long-haul Mars missions, asteroid deflectors, etc.) more or less, would need to be done in a mothership-style programme anyway, so where's the problem in doing them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership ' , i.e .
a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid , complete with its own gravity ( out of rotation ) and nuclear propulsion ( project Orion ) .
Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets , it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system , and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.To build such a ship would require lifting a hell of a lot of material into space , a very expensive proposition for rockets and they are the only definite , we 've-done-it-before way to get into space ( although sending up lumps of raw material sounds like a great use for a space gun , if any ever get built ) .
Whether that comes from Earth or any other planet , the difficulty remains ( although at least on Earth we are already here , with heavy machinery , manufacturing , people and fuel ) .
In my opinion , if you 're going to send up chunks of metal by rocket then they may as well have electronics built in and do some exploring whilst we 're lifting up the rest .
An alternative source of materials would be asteroids , many of which are rich in metals , and their miniscule gravity does n't present the same problem as that of planets .
However , doing any serious construction and refinement is beyond our robots ' control ability at the moment , and remote control would likely be too laggy to prevent serious mishaps .
This means we must either send people to the asteroids , a task for which getting them to Mars is a stepping stone , or bring the asteroids closer to Earth , in which case we 'd better have a decent defense system to deflect those that go astray.In short , everything we 're doing/planning at the moment ( robotic exploration ( although we do n't currently retrieve our probes for recycling , this is , as far as the outer planets are concerned , just a matter of choosing their route , since the Sun can do the hard work of bringing them back , but as it stands we can usually get a lot of great data by smashing them into things instead ) , long-haul Mars missions , asteroid deflectors , etc .
) more or less , would need to be done in a mothership-style programme anyway , so where 's the problem in doing them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e.
a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion).
Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.To build such a ship would require lifting a hell of a lot of material into space, a very expensive proposition for rockets and they are the only definite, we've-done-it-before way to get into space (although sending up lumps of raw material sounds like a great use for a space gun, if any ever get built).
Whether that comes from Earth or any other planet, the difficulty remains (although at least on Earth we are already here, with heavy machinery, manufacturing, people and fuel).
In my opinion, if you're going to send up chunks of metal by rocket then they may as well have electronics built in and do some exploring whilst we're lifting up the rest.
An alternative source of materials would be asteroids, many of which are rich in metals, and their miniscule gravity doesn't present the same problem as that of planets.
However, doing any serious construction and refinement is beyond our robots' control ability at the moment, and remote control would likely be too laggy to prevent serious mishaps.
This means we must either send people to the asteroids, a task for which getting them to Mars is a stepping stone, or bring the asteroids closer to Earth, in which case we'd better have a decent defense system to deflect those that go astray.In short, everything we're doing/planning at the moment (robotic exploration (although we don't currently retrieve our probes for recycling, this is, as far as the outer planets are concerned, just a matter of choosing their route, since the Sun can do the hard work of bringing them back, but as it stands we can usually get a lot of great data by smashing them into things instead), long-haul Mars missions, asteroid deflectors, etc.
) more or less, would need to be done in a mothership-style programme anyway, so where's the problem in doing them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889360</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264432560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e. a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion). Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.</p></div><p>The reason they never consider it is because it is a terrible idea unless you build them in quantity. Building just one that does everything, would be immensely expensive even by the current and past standards of space development and exploration. Hence, in no way would it make the Earth-Mars trip a "commodity" unless you had a large fleet of them. It also doesn't do much to address the expensive Earth to orbit trip or the other trips from significant gravity wells to space (Mars, Moon, etc).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership ' , i.e .
a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid , complete with its own gravity ( out of rotation ) and nuclear propulsion ( project Orion ) .
Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets , it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system , and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.The reason they never consider it is because it is a terrible idea unless you build them in quantity .
Building just one that does everything , would be immensely expensive even by the current and past standards of space development and exploration .
Hence , in no way would it make the Earth-Mars trip a " commodity " unless you had a large fleet of them .
It also does n't do much to address the expensive Earth to orbit trip or the other trips from significant gravity wells to space ( Mars , Moon , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e.
a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion).
Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.The reason they never consider it is because it is a terrible idea unless you build them in quantity.
Building just one that does everything, would be immensely expensive even by the current and past standards of space development and exploration.
Hence, in no way would it make the Earth-Mars trip a "commodity" unless you had a large fleet of them.
It also doesn't do much to address the expensive Earth to orbit trip or the other trips from significant gravity wells to space (Mars, Moon, etc).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891306</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>flitty</author>
	<datestamp>1264439520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ATK is based in Alabama</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, they are headquartered in Minnesota, but they do have facilities there, along with california, minnesota, utah, virginia,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you get the idea.</p><blockquote><div><p>So, no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Or it could be that they are basing ARES-I on 20 years of engineering data, rather than starting from scratch to make a new human-flight rated rocket, which is no small proposition.<br> <br>
Geeze, if you're gonna get all conspiracy theorist you could at least get the basics right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ATK is based in Alabama No , they are headquartered in Minnesota , but they do have facilities there , along with california , minnesota , utah , virginia , ... you get the idea.So , no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract .
Or it could be that they are basing ARES-I on 20 years of engineering data , rather than starting from scratch to make a new human-flight rated rocket , which is no small proposition .
Geeze , if you 're gon na get all conspiracy theorist you could at least get the basics right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATK is based in Alabama
No, they are headquartered in Minnesota, but they do have facilities there, along with california, minnesota, utah, virginia, ... you get the idea.So, no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract.
Or it could be that they are basing ARES-I on 20 years of engineering data, rather than starting from scratch to make a new human-flight rated rocket, which is no small proposition.
Geeze, if you're gonna get all conspiracy theorist you could at least get the basics right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888042</id>
	<title>Plagiarism?</title>
	<author>SalaSSin</author>
	<datestamp>1264420680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...establishing in-space propellant depots, and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Well, after Jules Verne, NASA is checking out other science fiction writers for ideas...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_trilogy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Mars trilogy</a> [wikipedia.org], by Kim Stanley Robinson, sound familiar?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...establishing in-space propellant depots , and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles .
Well , after Jules Verne , NASA is checking out other science fiction writers for ideas.. . The Mars trilogy [ wikipedia.org ] , by Kim Stanley Robinson , sound familiar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...establishing in-space propellant depots, and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles.
Well, after Jules Verne, NASA is checking out other science fiction writers for ideas...
The Mars trilogy [wikipedia.org], by Kim Stanley Robinson, sound familiar?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888960</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1264430220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity, is that US total debt figure including or not including the portion owed to Social Security? See, there was a wonderful bait-and-switch pulled on the middle and working classes over the last 25 years or so that went like this:<br>1. Notice that Social Security will eventually be broke unless we do something about it. A commission led by Alan Greenspan is formed to figure out what to do about it.<br>2. The commission recommends raising FICA taxes to build up a surplus in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, to reduce the risk of having to cut SS benefits. Congress follows the recommendations of the commission.<br>3. Fast forward about a decade, and lo and behold government is running a surplus if you include the extra SS revenue (but a deficit if you don't). So when George W Bush gets into office, he says "We'll send everyone a $300 check as their portion of the surplus, and also use the surplus to justify a nice hefty tax cut for the top tax brackets."<br>4. And lastly, since the SS Trust Fund "doesn't exist", the same people then argued that either benefits had to be cut, or the SS system privatized, because government couldn't afford it anymore.</p><p>The effect of this is that over the last 20 years overall tax burden is shifted from the progressive income taxes to the regressive FICA taxes.</p><p>Frequently, the same folks who argue that the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist and therefor SS shouldn't exist also include the T-Bills owned by Social Security in the "Total US debt" figure as a way to argue for cuts to other programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , is that US total debt figure including or not including the portion owed to Social Security ?
See , there was a wonderful bait-and-switch pulled on the middle and working classes over the last 25 years or so that went like this : 1 .
Notice that Social Security will eventually be broke unless we do something about it .
A commission led by Alan Greenspan is formed to figure out what to do about it.2 .
The commission recommends raising FICA taxes to build up a surplus in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund , to reduce the risk of having to cut SS benefits .
Congress follows the recommendations of the commission.3 .
Fast forward about a decade , and lo and behold government is running a surplus if you include the extra SS revenue ( but a deficit if you do n't ) .
So when George W Bush gets into office , he says " We 'll send everyone a $ 300 check as their portion of the surplus , and also use the surplus to justify a nice hefty tax cut for the top tax brackets. " 4 .
And lastly , since the SS Trust Fund " does n't exist " , the same people then argued that either benefits had to be cut , or the SS system privatized , because government could n't afford it anymore.The effect of this is that over the last 20 years overall tax burden is shifted from the progressive income taxes to the regressive FICA taxes.Frequently , the same folks who argue that the SS Trust Fund does n't exist and therefor SS should n't exist also include the T-Bills owned by Social Security in the " Total US debt " figure as a way to argue for cuts to other programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, is that US total debt figure including or not including the portion owed to Social Security?
See, there was a wonderful bait-and-switch pulled on the middle and working classes over the last 25 years or so that went like this:1.
Notice that Social Security will eventually be broke unless we do something about it.
A commission led by Alan Greenspan is formed to figure out what to do about it.2.
The commission recommends raising FICA taxes to build up a surplus in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, to reduce the risk of having to cut SS benefits.
Congress follows the recommendations of the commission.3.
Fast forward about a decade, and lo and behold government is running a surplus if you include the extra SS revenue (but a deficit if you don't).
So when George W Bush gets into office, he says "We'll send everyone a $300 check as their portion of the surplus, and also use the surplus to justify a nice hefty tax cut for the top tax brackets."4.
And lastly, since the SS Trust Fund "doesn't exist", the same people then argued that either benefits had to be cut, or the SS system privatized, because government couldn't afford it anymore.The effect of this is that over the last 20 years overall tax burden is shifted from the progressive income taxes to the regressive FICA taxes.Frequently, the same folks who argue that the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist and therefor SS shouldn't exist also include the T-Bills owned by Social Security in the "Total US debt" figure as a way to argue for cuts to other programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889296</id>
	<title>A key assumption of the Flexible Path option</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264432260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Augustine committee assumed with the Flexible Path option, that the NASA budget would not expand significantly. As a result, this plan is designed to do useful and daring things without requiring that everything gets developed at once. Staggered development of technologies is a notable property of this option. However, it does require that NASA will get somewhere around $3 billion more per year to support manned space flight development including a Saturn V-class heavy lift launch vehicle, fly supporting unmanned space missions, and pay for the missions described in the report.<br> <br>

It is intended to be a stepping stone to some more advanced exploration scheme, but neither Mars nor Lunar exploration is required as part of the program.<br> <br>

Some proposals mentioned in the Slashdot article simply cannot be afforded on even that enlarged budget (for example, the space telescope construction mission). At this point, many of these proposals are merely a theoretical study of what sorts of missions are possible with the infrastructure and tools proposed by the option plan rather than serious plans.<br> <br>

Finally, it's worth noting that there's a good chance even the relatively low funding needs of the Flexible Path option will not be supplied by Congress. At that point, I don't know what will happen. As far as I know, the Augustine committee simply could not generate a useful manned space plan with the budget manned space flight currently gets. My view is that the dependence on a heavy lift vehicle is the reason why. Eschewing heavy lift should be possible, but that does generate a new set of problems and technologies which NASA has yet to explore (propellant depots and orbital assembly of spacecraft in particular).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Augustine committee assumed with the Flexible Path option , that the NASA budget would not expand significantly .
As a result , this plan is designed to do useful and daring things without requiring that everything gets developed at once .
Staggered development of technologies is a notable property of this option .
However , it does require that NASA will get somewhere around $ 3 billion more per year to support manned space flight development including a Saturn V-class heavy lift launch vehicle , fly supporting unmanned space missions , and pay for the missions described in the report .
It is intended to be a stepping stone to some more advanced exploration scheme , but neither Mars nor Lunar exploration is required as part of the program .
Some proposals mentioned in the Slashdot article simply can not be afforded on even that enlarged budget ( for example , the space telescope construction mission ) .
At this point , many of these proposals are merely a theoretical study of what sorts of missions are possible with the infrastructure and tools proposed by the option plan rather than serious plans .
Finally , it 's worth noting that there 's a good chance even the relatively low funding needs of the Flexible Path option will not be supplied by Congress .
At that point , I do n't know what will happen .
As far as I know , the Augustine committee simply could not generate a useful manned space plan with the budget manned space flight currently gets .
My view is that the dependence on a heavy lift vehicle is the reason why .
Eschewing heavy lift should be possible , but that does generate a new set of problems and technologies which NASA has yet to explore ( propellant depots and orbital assembly of spacecraft in particular ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Augustine committee assumed with the Flexible Path option, that the NASA budget would not expand significantly.
As a result, this plan is designed to do useful and daring things without requiring that everything gets developed at once.
Staggered development of technologies is a notable property of this option.
However, it does require that NASA will get somewhere around $3 billion more per year to support manned space flight development including a Saturn V-class heavy lift launch vehicle, fly supporting unmanned space missions, and pay for the missions described in the report.
It is intended to be a stepping stone to some more advanced exploration scheme, but neither Mars nor Lunar exploration is required as part of the program.
Some proposals mentioned in the Slashdot article simply cannot be afforded on even that enlarged budget (for example, the space telescope construction mission).
At this point, many of these proposals are merely a theoretical study of what sorts of missions are possible with the infrastructure and tools proposed by the option plan rather than serious plans.
Finally, it's worth noting that there's a good chance even the relatively low funding needs of the Flexible Path option will not be supplied by Congress.
At that point, I don't know what will happen.
As far as I know, the Augustine committee simply could not generate a useful manned space plan with the budget manned space flight currently gets.
My view is that the dependence on a heavy lift vehicle is the reason why.
Eschewing heavy lift should be possible, but that does generate a new set of problems and technologies which NASA has yet to explore (propellant depots and orbital assembly of spacecraft in particular).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891568</id>
	<title>Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.</p></div><p>Who should NASA contact for this scifi wisdom: The guy in a robe practicing wall kicks with a glowing plastic sword, or the guy with fanny pack and the glue-on ear extensions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scifi has known this for years , 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.Who should NASA contact for this scifi wisdom : The guy in a robe practicing wall kicks with a glowing plastic sword , or the guy with fanny pack and the glue-on ear extensions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.Who should NASA contact for this scifi wisdom: The guy in a robe practicing wall kicks with a glowing plastic sword, or the guy with fanny pack and the glue-on ear extensions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30894348</id>
	<title>Re:You're kidding.</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1264451520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of 3 things:<br>
1.) You are my new best friend<br>
2.) You motivated me to be an astronaut<br>
3.) mod parent up<br>
<br>
Take your pick (I am hoping you pick 1)<br>
<br>
I agree that we need to start looking towards the stars.  There is an entire galaxy out there just waiting for us.  If we all stop and complain about tax dollars, before we know it, that will extend to items such as: "well our tax dollars are not paying for xxxx since we are paying for this other stuff".<br>
<br>
Of course we are still in our infancy for space travel as we have only made it to the planet next to us, and did it with a robot.  How are we going to extend this?  We have to bite our bottom lip, everybody pitch in some money, and accept that in this day and age on Earth, nothing will just "collectively" happen without some type of currency getting handed back and forth.  This is not a bad thing, as if it gets us to where we need to go, than so be it.  I can accept that more money is getting taken out of my paycheck to know that it is going to better serve mankind through expanding our future.<br>
<br>
We are outgrowing this planet if you could not tell from over population and pollution.  It is starting to be time for humans to expand.  Right now all we know is that the only life in this star system is on Earth, which gives us lots of room to expand.  Sure, there is going to be lots of science involved, but we are getting closer and closer to that moment every single day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of 3 things : 1 .
) You are my new best friend 2 .
) You motivated me to be an astronaut 3 .
) mod parent up Take your pick ( I am hoping you pick 1 ) I agree that we need to start looking towards the stars .
There is an entire galaxy out there just waiting for us .
If we all stop and complain about tax dollars , before we know it , that will extend to items such as : " well our tax dollars are not paying for xxxx since we are paying for this other stuff " .
Of course we are still in our infancy for space travel as we have only made it to the planet next to us , and did it with a robot .
How are we going to extend this ?
We have to bite our bottom lip , everybody pitch in some money , and accept that in this day and age on Earth , nothing will just " collectively " happen without some type of currency getting handed back and forth .
This is not a bad thing , as if it gets us to where we need to go , than so be it .
I can accept that more money is getting taken out of my paycheck to know that it is going to better serve mankind through expanding our future .
We are outgrowing this planet if you could not tell from over population and pollution .
It is starting to be time for humans to expand .
Right now all we know is that the only life in this star system is on Earth , which gives us lots of room to expand .
Sure , there is going to be lots of science involved , but we are getting closer and closer to that moment every single day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of 3 things:
1.
) You are my new best friend
2.
) You motivated me to be an astronaut
3.
) mod parent up

Take your pick (I am hoping you pick 1)

I agree that we need to start looking towards the stars.
There is an entire galaxy out there just waiting for us.
If we all stop and complain about tax dollars, before we know it, that will extend to items such as: "well our tax dollars are not paying for xxxx since we are paying for this other stuff".
Of course we are still in our infancy for space travel as we have only made it to the planet next to us, and did it with a robot.
How are we going to extend this?
We have to bite our bottom lip, everybody pitch in some money, and accept that in this day and age on Earth, nothing will just "collectively" happen without some type of currency getting handed back and forth.
This is not a bad thing, as if it gets us to where we need to go, than so be it.
I can accept that more money is getting taken out of my paycheck to know that it is going to better serve mankind through expanding our future.
We are outgrowing this planet if you could not tell from over population and pollution.
It is starting to be time for humans to expand.
Right now all we know is that the only life in this star system is on Earth, which gives us lots of room to expand.
Sure, there is going to be lots of science involved, but we are getting closer and closer to that moment every single day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890044</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264435080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Decision paralysis isn't the only threat to space development and exploration. Shitty programs that actually harm space development are worse (such as the Ares program, which builds a government funded competitor to commercial launch vehicles, in effect both building an inferior, unnecessary launch vehicle and undermining US commercial activity in space at the same time).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Decision paralysis is n't the only threat to space development and exploration .
Shitty programs that actually harm space development are worse ( such as the Ares program , which builds a government funded competitor to commercial launch vehicles , in effect both building an inferior , unnecessary launch vehicle and undermining US commercial activity in space at the same time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decision paralysis isn't the only threat to space development and exploration.
Shitty programs that actually harm space development are worse (such as the Ares program, which builds a government funded competitor to commercial launch vehicles, in effect both building an inferior, unnecessary launch vehicle and undermining US commercial activity in space at the same time).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889152</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1264431420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What, you can't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years?</p><p>Come on, this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969...</p></div><p>I can't think of any rocket designed in '69...</p><p>Depending on how you want to count the saturn-1, it took somewhere between 1960 to 1967 or 1962 (really 1961) to 1967 to design and build the moon rockets, so figure 5 to 7 years back in the olden days.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn\_V" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn\_V</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you ca n't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years ? Come on , this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969...I ca n't think of any rocket designed in '69...Depending on how you want to count the saturn-1 , it took somewhere between 1960 to 1967 or 1962 ( really 1961 ) to 1967 to design and build the moon rockets , so figure 5 to 7 years back in the olden days.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn \ _V [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you can't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years?Come on, this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969...I can't think of any rocket designed in '69...Depending on how you want to count the saturn-1, it took somewhere between 1960 to 1967 or 1962 (really 1961) to 1967 to design and build the moon rockets, so figure 5 to 7 years back in the olden days.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn\_V [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890020</id>
	<title>something profitable from asteroids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264435020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All we need to do is find something profitable and useable to mine from the asteroids and we will have a major leap forward in our abilites in space. At the moment there is nothing to really drive corporations to invest in space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All we need to do is find something profitable and useable to mine from the asteroids and we will have a major leap forward in our abilites in space .
At the moment there is nothing to really drive corporations to invest in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All we need to do is find something profitable and useable to mine from the asteroids and we will have a major leap forward in our abilites in space.
At the moment there is nothing to really drive corporations to invest in space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120</id>
	<title>Re:Going Nowhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money, and that'll be that for a whale of a lot of things, with things like NASA getting the axe first.</p></div><p>I do wish people would stop saying that.</p><p>Total US debt in 2009 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_public\_debt#History" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">$12,867.5 Billion</a> [wikipedia.org]. Total debt owned by China <a href="http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt" title="ustreas.gov" rel="nofollow">789.6 Billion</a> [ustreas.gov]. China owns only about 6\% of US debt and the odds are they will reduce that gradually to reduce their risks if the dollar depreciates or there is inflation in the US. The Iraq war is forecasted to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial\_cost\_of\_the\_Iraq\_War#Indirect\_and\_delayed\_costs" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">cost $2 trillion by the CBO - Afghanistan is a bargain at a mere $500 Billion</a> [wikipedia.org]. The US spends almost that much a year on defense. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial\_crisis\_of\_2007&ndash;2010#Wealth\_effects" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">$8.3 trillion</a> [wikipedia.org] evaporated in the financial crisis, way more than any of these numbers.</p><p>So even if the Chinese T bills were destroyed instantaneously it would still be a shock 10x less severe than the financial crisis, or less than half an Iraq war.</p><p>Of course the Chinese gradually diversifying away from US debt is likely to have much less effect than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money , and that 'll be that for a whale of a lot of things , with things like NASA getting the axe first.I do wish people would stop saying that.Total US debt in 2009 $ 12,867.5 Billion [ wikipedia.org ] .
Total debt owned by China 789.6 Billion [ ustreas.gov ] .
China owns only about 6 \ % of US debt and the odds are they will reduce that gradually to reduce their risks if the dollar depreciates or there is inflation in the US .
The Iraq war is forecasted to cost $ 2 trillion by the CBO - Afghanistan is a bargain at a mere $ 500 Billion [ wikipedia.org ] .
The US spends almost that much a year on defense .
$ 8.3 trillion [ wikipedia.org ] evaporated in the financial crisis , way more than any of these numbers.So even if the Chinese T bills were destroyed instantaneously it would still be a shock 10x less severe than the financial crisis , or less than half an Iraq war.Of course the Chinese gradually diversifying away from US debt is likely to have much less effect than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money, and that'll be that for a whale of a lot of things, with things like NASA getting the axe first.I do wish people would stop saying that.Total US debt in 2009 $12,867.5 Billion [wikipedia.org].
Total debt owned by China 789.6 Billion [ustreas.gov].
China owns only about 6\% of US debt and the odds are they will reduce that gradually to reduce their risks if the dollar depreciates or there is inflation in the US.
The Iraq war is forecasted to cost $2 trillion by the CBO - Afghanistan is a bargain at a mere $500 Billion [wikipedia.org].
The US spends almost that much a year on defense.
$8.3 trillion [wikipedia.org] evaporated in the financial crisis, way more than any of these numbers.So even if the Chinese T bills were destroyed instantaneously it would still be a shock 10x less severe than the financial crisis, or less than half an Iraq war.Of course the Chinese gradually diversifying away from US debt is likely to have much less effect than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30893714</id>
	<title>Re:Plagiarism?</title>
	<author>WalksOnDirt</author>
	<datestamp>1264448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reading Red Mars now.  I'm quite disappointed in the science though, so perhaps NASA should look someplace else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reading Red Mars now .
I 'm quite disappointed in the science though , so perhaps NASA should look someplace else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reading Red Mars now.
I'm quite disappointed in the science though, so perhaps NASA should look someplace else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887800</id>
	<title>"flexable path"</title>
	<author>addsalt</author>
	<datestamp>1264417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sounds like a marketing term for "one way"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like a marketing term for " one way "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like a marketing term for "one way"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898992</id>
	<title>Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264429320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time. Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes! Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.</p></div></blockquote><p>This. Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel. Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups).</p></div></blockquote><p>Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea?  No?  Well, that's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that's only useful for those in the near vicinity.  The other 99.9999999\% of us are fucked because now we have to pay someone to ship the fuel from Maine to wherever we happen to be.<br>
&nbsp; <br>The real reason Jon Goff supports orbiting fuel depots is hidden at the end of the quote above - it's a smokescreen to hide subsidies for commercial space businesses.  In reality, without complex bidding rules and mechanisms to raise the cost of the fuel by spreading the flights across multiple bidders, you are going to end up with a sole provider.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself (or construct it in orbit), allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets.</p></div></blockquote><p>And considerably increasing the real costs of those 'more elaborate spacecraft' because of the need for an increased number of launches and the hidden costs of the orbital fuel depot subsidy.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested, although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this month</p></div></blockquote><p>That's *one* argument against depots.  (I outline others above.)  And if you read the comments, you see them obliquely admit to another problem - the amount of cryogens that must be expended to keep the remaining amount cool during the months or years long storage period...  another hidden cost of depots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orbiting Fuel Depots , 'bout time .
Use of the LaGrange points , asteroids , yes !
Scifi has known this for years , 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.This .
Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions ( particularly those beyond Earth orbit ) is fuel .
Fuel itself is cheap , and nobody cares if you lose it , so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is ( making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups ) .Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea ?
No ? Well , that 's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that 's only useful for those in the near vicinity .
The other 99.9999999 \ % of us are fucked because now we have to pay someone to ship the fuel from Maine to wherever we happen to be .
  The real reason Jon Goff supports orbiting fuel depots is hidden at the end of the quote above - it 's a smokescreen to hide subsidies for commercial space businesses .
In reality , without complex bidding rules and mechanisms to raise the cost of the fuel by spreading the flights across multiple bidders , you are going to end up with a sole provider .
    Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself ( or construct it in orbit ) , allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets.And considerably increasing the real costs of those 'more elaborate spacecraft ' because of the need for an increased number of launches and the hidden costs of the orbital fuel depot subsidy .
  One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested , although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this monthThat 's * one * argument against depots .
( I outline others above .
) And if you read the comments , you see them obliquely admit to another problem - the amount of cryogens that must be expended to keep the remaining amount cool during the months or years long storage period... another hidden cost of depots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time.
Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes!
Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.This.
Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel.
Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups).Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea?
No?  Well, that's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that's only useful for those in the near vicinity.
The other 99.9999999\% of us are fucked because now we have to pay someone to ship the fuel from Maine to wherever we happen to be.
  The real reason Jon Goff supports orbiting fuel depots is hidden at the end of the quote above - it's a smokescreen to hide subsidies for commercial space businesses.
In reality, without complex bidding rules and mechanisms to raise the cost of the fuel by spreading the flights across multiple bidders, you are going to end up with a sole provider.
  
  Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself (or construct it in orbit), allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets.And considerably increasing the real costs of those 'more elaborate spacecraft' because of the need for an increased number of launches and the hidden costs of the orbital fuel depot subsidy.
  One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested, although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this monthThat's *one* argument against depots.
(I outline others above.
)  And if you read the comments, you see them obliquely admit to another problem - the amount of cryogens that must be expended to keep the remaining amount cool during the months or years long storage period...  another hidden cost of depots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888028</id>
	<title>Why do people care so much about Mars?</title>
	<author>American Terrorist</author>
	<datestamp>1264420500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because it's one of the few planets in the solar system whose gravity/temperature won't instantly kill you?  Am I in the minority here by preferring to spend my entire life on earth than visit a desert with no breathable atmosphere?  Why is it so important to send people to a barren rock before we have the technology to make it livable?  Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?  Who tagged this article 'getyourasstomars'? Why does going to mars in the near future matter even a tiny bit for our present situation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because it 's one of the few planets in the solar system whose gravity/temperature wo n't instantly kill you ?
Am I in the minority here by preferring to spend my entire life on earth than visit a desert with no breathable atmosphere ?
Why is it so important to send people to a barren rock before we have the technology to make it livable ?
Would n't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth ?
Who tagged this article 'getyourasstomars ' ?
Why does going to mars in the near future matter even a tiny bit for our present situation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because it's one of the few planets in the solar system whose gravity/temperature won't instantly kill you?
Am I in the minority here by preferring to spend my entire life on earth than visit a desert with no breathable atmosphere?
Why is it so important to send people to a barren rock before we have the technology to make it livable?
Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?
Who tagged this article 'getyourasstomars'?
Why does going to mars in the near future matter even a tiny bit for our present situation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888150</id>
	<title>Yes. Next stupid question?</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1264422000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The title of the post suggests this is a troll. An asteroid strike is a very credible threat, as the geological evidence for past ones is all around us. The last one that could have been really serious was Tunguska, which had it hit head on rather than at an angle, and in an inhabited region rather than Siberia, would have been so destructive that it would have been worth the cost of deflecting it. That was in 1908. The next possible impact is, I believe, in 2037/8.<p>Only last week hard evidence was reported that asteroids themselves collide. This implies that yet another mechanism to cause asteroids to leave their relatively stable orbits and head Sunwards exists (apart from gravitational deflection by planets.)</p><p>The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is, I imagine, around $1 billion per annum. The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that. Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance, on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation, and it makes a lot of sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title of the post suggests this is a troll .
An asteroid strike is a very credible threat , as the geological evidence for past ones is all around us .
The last one that could have been really serious was Tunguska , which had it hit head on rather than at an angle , and in an inhabited region rather than Siberia , would have been so destructive that it would have been worth the cost of deflecting it .
That was in 1908 .
The next possible impact is , I believe , in 2037/8.Only last week hard evidence was reported that asteroids themselves collide .
This implies that yet another mechanism to cause asteroids to leave their relatively stable orbits and head Sunwards exists ( apart from gravitational deflection by planets .
) The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is , I imagine , around $ 1 billion per annum .
The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that .
Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance , on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation , and it makes a lot of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title of the post suggests this is a troll.
An asteroid strike is a very credible threat, as the geological evidence for past ones is all around us.
The last one that could have been really serious was Tunguska, which had it hit head on rather than at an angle, and in an inhabited region rather than Siberia, would have been so destructive that it would have been worth the cost of deflecting it.
That was in 1908.
The next possible impact is, I believe, in 2037/8.Only last week hard evidence was reported that asteroids themselves collide.
This implies that yet another mechanism to cause asteroids to leave their relatively stable orbits and head Sunwards exists (apart from gravitational deflection by planets.
)The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is, I imagine, around $1 billion per annum.
The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that.
Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance, on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation, and it makes a lot of sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888100</id>
	<title>Re:You're kidding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are more likely to die from an asteroid hit than from a terrorist attack in the USA. And yet the US has spent a lot more money on various wars than searching for asteroids (road safety would be a better target of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are more likely to die from an asteroid hit than from a terrorist attack in the USA .
And yet the US has spent a lot more money on various wars than searching for asteroids ( road safety would be a better target of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are more likely to die from an asteroid hit than from a terrorist attack in the USA.
And yet the US has spent a lot more money on various wars than searching for asteroids (road safety would be a better target of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889852</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1264434360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Design is not the problem.  Politics is.  Mike Griffin had a pet project which has been nicknamed "the stick", or ARES-I.  A single solid rocket capable of launching a 20 tonne payload into orbit.  ATK, the folks that build the SRBs for the shuttle were given the contract to develop and build the solid rocket.  ATK is based in Alabama, and Alabama's senator, Richard Shelby, holds NASA's purse strings.  So, no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract.<br> <br>
Another problem is NASA's "Not Invented Here" syndrome.  ARES-I is a 20 tonne launcher.  Billions have been spent developing it.  However the US already has a perfectly fine rocket that can launch 20 tonnes into orbit; the Delta-IV Heavy.  Oh, but that was designed by the Air Force.  Can't have that at NASA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Design is not the problem .
Politics is .
Mike Griffin had a pet project which has been nicknamed " the stick " , or ARES-I .
A single solid rocket capable of launching a 20 tonne payload into orbit .
ATK , the folks that build the SRBs for the shuttle were given the contract to develop and build the solid rocket .
ATK is based in Alabama , and Alabama 's senator , Richard Shelby , holds NASA 's purse strings .
So , no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract .
Another problem is NASA 's " Not Invented Here " syndrome .
ARES-I is a 20 tonne launcher .
Billions have been spent developing it .
However the US already has a perfectly fine rocket that can launch 20 tonnes into orbit ; the Delta-IV Heavy .
Oh , but that was designed by the Air Force .
Ca n't have that at NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Design is not the problem.
Politics is.
Mike Griffin had a pet project which has been nicknamed "the stick", or ARES-I.
A single solid rocket capable of launching a 20 tonne payload into orbit.
ATK, the folks that build the SRBs for the shuttle were given the contract to develop and build the solid rocket.
ATK is based in Alabama, and Alabama's senator, Richard Shelby, holds NASA's purse strings.
So, no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract.
Another problem is NASA's "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
ARES-I is a 20 tonne launcher.
Billions have been spent developing it.
However the US already has a perfectly fine rocket that can launch 20 tonnes into orbit; the Delta-IV Heavy.
Oh, but that was designed by the Air Force.
Can't have that at NASA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888352</id>
	<title>They have no Idea</title>
	<author>Torino10</author>
	<datestamp>1264424580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where they should be going. The main purpose of manned spaceflight should be to develop the technologies to form permanent self sustaining colonies off of Earth.</p><p>With the abandonment of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module (CAM) we cannot determine if Humans or even most vertebrates can reproduce in reduced gravity and how much gravity is required.</p><p>All experiments with mice in microgravity have have indicated that cell division after fertilization does not occur, and that more advanced fetus that were launched do not undergo cell migration and/or cell differentiation properly.</p><p>If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity, then the asteroids may be our best bet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where they should be going .
The main purpose of manned spaceflight should be to develop the technologies to form permanent self sustaining colonies off of Earth.With the abandonment of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module ( CAM ) we can not determine if Humans or even most vertebrates can reproduce in reduced gravity and how much gravity is required.All experiments with mice in microgravity have have indicated that cell division after fertilization does not occur , and that more advanced fetus that were launched do not undergo cell migration and/or cell differentiation properly.If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity , then the asteroids may be our best bet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where they should be going.
The main purpose of manned spaceflight should be to develop the technologies to form permanent self sustaining colonies off of Earth.With the abandonment of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module (CAM) we cannot determine if Humans or even most vertebrates can reproduce in reduced gravity and how much gravity is required.All experiments with mice in microgravity have have indicated that cell division after fertilization does not occur, and that more advanced fetus that were launched do not undergo cell migration and/or cell differentiation properly.If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity, then the asteroids may be our best bet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892466</id>
	<title>Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time. Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes! Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.</p></div><p>This. Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel. Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups). Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself (or construct it in orbit), allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets. Fuel depots are a HUGE technology multiplier in spaceflight. It's really a shame that NASA's prior architecture for various political reasons was pretty much explicitly constructed to avoid any use of fuel depots or in-space refueling.</p><p>Aerospace engineer Jon Goff at "Selenian Boondocks" has some really great write-ups and conference papers about propellant depots and how they can benefit a human spaceflight architecture:<br><a href="http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/09/space-2009-papers/" title="selenianboondocks.com">http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/09/space-2009-papers/</a> [selenianboondocks.com]<br><a href="http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/07/depot-centric-human-spaceflight/" title="selenianboondocks.com">http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/07/depot-centric-human-spaceflight/</a> [selenianboondocks.com]</p><p>One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested, although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this month:</p><p><a href="http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/01/additional-av-017-flight-experiment-information/" title="selenianboondocks.com">http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/01/additional-av-017-flight-experiment-information/</a> [selenianboondocks.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orbiting Fuel Depots , 'bout time .
Use of the LaGrange points , asteroids , yes !
Scifi has known this for years , 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.This .
Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions ( particularly those beyond Earth orbit ) is fuel .
Fuel itself is cheap , and nobody cares if you lose it , so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is ( making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups ) .
Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself ( or construct it in orbit ) , allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets .
Fuel depots are a HUGE technology multiplier in spaceflight .
It 's really a shame that NASA 's prior architecture for various political reasons was pretty much explicitly constructed to avoid any use of fuel depots or in-space refueling.Aerospace engineer Jon Goff at " Selenian Boondocks " has some really great write-ups and conference papers about propellant depots and how they can benefit a human spaceflight architecture : http : //selenianboondocks.com/2009/09/space-2009-papers/ [ selenianboondocks.com ] http : //selenianboondocks.com/2009/07/depot-centric-human-spaceflight/ [ selenianboondocks.com ] One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested , although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this month : http : //selenianboondocks.com/2010/01/additional-av-017-flight-experiment-information/ [ selenianboondocks.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time.
Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes!
Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.This.
Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel.
Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups).
Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself (or construct it in orbit), allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets.
Fuel depots are a HUGE technology multiplier in spaceflight.
It's really a shame that NASA's prior architecture for various political reasons was pretty much explicitly constructed to avoid any use of fuel depots or in-space refueling.Aerospace engineer Jon Goff at "Selenian Boondocks" has some really great write-ups and conference papers about propellant depots and how they can benefit a human spaceflight architecture:http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/09/space-2009-papers/ [selenianboondocks.com]http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/07/depot-centric-human-spaceflight/ [selenianboondocks.com]One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested, although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this month:http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/01/additional-av-017-flight-experiment-information/ [selenianboondocks.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760</id>
	<title>nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264417500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if it gets "rebooted" very 4/8 years by new president/administration</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if it gets " rebooted " very 4/8 years by new president/administration</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it gets "rebooted" very 4/8 years by new president/administration</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892260</id>
	<title>there has to be a human element</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're looking at space in a more measured sustainable way these days and the reality is that if they ever want humans to have colonies on other bodies, you have to include human flights. A craft on s small small journey to an asteroid is very useful to test out long distance human flight at milestones. There is no avoiding this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're looking at space in a more measured sustainable way these days and the reality is that if they ever want humans to have colonies on other bodies , you have to include human flights .
A craft on s small small journey to an asteroid is very useful to test out long distance human flight at milestones .
There is no avoiding this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're looking at space in a more measured sustainable way these days and the reality is that if they ever want humans to have colonies on other bodies, you have to include human flights.
A craft on s small small journey to an asteroid is very useful to test out long distance human flight at milestones.
There is no avoiding this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30894040</id>
	<title>Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264450320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the nice thing is that fuel, water, many items could potentially be launched via another cheaper mechanism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the nice thing is that fuel , water , many items could potentially be launched via another cheaper mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the nice thing is that fuel, water, many items could potentially be launched via another cheaper mechanism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898860</id>
	<title>Re:nasa is not gonna get much done</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1264428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, it's Ares I.  ARES is a completely different project.</p><p>The reason why Ares I has costed billions of dollars is that they are trying to develop the next generation of aviation development tools.</p><p>See, ever since the 60s rockets have been developed much the same way people write software.  You hack something together and then you test it.  If it blows up, you add a patch or two to the design, build another one and test it.  Repeat until you get a rocket that flies n times without any major faults, where n is some large number.</p><p>The shuttle was slightly different.  A lot of analysis was done before it was built so a much smaller test program was required.  But it was still very empirical and required lots of wind tunnels and gray beards.</p><p>With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer.  That way when the first booster is built it will work first time.  The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design, it was vaguely similar in profile but it wasn't a test flight in the traditional sense.  The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations.  It was about sensors.</p><p>So when NASA finishes developing these modeling and simulation tools, they'll try out a bunch of Ares I designs and then build it and put humans on it and fly it.. no tests.  Then they'll design Ares V, try out a bunch of designs in the computer, then build it and fly it on a mission.. no tests.</p><p>That's NASA's job, to push the frontier.</p><p>Now, with all that in mind, what do I think of this?   I think this will be as successful as "formal methods" in software engineering.. a really expensive way to get a false sense of security.  I think the majority of accidents in rocketry are caused by the things you *can't* model.  It's caused by a faulty part not being checked properly.  It's caused by someone leaving a hose connected for too long because they've never used a pressure gauge because most of them are faulty and no-one ever does anything when they complain.  It's caused by engineers telling flight controllers that hardware is not rated for operation under current conditions and the flight controllers demanding the engineers prove that the hardware will fail before calling a scrub.  I think the only way to make rockets is to test test test, because reality is a harsh critic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , it 's Ares I. ARES is a completely different project.The reason why Ares I has costed billions of dollars is that they are trying to develop the next generation of aviation development tools.See , ever since the 60s rockets have been developed much the same way people write software .
You hack something together and then you test it .
If it blows up , you add a patch or two to the design , build another one and test it .
Repeat until you get a rocket that flies n times without any major faults , where n is some large number.The shuttle was slightly different .
A lot of analysis was done before it was built so a much smaller test program was required .
But it was still very empirical and required lots of wind tunnels and gray beards.With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer .
That way when the first booster is built it will work first time .
The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design , it was vaguely similar in profile but it was n't a test flight in the traditional sense .
The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations .
It was about sensors.So when NASA finishes developing these modeling and simulation tools , they 'll try out a bunch of Ares I designs and then build it and put humans on it and fly it.. no tests .
Then they 'll design Ares V , try out a bunch of designs in the computer , then build it and fly it on a mission.. no tests.That 's NASA 's job , to push the frontier.Now , with all that in mind , what do I think of this ?
I think this will be as successful as " formal methods " in software engineering.. a really expensive way to get a false sense of security .
I think the majority of accidents in rocketry are caused by the things you * ca n't * model .
It 's caused by a faulty part not being checked properly .
It 's caused by someone leaving a hose connected for too long because they 've never used a pressure gauge because most of them are faulty and no-one ever does anything when they complain .
It 's caused by engineers telling flight controllers that hardware is not rated for operation under current conditions and the flight controllers demanding the engineers prove that the hardware will fail before calling a scrub .
I think the only way to make rockets is to test test test , because reality is a harsh critic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, it's Ares I.  ARES is a completely different project.The reason why Ares I has costed billions of dollars is that they are trying to develop the next generation of aviation development tools.See, ever since the 60s rockets have been developed much the same way people write software.
You hack something together and then you test it.
If it blows up, you add a patch or two to the design, build another one and test it.
Repeat until you get a rocket that flies n times without any major faults, where n is some large number.The shuttle was slightly different.
A lot of analysis was done before it was built so a much smaller test program was required.
But it was still very empirical and required lots of wind tunnels and gray beards.With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer.
That way when the first booster is built it will work first time.
The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design, it was vaguely similar in profile but it wasn't a test flight in the traditional sense.
The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations.
It was about sensors.So when NASA finishes developing these modeling and simulation tools, they'll try out a bunch of Ares I designs and then build it and put humans on it and fly it.. no tests.
Then they'll design Ares V, try out a bunch of designs in the computer, then build it and fly it on a mission.. no tests.That's NASA's job, to push the frontier.Now, with all that in mind, what do I think of this?
I think this will be as successful as "formal methods" in software engineering.. a really expensive way to get a false sense of security.
I think the majority of accidents in rocketry are caused by the things you *can't* model.
It's caused by a faulty part not being checked properly.
It's caused by someone leaving a hose connected for too long because they've never used a pressure gauge because most of them are faulty and no-one ever does anything when they complain.
It's caused by engineers telling flight controllers that hardware is not rated for operation under current conditions and the flight controllers demanding the engineers prove that the hardware will fail before calling a scrub.
I think the only way to make rockets is to test test test, because reality is a harsh critic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30893596</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bigger rockets seem cool, and we may eventually get a space elevator. However, I think we seriously need a program to develop automated mining and manufacturing in space. That is, we need robots that can gather raw ore in space, smelt it into a refined metal or alloy (induction heating or a solar focus of some sort), and then spit out some kind of semi-finished materials and structural components (ingots and wire spools, or girders, trusses and panels). Given that most metallic meteorites have their origins in the asteroid belt, the raw resources to do this process outside of a costly planetary gravity well is huge. And then we also need other space robots that can organize, collect, and transport rough components into position where they can be prepped and assembled into larger structures either by astronauts or more robots. (With what we have we can't launch an aircraft carrier mass object into orbit, but it seems damn well feasable with what we have that one could be built one with materials outside the gravity well brought into orbit.) If that is done, then it isn't long until we can be serious about space stations and having real spaceships instead of glorified orbital Winnebagos.</p><p>In other words, why go to Mars in something that seems fragile and risky, when if we prepared better using available technology to gather resources from a better location we could get there in a nice big solid spaceship? One with plenty of room for everybody and their supplies and bulkheads thick enough to act as shielding and as armor from most space debris. Also think of the ridiculously huge radio telescopes and other astronomy platforms that could be put into LaGrange if almost all the structural material wasn't sourced from Earth's gravity well.</p><p>Now whether or not NASA does this isn't really the point. It would be really be nice if NASA decided to be first. However human civilization will be in a rut until somebody decides to get off their ass and do it. Even if the ESA, Russia, China, India, or some commercial consortium gets on it, at least there will be more progress than current thumb twiddling or sending out probes that do little more than the technological and scientific equivalent of turning over rocks with a stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bigger rockets seem cool , and we may eventually get a space elevator .
However , I think we seriously need a program to develop automated mining and manufacturing in space .
That is , we need robots that can gather raw ore in space , smelt it into a refined metal or alloy ( induction heating or a solar focus of some sort ) , and then spit out some kind of semi-finished materials and structural components ( ingots and wire spools , or girders , trusses and panels ) .
Given that most metallic meteorites have their origins in the asteroid belt , the raw resources to do this process outside of a costly planetary gravity well is huge .
And then we also need other space robots that can organize , collect , and transport rough components into position where they can be prepped and assembled into larger structures either by astronauts or more robots .
( With what we have we ca n't launch an aircraft carrier mass object into orbit , but it seems damn well feasable with what we have that one could be built one with materials outside the gravity well brought into orbit .
) If that is done , then it is n't long until we can be serious about space stations and having real spaceships instead of glorified orbital Winnebagos.In other words , why go to Mars in something that seems fragile and risky , when if we prepared better using available technology to gather resources from a better location we could get there in a nice big solid spaceship ?
One with plenty of room for everybody and their supplies and bulkheads thick enough to act as shielding and as armor from most space debris .
Also think of the ridiculously huge radio telescopes and other astronomy platforms that could be put into LaGrange if almost all the structural material was n't sourced from Earth 's gravity well.Now whether or not NASA does this is n't really the point .
It would be really be nice if NASA decided to be first .
However human civilization will be in a rut until somebody decides to get off their ass and do it .
Even if the ESA , Russia , China , India , or some commercial consortium gets on it , at least there will be more progress than current thumb twiddling or sending out probes that do little more than the technological and scientific equivalent of turning over rocks with a stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bigger rockets seem cool, and we may eventually get a space elevator.
However, I think we seriously need a program to develop automated mining and manufacturing in space.
That is, we need robots that can gather raw ore in space, smelt it into a refined metal or alloy (induction heating or a solar focus of some sort), and then spit out some kind of semi-finished materials and structural components (ingots and wire spools, or girders, trusses and panels).
Given that most metallic meteorites have their origins in the asteroid belt, the raw resources to do this process outside of a costly planetary gravity well is huge.
And then we also need other space robots that can organize, collect, and transport rough components into position where they can be prepped and assembled into larger structures either by astronauts or more robots.
(With what we have we can't launch an aircraft carrier mass object into orbit, but it seems damn well feasable with what we have that one could be built one with materials outside the gravity well brought into orbit.
) If that is done, then it isn't long until we can be serious about space stations and having real spaceships instead of glorified orbital Winnebagos.In other words, why go to Mars in something that seems fragile and risky, when if we prepared better using available technology to gather resources from a better location we could get there in a nice big solid spaceship?
One with plenty of room for everybody and their supplies and bulkheads thick enough to act as shielding and as armor from most space debris.
Also think of the ridiculously huge radio telescopes and other astronomy platforms that could be put into LaGrange if almost all the structural material wasn't sourced from Earth's gravity well.Now whether or not NASA does this isn't really the point.
It would be really be nice if NASA decided to be first.
However human civilization will be in a rut until somebody decides to get off their ass and do it.
Even if the ESA, Russia, China, India, or some commercial consortium gets on it, at least there will be more progress than current thumb twiddling or sending out probes that do little more than the technological and scientific equivalent of turning over rocks with a stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889308</id>
	<title>Re:An alternative they never consider...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264432260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'm sure they never considered that. Obviously if only they'd considered that, we'd be there by now. Another thing they haven't considered is ships equipped with warp engines.</p><p>(And anyhow, many designs of both manned and unmanned ships do involve a mothership and separate lander. No, the mothership isn't the size of a space station with artificial gravity, but given how much it's taken to just build a straightforward space station, perhaps this isn't quite so straightforward.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm sure they never considered that .
Obviously if only they 'd considered that , we 'd be there by now .
Another thing they have n't considered is ships equipped with warp engines .
( And anyhow , many designs of both manned and unmanned ships do involve a mothership and separate lander .
No , the mothership is n't the size of a space station with artificial gravity , but given how much it 's taken to just build a straightforward space station , perhaps this is n't quite so straightforward .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm sure they never considered that.
Obviously if only they'd considered that, we'd be there by now.
Another thing they haven't considered is ships equipped with warp engines.
(And anyhow, many designs of both manned and unmanned ships do involve a mothership and separate lander.
No, the mothership isn't the size of a space station with artificial gravity, but given how much it's taken to just build a straightforward space station, perhaps this isn't quite so straightforward.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891424</id>
	<title>Yuo fAilm it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">what provid3s the sure that by the RaymOond in his</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>what provid3s the sure that by the RaymOond in his [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what provid3s the sure that by the RaymOond in his [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889234</id>
	<title>What's new</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1264431900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haven't we been on the flexible path?  So flexible they were able to bend it right back around upon itself making circles around the Earth...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't we been on the flexible path ?
So flexible they were able to bend it right back around upon itself making circles around the Earth.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't we been on the flexible path?
So flexible they were able to bend it right back around upon itself making circles around the Earth...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30893714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30894348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30900832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30893596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30894040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30905612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30937748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_031252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30900832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898860
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30905612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30893596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30893714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30894348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30890962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30891568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30894040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30898992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30937748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30888486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30889342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_031252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30887800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_031252.30892260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
