<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_2029220</id>
	<title>NASA To Propose Commercial Space Initiative</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264414260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MarkWhittington writes <i>"The Wall Street Journal is reporting that starting with the FY2011 budget request for NASA, the Obama administration intends to propose a new program to encourage the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html">development of a commercial space flight industry</a>.  'The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the US space program. The goal is to set up a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying US astronauts into orbit&mdash;and eventually deeper into the solar system.  Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MarkWhittington writes " The Wall Street Journal is reporting that starting with the FY2011 budget request for NASA , the Obama administration intends to propose a new program to encourage the development of a commercial space flight industry .
'The controversial proposal , expected to be included in the Obama administration 's next budget , would open a new chapter in the US space program .
The goal is to set up a multi-year , multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms , including some start-ups , to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying US astronauts into orbit    and eventually deeper into the solar system .
Congress is likely to challenge the concept 's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative .
The White House 's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky , according to these people , because the budget is n't expected to outline a clear , long-term funding plan .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MarkWhittington writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that starting with the FY2011 budget request for NASA, the Obama administration intends to propose a new program to encourage the development of a commercial space flight industry.
'The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the US space program.
The goal is to set up a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying US astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system.
Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative.
The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897500</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264421460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FAA Office of Commercial Space (AST -- I don't understand their abbreviation scheme) is doing a good job of creating a regulatory environment that 'gets out of the way' as much as is responsible.  The people working there are sharp minds and have their hearts in the right place, so I think this is a good sign.</p><p>However, I think there is a place for government involvement here as well.  Don't forget that in the early days of aviation, startups got a big boost from the US Postal Service.  The guaranteed market (not necessarily guaranteed contracts for a specific company) made it easier to justify a business case and get things off the ground.  It was a chicken-and-egg problem, so guaranteed government contracts helped kick-start the process.</p><p>In this case, the government has a need for transportation to LEO (Ares 1 is in serious trouble), and ISS ferry service contracts are exactly the kind of thing these companies need to get off the ground.  Despite right-wing rhetoric, the government is not always bad, and this is a case where they can help facilitate developing a market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FAA Office of Commercial Space ( AST -- I do n't understand their abbreviation scheme ) is doing a good job of creating a regulatory environment that 'gets out of the way ' as much as is responsible .
The people working there are sharp minds and have their hearts in the right place , so I think this is a good sign.However , I think there is a place for government involvement here as well .
Do n't forget that in the early days of aviation , startups got a big boost from the US Postal Service .
The guaranteed market ( not necessarily guaranteed contracts for a specific company ) made it easier to justify a business case and get things off the ground .
It was a chicken-and-egg problem , so guaranteed government contracts helped kick-start the process.In this case , the government has a need for transportation to LEO ( Ares 1 is in serious trouble ) , and ISS ferry service contracts are exactly the kind of thing these companies need to get off the ground .
Despite right-wing rhetoric , the government is not always bad , and this is a case where they can help facilitate developing a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FAA Office of Commercial Space (AST -- I don't understand their abbreviation scheme) is doing a good job of creating a regulatory environment that 'gets out of the way' as much as is responsible.
The people working there are sharp minds and have their hearts in the right place, so I think this is a good sign.However, I think there is a place for government involvement here as well.
Don't forget that in the early days of aviation, startups got a big boost from the US Postal Service.
The guaranteed market (not necessarily guaranteed contracts for a specific company) made it easier to justify a business case and get things off the ground.
It was a chicken-and-egg problem, so guaranteed government contracts helped kick-start the process.In this case, the government has a need for transportation to LEO (Ares 1 is in serious trouble), and ISS ferry service contracts are exactly the kind of thing these companies need to get off the ground.
Despite right-wing rhetoric, the government is not always bad, and this is a case where they can help facilitate developing a market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898402</id>
	<title>Re:Bureaucracy Fail</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1264425660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>End the "license raj". Let the people do business with anyone who will freely trade with them -- whether or not they have a government-granted "permit".</p></div><p>I hear Iran and N. Korea are looking to buy some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi\_aluminum\_tubes" title="wikipedia.org">aluminum tubes</a> [wikipedia.org].<br>Or is that not what you meant by "freely trade"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>End the " license raj " .
Let the people do business with anyone who will freely trade with them -- whether or not they have a government-granted " permit " .I hear Iran and N. Korea are looking to buy some aluminum tubes [ wikipedia.org ] .Or is that not what you meant by " freely trade " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>End the "license raj".
Let the people do business with anyone who will freely trade with them -- whether or not they have a government-granted "permit".I hear Iran and N. Korea are looking to buy some aluminum tubes [wikipedia.org].Or is that not what you meant by "freely trade"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897776</id>
	<title>Noble Pursuits</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1264422720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope my American friends don't take this out of context but I really hope that one day the people of America regain control of their country from the vested interests that are controlling it. </p><p>
What seems to be the state of the union at the moment is a parody of the original goals set down as the purpose of America for American people and indeed all freedom loving people. I don't mean a hippy commune where we all hold hands and sing kom-by-yah but real freedom as opposed to the image of freedom, real democracy instead of the lobbying for vested interests that occurs today and real capitalism instead of the propping up of the "Too big to fail"s. Somehow the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness has been converted to the pursuit of wealth because money must mean all those things, right?</p><p>
I don't see it as a political issue anymore more but a series of structural issues designed to deceive and contrived to limit choices. Even Benjamin Franklin said the constitution, as it was framed, would not stop the U.S being a victim of despotism. Perhaps it's a day when Americans accept discomfort for things that are important and real. Noble pursuits. </p><p>
I hope you don't think I'm a troll, because I'm sincere about missing the nice America who used to be a champion of freedom. It will be a truly awesome and frightening thing to watch a people finally regain control of their country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope my American friends do n't take this out of context but I really hope that one day the people of America regain control of their country from the vested interests that are controlling it .
What seems to be the state of the union at the moment is a parody of the original goals set down as the purpose of America for American people and indeed all freedom loving people .
I do n't mean a hippy commune where we all hold hands and sing kom-by-yah but real freedom as opposed to the image of freedom , real democracy instead of the lobbying for vested interests that occurs today and real capitalism instead of the propping up of the " Too big to fail " s. Somehow the pursuit of life , liberty and happiness has been converted to the pursuit of wealth because money must mean all those things , right ?
I do n't see it as a political issue anymore more but a series of structural issues designed to deceive and contrived to limit choices .
Even Benjamin Franklin said the constitution , as it was framed , would not stop the U.S being a victim of despotism .
Perhaps it 's a day when Americans accept discomfort for things that are important and real .
Noble pursuits .
I hope you do n't think I 'm a troll , because I 'm sincere about missing the nice America who used to be a champion of freedom .
It will be a truly awesome and frightening thing to watch a people finally regain control of their country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope my American friends don't take this out of context but I really hope that one day the people of America regain control of their country from the vested interests that are controlling it.
What seems to be the state of the union at the moment is a parody of the original goals set down as the purpose of America for American people and indeed all freedom loving people.
I don't mean a hippy commune where we all hold hands and sing kom-by-yah but real freedom as opposed to the image of freedom, real democracy instead of the lobbying for vested interests that occurs today and real capitalism instead of the propping up of the "Too big to fail"s. Somehow the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness has been converted to the pursuit of wealth because money must mean all those things, right?
I don't see it as a political issue anymore more but a series of structural issues designed to deceive and contrived to limit choices.
Even Benjamin Franklin said the constitution, as it was framed, would not stop the U.S being a victim of despotism.
Perhaps it's a day when Americans accept discomfort for things that are important and real.
Noble pursuits.
I hope you don't think I'm a troll, because I'm sincere about missing the nice America who used to be a champion of freedom.
It will be a truly awesome and frightening thing to watch a people finally regain control of their country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30904092</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>Nexus7</author>
	<datestamp>1264520520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only do they think he is a socialist, but they think he's a muslim agent who wasn't born in the US and hangs out with terrorists (remember the Ayers nonsense)? But then most of these people also think that the government should keep its grubby hands off their Medicare, that there's a part of America that is "the other unpatriotic America", that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, and such assorted bilge.</p><p>But to get back to NASA and privatization, how long would we have had to wait for private companies to take up the initiative and put us on the moon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only do they think he is a socialist , but they think he 's a muslim agent who was n't born in the US and hangs out with terrorists ( remember the Ayers nonsense ) ?
But then most of these people also think that the government should keep its grubby hands off their Medicare , that there 's a part of America that is " the other unpatriotic America " , that the USA was founded as a Christian nation , and such assorted bilge.But to get back to NASA and privatization , how long would we have had to wait for private companies to take up the initiative and put us on the moon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only do they think he is a socialist, but they think he's a muslim agent who wasn't born in the US and hangs out with terrorists (remember the Ayers nonsense)?
But then most of these people also think that the government should keep its grubby hands off their Medicare, that there's a part of America that is "the other unpatriotic America", that the USA was founded as a Christian nation, and such assorted bilge.But to get back to NASA and privatization, how long would we have had to wait for private companies to take up the initiative and put us on the moon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30901272</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1264538760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly how is government <i>in</i> the way?</p><p>I don't exactly see private industry falling over themselves to get into space. (Not silly "space tourism" schemes, serious economically self-sustaining space travel.) And why should they? We're talking billions of dollars up front with no return for many, many years.</p><p>Government can help private ventures by providing incentives. That's how the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific\_Railway\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">transcontinental railroad got built</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>The choice isn't simply between <a href="http://systocracy.com/Marx.jpg" title="systocracy.com">unchecked government</a> [systocracy.com] and <a href="http://blog.al.com/jdcrowe/2008/03/3-28-08BearStearns.jpg" title="al.com">unchecked business</a> [al.com]; both are recipes for disaster. True believers on both sides will often tell you otherwise, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly how is government in the way ? I do n't exactly see private industry falling over themselves to get into space .
( Not silly " space tourism " schemes , serious economically self-sustaining space travel .
) And why should they ?
We 're talking billions of dollars up front with no return for many , many years.Government can help private ventures by providing incentives .
That 's how the transcontinental railroad got built [ wikipedia.org ] .The choice is n't simply between unchecked government [ systocracy.com ] and unchecked business [ al.com ] ; both are recipes for disaster .
True believers on both sides will often tell you otherwise , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly how is government in the way?I don't exactly see private industry falling over themselves to get into space.
(Not silly "space tourism" schemes, serious economically self-sustaining space travel.
) And why should they?
We're talking billions of dollars up front with no return for many, many years.Government can help private ventures by providing incentives.
That's how the transcontinental railroad got built [wikipedia.org].The choice isn't simply between unchecked government [systocracy.com] and unchecked business [al.com]; both are recipes for disaster.
True believers on both sides will often tell you otherwise, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898828</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>paeanblack</author>
	<datestamp>1264428000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. </i></p><p>And before you know it, we'll have private companies paving our roads, building our courthouses, driving our ambulances, uniforming our police, everything!</p><p>And they will be competing with each other to do this! <b>It will be chaos!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state .
Private firms already fight our wars .
And before you know it , we 'll have private companies paving our roads , building our courthouses , driving our ambulances , uniforming our police , everything ! And they will be competing with each other to do this !
It will be chaos !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state.
Private firms already fight our wars.
And before you know it, we'll have private companies paving our roads, building our courthouses, driving our ambulances, uniforming our police, everything!And they will be competing with each other to do this!
It will be chaos!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30903092</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1264516140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Actually I would be all for it, to have <em>competing</em> governments in a country. Instead of the monopoly that it is now.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Having competing governments in a single country is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_War" title="wikipedia.org">not fun</a> [wikipedia.org]. If you want competing goverments, you need multiple countries. And we already have those.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I would be all for it , to have competing governments in a country .
Instead of the monopoly that it is now .
Having competing governments in a single country is not fun [ wikipedia.org ] .
If you want competing goverments , you need multiple countries .
And we already have those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I would be all for it, to have competing governments in a country.
Instead of the monopoly that it is now.
Having competing governments in a single country is not fun [wikipedia.org].
If you want competing goverments, you need multiple countries.
And we already have those.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898370</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264425480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point."</i></p><p>Agreed, but the private sector seems unable to survive without government $.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point .
" Agreed , but the private sector seems unable to survive without government $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point.
"Agreed, but the private sector seems unable to survive without government $.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896888</id>
	<title>that's bogus</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1264418160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you don't have enough cash in the till to run NASA now, and there's going to be more shrinkage to give to private contractors?  that's not change, that's more of the same!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't have enough cash in the till to run NASA now , and there 's going to be more shrinkage to give to private contractors ?
that 's not change , that 's more of the same !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't have enough cash in the till to run NASA now, and there's going to be more shrinkage to give to private contractors?
that's not change, that's more of the same!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897662</id>
	<title>Re:Almost anything's better than how we do it now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your first statement raises a good point.  Every time there is a change in power at the White House or in Congress, NASA is given new guidelines on what are and how to pursue long term goals. So while there have been plenty of bad decisions made, look at where these decisions were made - more often than not they're made at the congressional level, not within NASA.  These short term goal changes not only hurts the manned space flight program, but all R&amp;D done by NASA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your first statement raises a good point .
Every time there is a change in power at the White House or in Congress , NASA is given new guidelines on what are and how to pursue long term goals .
So while there have been plenty of bad decisions made , look at where these decisions were made - more often than not they 're made at the congressional level , not within NASA .
These short term goal changes not only hurts the manned space flight program , but all R&amp;D done by NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your first statement raises a good point.
Every time there is a change in power at the White House or in Congress, NASA is given new guidelines on what are and how to pursue long term goals.
So while there have been plenty of bad decisions made, look at where these decisions were made - more often than not they're made at the congressional level, not within NASA.
These short term goal changes not only hurts the manned space flight program, but all R&amp;D done by NASA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897540</id>
	<title>Re:Last week NASA was urged not to outsource...</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that commercial space has been 90\% vaporware for the past three decades had nothing to do with it. And God forbid anyone suggest that for-profit organizations would cut corners for the sake of making more money.</p></div><p>Commercial space is vaporware? During the past decade or so the DOD, NRO, and unmanned NASA missions have all been exclusively getting to orbit on commercial launchers. All those organizations seem to be perfectly happy using commercial vehicles for billion-plus dollar spacecraft. It's only manned NASA missions which are still being operated largely in-house.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that commercial space has been 90 \ % vaporware for the past three decades had nothing to do with it .
And God forbid anyone suggest that for-profit organizations would cut corners for the sake of making more money.Commercial space is vaporware ?
During the past decade or so the DOD , NRO , and unmanned NASA missions have all been exclusively getting to orbit on commercial launchers .
All those organizations seem to be perfectly happy using commercial vehicles for billion-plus dollar spacecraft .
It 's only manned NASA missions which are still being operated largely in-house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that commercial space has been 90\% vaporware for the past three decades had nothing to do with it.
And God forbid anyone suggest that for-profit organizations would cut corners for the sake of making more money.Commercial space is vaporware?
During the past decade or so the DOD, NRO, and unmanned NASA missions have all been exclusively getting to orbit on commercial launchers.
All those organizations seem to be perfectly happy using commercial vehicles for billion-plus dollar spacecraft.
It's only manned NASA missions which are still being operated largely in-house.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897938</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1264423620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you should try launch something into space and then come back and tell me nothing was stopping you. the level of red tape involved would be astronomical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you should try launch something into space and then come back and tell me nothing was stopping you .
the level of red tape involved would be astronomical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you should try launch something into space and then come back and tell me nothing was stopping you.
the level of red tape involved would be astronomical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1264419180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder. Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft. I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks. Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal. Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything. And if you can't pay, don't expect help. Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.</p><p>The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist. He's the opposite of that. He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders. He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , given recent SCOTUS decisions , the government is now available to the highest bidder .
Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket , while the little guys get the shaft .
I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks .
Everything will be privatized , and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal .
Private police forces , fire departments , roads : everything .
And if you ca n't pay , do n't expect help .
Those who ca n't pay will be expected to starve to death , like stray dogs in the streets.The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist .
He 's the opposite of that .
He 's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death , and he 's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders .
He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder.
Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft.
I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks.
Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal.
Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything.
And if you can't pay, don't expect help.
Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist.
He's the opposite of that.
He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders.
He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897260</id>
	<title>Re:The right way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264420260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PRICE is not same as COST.</p><p>Let's give a real-world example that's had time to play out.  In California  Proposition 13 was supposed to benefit renters because it would drive taxes down, and with lower property taxes well OF COURSE the landlords would pass this savings on to the customers.  A lower COST would naturally result in lower PRICE right?   BZZZT wrong the landlords pocketed the difference and kept rents aligned as always with incomes and WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR.</p><p>Also I recall this ame argument about the inherent self-interest in long-term profits would make for perfect financial markets.  Didn't work out so well did it?  Even Alan Greenspan had to admit in front of Congress that his "model was flawed" when it came to just the natural tendency of businessmen to build in quality.   They in fact cut corners here and there, and over there.... until kaboom.  The tendency in self-regulation of a market that is stable for a while is like the people on the top floor a building stealing wood from downstairs to burn in their fireplace.  It works fine right up until the building collapses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PRICE is not same as COST.Let 's give a real-world example that 's had time to play out .
In California Proposition 13 was supposed to benefit renters because it would drive taxes down , and with lower property taxes well OF COURSE the landlords would pass this savings on to the customers .
A lower COST would naturally result in lower PRICE right ?
BZZZT wrong the landlords pocketed the difference and kept rents aligned as always with incomes and WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR.Also I recall this ame argument about the inherent self-interest in long-term profits would make for perfect financial markets .
Did n't work out so well did it ?
Even Alan Greenspan had to admit in front of Congress that his " model was flawed " when it came to just the natural tendency of businessmen to build in quality .
They in fact cut corners here and there , and over there.... until kaboom .
The tendency in self-regulation of a market that is stable for a while is like the people on the top floor a building stealing wood from downstairs to burn in their fireplace .
It works fine right up until the building collapses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PRICE is not same as COST.Let's give a real-world example that's had time to play out.
In California  Proposition 13 was supposed to benefit renters because it would drive taxes down, and with lower property taxes well OF COURSE the landlords would pass this savings on to the customers.
A lower COST would naturally result in lower PRICE right?
BZZZT wrong the landlords pocketed the difference and kept rents aligned as always with incomes and WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR.Also I recall this ame argument about the inherent self-interest in long-term profits would make for perfect financial markets.
Didn't work out so well did it?
Even Alan Greenspan had to admit in front of Congress that his "model was flawed" when it came to just the natural tendency of businessmen to build in quality.
They in fact cut corners here and there, and over there.... until kaboom.
The tendency in self-regulation of a market that is stable for a while is like the people on the top floor a building stealing wood from downstairs to burn in their fireplace.
It works fine right up until the building collapses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897442</id>
	<title>Just do it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say let private companies explore space.  Just make sure they get punished for leaving junk in earth orbit, or things will get messy(er) quick.  Give them some approved launch lanes so their flops fall in the drink and not on some lawyer's condo.</p><p>And safety?  Did the Wright brothers have a safety net?  Screw safety.  We sit around being "safe" way too much.  With Earth rapidly turning into a big Easter Island we better get established in space.  It's not going to be easy.  People are going to die doing it.  It needs to be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say let private companies explore space .
Just make sure they get punished for leaving junk in earth orbit , or things will get messy ( er ) quick .
Give them some approved launch lanes so their flops fall in the drink and not on some lawyer 's condo.And safety ?
Did the Wright brothers have a safety net ?
Screw safety .
We sit around being " safe " way too much .
With Earth rapidly turning into a big Easter Island we better get established in space .
It 's not going to be easy .
People are going to die doing it .
It needs to be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say let private companies explore space.
Just make sure they get punished for leaving junk in earth orbit, or things will get messy(er) quick.
Give them some approved launch lanes so their flops fall in the drink and not on some lawyer's condo.And safety?
Did the Wright brothers have a safety net?
Screw safety.
We sit around being "safe" way too much.
With Earth rapidly turning into a big Easter Island we better get established in space.
It's not going to be easy.
People are going to die doing it.
It needs to be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897470</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264421340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I would be all for it, to have <em>competing</em> governments in a country. Instead of the monopoly that it is now.<br>Then again, a &ldquo;free&rdquo; market never stays free, <em>because</em> freedom includes the freedom to stop it from being free... or not a monopoly. (And because the &ldquo;free market&rdquo; is essentially the law of the jungle. As opposed to democracy.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I would be all for it , to have competing governments in a country .
Instead of the monopoly that it is now.Then again , a    free    market never stays free , because freedom includes the freedom to stop it from being free... or not a monopoly .
( And because the    free market    is essentially the law of the jungle .
As opposed to democracy .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I would be all for it, to have competing governments in a country.
Instead of the monopoly that it is now.Then again, a “free” market never stays free, because freedom includes the freedom to stop it from being free... or not a monopoly.
(And because the “free market” is essentially the law of the jungle.
As opposed to democracy.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004</id>
	<title>The right way</title>
	<author>Skal Tura</author>
	<datestamp>1264418700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to go about it. Commercialising helps to drive costs down, as an goverment program, being the only one capable to do, without a drive to use commercial sector for it's operations, NASA is inherently flawed: No ultimate, inherent need to drive costs down. Businesses survive only by driving costs down, and down, further down. Businesses have to get their base cost down in order to be profitable, in order to survive.</p><p>Yes, definitely businesses will cut corners etc, but not at the expense of human lifes, as that would mean end of business for them. Space endeavours are really tight on safety, and despite a company being able to do way cheaper than anyone, if it's not safe, they will not gather good business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to go about it .
Commercialising helps to drive costs down , as an goverment program , being the only one capable to do , without a drive to use commercial sector for it 's operations , NASA is inherently flawed : No ultimate , inherent need to drive costs down .
Businesses survive only by driving costs down , and down , further down .
Businesses have to get their base cost down in order to be profitable , in order to survive.Yes , definitely businesses will cut corners etc , but not at the expense of human lifes , as that would mean end of business for them .
Space endeavours are really tight on safety , and despite a company being able to do way cheaper than anyone , if it 's not safe , they will not gather good business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to go about it.
Commercialising helps to drive costs down, as an goverment program, being the only one capable to do, without a drive to use commercial sector for it's operations, NASA is inherently flawed: No ultimate, inherent need to drive costs down.
Businesses survive only by driving costs down, and down, further down.
Businesses have to get their base cost down in order to be profitable, in order to survive.Yes, definitely businesses will cut corners etc, but not at the expense of human lifes, as that would mean end of business for them.
Space endeavours are really tight on safety, and despite a company being able to do way cheaper than anyone, if it's not safe, they will not gather good business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897296</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>Aeros</author>
	<datestamp>1264420440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>wow..thats all in this bill?</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow..thats all in this bill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow..thats all in this bill?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897886</id>
	<title>Re:Last week NASA was urged not to outsource...</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1264423320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA was urged not to outsource manned space... by "[a] key U.S. federal aerospace panel"?  You don't say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA was urged not to outsource manned space... by " [ a ] key U.S. federal aerospace panel " ?
You do n't say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA was urged not to outsource manned space... by "[a] key U.S. federal aerospace panel"?
You don't say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897330</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1264420620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...</p></div><p>Then start voting for politicians that are <a href="http://american3p.org/?page\_id=114" title="american3p.org" rel="nofollow">actually interested in funding it.</a> [american3p.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state .
Private firms already fight our wars .
What 's next , private firms taking over the " service " of governing the country ?
Oh wait...Then start voting for politicians that are actually interested in funding it .
[ american3p.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state.
Private firms already fight our wars.
What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country?
Oh wait...Then start voting for politicians that are actually interested in funding it.
[american3p.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897436</id>
	<title>That abbreviates to...</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1264421220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Commercial Space Initiative abbreviates to CSI. Must... resist... urge to... make... a one-liner...<br>
<br>
<br>
Okay. Urge suppressed. Well, back to topic. I think that when NASA goes commercial, average people will finally have enough... space.<br>
<br>
<i>Yeeeeeeeeeah!</i> <br>
<br>
Damn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial Space Initiative abbreviates to CSI .
Must... resist... urge to... make... a one-liner.. . Okay. Urge suppressed .
Well , back to topic .
I think that when NASA goes commercial , average people will finally have enough... space . Yeeeeeeeeeah !
Damn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial Space Initiative abbreviates to CSI.
Must... resist... urge to... make... a one-liner...


Okay. Urge suppressed.
Well, back to topic.
I think that when NASA goes commercial, average people will finally have enough... space.

Yeeeeeeeeeah!
Damn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897320</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1264420560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "opposite" of Socialist? Who do you think you're kidding? Yourself maybe?
<br> <br>
Government control of the financial industry: socialist.
<br> <br>
Government control of "Health Care": socialist.
<br> <br>
"Bailout" of the finance industry (not really the same thing as above): socialist. Even if it was started by the Republicans.
<br> <br>
But really, while there are similarities, all these things are more fascist than socialist. Fascism as defined in the dictionary: "an unhealthy alliance between government and corporations."
<br> <br>
To put it even more simply, there is no political left or right in this country anymore. They all want (and have pushed through) bigger government and more control. That is to say, "both sides" want more power over the people, and "both sides" have their hands in corporate pockets. They just tend to do it in somewhat different ways. The result: under Republicans we lose certain rights and privileges, under Democrats we lose other rights and privileges. Either way, we have been losing.
<br> <br>
And really, it amounts to "both sides" bringing a kind of fascism, again just in somewhat different ways.
<br> <br>
I put "both sides" in quotes because there really are more than just 2 options. Ron Paul would have had our economy working again by now. That is, if he could get any cooperation from Congress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " opposite " of Socialist ?
Who do you think you 're kidding ?
Yourself maybe ?
Government control of the financial industry : socialist .
Government control of " Health Care " : socialist .
" Bailout " of the finance industry ( not really the same thing as above ) : socialist .
Even if it was started by the Republicans .
But really , while there are similarities , all these things are more fascist than socialist .
Fascism as defined in the dictionary : " an unhealthy alliance between government and corporations .
" To put it even more simply , there is no political left or right in this country anymore .
They all want ( and have pushed through ) bigger government and more control .
That is to say , " both sides " want more power over the people , and " both sides " have their hands in corporate pockets .
They just tend to do it in somewhat different ways .
The result : under Republicans we lose certain rights and privileges , under Democrats we lose other rights and privileges .
Either way , we have been losing .
And really , it amounts to " both sides " bringing a kind of fascism , again just in somewhat different ways .
I put " both sides " in quotes because there really are more than just 2 options .
Ron Paul would have had our economy working again by now .
That is , if he could get any cooperation from Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "opposite" of Socialist?
Who do you think you're kidding?
Yourself maybe?
Government control of the financial industry: socialist.
Government control of "Health Care": socialist.
"Bailout" of the finance industry (not really the same thing as above): socialist.
Even if it was started by the Republicans.
But really, while there are similarities, all these things are more fascist than socialist.
Fascism as defined in the dictionary: "an unhealthy alliance between government and corporations.
"
 
To put it even more simply, there is no political left or right in this country anymore.
They all want (and have pushed through) bigger government and more control.
That is to say, "both sides" want more power over the people, and "both sides" have their hands in corporate pockets.
They just tend to do it in somewhat different ways.
The result: under Republicans we lose certain rights and privileges, under Democrats we lose other rights and privileges.
Either way, we have been losing.
And really, it amounts to "both sides" bringing a kind of fascism, again just in somewhat different ways.
I put "both sides" in quotes because there really are more than just 2 options.
Ron Paul would have had our economy working again by now.
That is, if he could get any cooperation from Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896988</id>
	<title>Almost anything's better than how we do it now</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1264418640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many shuttle successors have come and gone? And the whole Aeres thing looks like it's fixing to be another clusterfuck.</p><p>It seems like the current government agency/government contractor model of development and procurement is broken. The same boondoggles we see in the military are repeated pretty much across the board. I know they say not to ascribe to malice what can best be described by incompetence but it seems like there's usually malice and greed at work here. The government will sign a very lucrative contract with a company that will then have massive cost overruns, fail to deliver on time and thus draw even more funds to eventually deliver a poorly-designed piece of shit that cannot do what was requested of it.</p><p>Sometimes you can blame the government for screwing things up. The shuttle was promised to do too many things for too many people and the engineers were left with trying to make the best compromise they could. That was the government's bad. And the whole Ares bit, that sounds like a government bad, too. NASA got all turned on by the idea of reusing shuttle tech and saving bundles on false economies and it was the contractor's fault for not disabusing them of this notion. Engineers both at NASA and the contractor probably knew better but management would have been unwilling to listen, obviously, or else we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.</p><p>The thing that really kills me is the contractor's motivation as a business is maximizing revenue from the contracts and thus maximizing profits. It's not in their interest to be on-time and on-budget. And it's also not in their own interest to offer cheaper, better solutions. So we get this perpetual game where they promise the moon for low prices and NASA pretends to believe them and the costs spiral and until projects are canceled. I would see that as a complete failure but the business would regard that failure as a profitable venture and thus a success. Therefore, there's no incentive for them to do things any differently!!! Argh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many shuttle successors have come and gone ?
And the whole Aeres thing looks like it 's fixing to be another clusterfuck.It seems like the current government agency/government contractor model of development and procurement is broken .
The same boondoggles we see in the military are repeated pretty much across the board .
I know they say not to ascribe to malice what can best be described by incompetence but it seems like there 's usually malice and greed at work here .
The government will sign a very lucrative contract with a company that will then have massive cost overruns , fail to deliver on time and thus draw even more funds to eventually deliver a poorly-designed piece of shit that can not do what was requested of it.Sometimes you can blame the government for screwing things up .
The shuttle was promised to do too many things for too many people and the engineers were left with trying to make the best compromise they could .
That was the government 's bad .
And the whole Ares bit , that sounds like a government bad , too .
NASA got all turned on by the idea of reusing shuttle tech and saving bundles on false economies and it was the contractor 's fault for not disabusing them of this notion .
Engineers both at NASA and the contractor probably knew better but management would have been unwilling to listen , obviously , or else we would n't be in the situation we are now.The thing that really kills me is the contractor 's motivation as a business is maximizing revenue from the contracts and thus maximizing profits .
It 's not in their interest to be on-time and on-budget .
And it 's also not in their own interest to offer cheaper , better solutions .
So we get this perpetual game where they promise the moon for low prices and NASA pretends to believe them and the costs spiral and until projects are canceled .
I would see that as a complete failure but the business would regard that failure as a profitable venture and thus a success .
Therefore , there 's no incentive for them to do things any differently ! ! !
Argh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many shuttle successors have come and gone?
And the whole Aeres thing looks like it's fixing to be another clusterfuck.It seems like the current government agency/government contractor model of development and procurement is broken.
The same boondoggles we see in the military are repeated pretty much across the board.
I know they say not to ascribe to malice what can best be described by incompetence but it seems like there's usually malice and greed at work here.
The government will sign a very lucrative contract with a company that will then have massive cost overruns, fail to deliver on time and thus draw even more funds to eventually deliver a poorly-designed piece of shit that cannot do what was requested of it.Sometimes you can blame the government for screwing things up.
The shuttle was promised to do too many things for too many people and the engineers were left with trying to make the best compromise they could.
That was the government's bad.
And the whole Ares bit, that sounds like a government bad, too.
NASA got all turned on by the idea of reusing shuttle tech and saving bundles on false economies and it was the contractor's fault for not disabusing them of this notion.
Engineers both at NASA and the contractor probably knew better but management would have been unwilling to listen, obviously, or else we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.The thing that really kills me is the contractor's motivation as a business is maximizing revenue from the contracts and thus maximizing profits.
It's not in their interest to be on-time and on-budget.
And it's also not in their own interest to offer cheaper, better solutions.
So we get this perpetual game where they promise the moon for low prices and NASA pretends to believe them and the costs spiral and until projects are canceled.
I would see that as a complete failure but the business would regard that failure as a profitable venture and thus a success.
Therefore, there's no incentive for them to do things any differently!!!
Argh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30899772</id>
	<title>This story has it wrong</title>
	<author>j0hnyquest</author>
	<datestamp>1264436460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't a new initiative... NASA has been working with about 20 private organizations to promote private spaceflight for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a new initiative... NASA has been working with about 20 private organizations to promote private spaceflight for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a new initiative... NASA has been working with about 20 private organizations to promote private spaceflight for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898560</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1264426620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder.</p></div><p>If the government wasn't so darn powerful then there wouldn't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer. One cannot have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices, "manage" freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist. The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they <i>claim</i> to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , given recent SCOTUS decisions , the government is now available to the highest bidder.If the government was n't so darn powerful then there would n't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer .
One can not have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country ; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices , " manage " freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist .
The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they claim to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity ; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder.If the government wasn't so darn powerful then there wouldn't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer.
One cannot have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices, "manage" freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist.
The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they claim to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897366</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1264420860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how about you just let private enterprise go to space or not, and just get out of their way? government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point.</p></div><p>Back in the late 80s, Reagan was pushing to get private industry up into space. A company called Space Industries Inc. put together a proposal to build a "private" space station in orbit and Reagan tried to force NASA to lease it for $700 million/5 years. In 1989, the recently retired NASA administrator opposed the program, a senior VP from Raytheon led a panel that concluded the private station was a bad idea, and ultimately Bush Sr. let it die.</p><p>I only give you this abbreviated story in order to show that private industry has been chasing government dollars to get into space over at least the last 30 years. Even the current "private" space-industrial complex would fall to pieces if the gov't stopped giving them money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how about you just let private enterprise go to space or not , and just get out of their way ?
government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point.Back in the late 80s , Reagan was pushing to get private industry up into space .
A company called Space Industries Inc. put together a proposal to build a " private " space station in orbit and Reagan tried to force NASA to lease it for $ 700 million/5 years .
In 1989 , the recently retired NASA administrator opposed the program , a senior VP from Raytheon led a panel that concluded the private station was a bad idea , and ultimately Bush Sr. let it die.I only give you this abbreviated story in order to show that private industry has been chasing government dollars to get into space over at least the last 30 years .
Even the current " private " space-industrial complex would fall to pieces if the gov't stopped giving them money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about you just let private enterprise go to space or not, and just get out of their way?
government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point.Back in the late 80s, Reagan was pushing to get private industry up into space.
A company called Space Industries Inc. put together a proposal to build a "private" space station in orbit and Reagan tried to force NASA to lease it for $700 million/5 years.
In 1989, the recently retired NASA administrator opposed the program, a senior VP from Raytheon led a panel that concluded the private station was a bad idea, and ultimately Bush Sr. let it die.I only give you this abbreviated story in order to show that private industry has been chasing government dollars to get into space over at least the last 30 years.
Even the current "private" space-industrial complex would fall to pieces if the gov't stopped giving them money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1264420500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine.  Let them do it with their own astronauts, and with their own money.  Nothing's stopping them.</p><p>What troubles me is when we decide to throw away a nearly 50 year tradition of manned space excellence with a better than average track record and replace it with contracts to commercial space companies who have been making more promises than results for the past 25 years.</p><p>Only Orbital and SpaceX have made it past the "Step 2" phase, and they both had to learn the hard way that the space biz is exceptionally technically challenging and extremely risky, both technically and financially.</p><p>When there's a real financial incentive to be in space (e.g., mineral rich asteroids or selling water on the moon) then for-profit companies will succeed.  Until then, they're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine .
Let them do it with their own astronauts , and with their own money .
Nothing 's stopping them.What troubles me is when we decide to throw away a nearly 50 year tradition of manned space excellence with a better than average track record and replace it with contracts to commercial space companies who have been making more promises than results for the past 25 years.Only Orbital and SpaceX have made it past the " Step 2 " phase , and they both had to learn the hard way that the space biz is exceptionally technically challenging and extremely risky , both technically and financially.When there 's a real financial incentive to be in space ( e.g. , mineral rich asteroids or selling water on the moon ) then for-profit companies will succeed .
Until then , they 're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine.
Let them do it with their own astronauts, and with their own money.
Nothing's stopping them.What troubles me is when we decide to throw away a nearly 50 year tradition of manned space excellence with a better than average track record and replace it with contracts to commercial space companies who have been making more promises than results for the past 25 years.Only Orbital and SpaceX have made it past the "Step 2" phase, and they both had to learn the hard way that the space biz is exceptionally technically challenging and extremely risky, both technically and financially.When there's a real financial incentive to be in space (e.g., mineral rich asteroids or selling water on the moon) then for-profit companies will succeed.
Until then, they're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30902648</id>
	<title>Re:The right way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264512960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order for a company to have the incentive to deliver faster cheaper better products, there has to be competition.  In the space industry, there is not exactly a lot of competition.  There's Scaled Composites, who can't yet achieve orbit in a manned vehicle, and there is SpaceX, who has no currently man-rated vehicle.  Both these companies need a lot of money to get to the point NASA is at.  And the financial incentive?  Space tourism will be a passing fad once everybody rich can do it, because there are much more economical ways to transport goods and people.  That just leaves government contracts.  And there is no incentive to delivery faster cheaper better with a government contract, as history has shown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for a company to have the incentive to deliver faster cheaper better products , there has to be competition .
In the space industry , there is not exactly a lot of competition .
There 's Scaled Composites , who ca n't yet achieve orbit in a manned vehicle , and there is SpaceX , who has no currently man-rated vehicle .
Both these companies need a lot of money to get to the point NASA is at .
And the financial incentive ?
Space tourism will be a passing fad once everybody rich can do it , because there are much more economical ways to transport goods and people .
That just leaves government contracts .
And there is no incentive to delivery faster cheaper better with a government contract , as history has shown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for a company to have the incentive to deliver faster cheaper better products, there has to be competition.
In the space industry, there is not exactly a lot of competition.
There's Scaled Composites, who can't yet achieve orbit in a manned vehicle, and there is SpaceX, who has no currently man-rated vehicle.
Both these companies need a lot of money to get to the point NASA is at.
And the financial incentive?
Space tourism will be a passing fad once everybody rich can do it, because there are much more economical ways to transport goods and people.
That just leaves government contracts.
And there is no incentive to delivery faster cheaper better with a government contract, as history has shown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974</id>
	<title>Last week NASA was urged not to outsource...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264418520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee - this is encouraging.  Just a week ago, an expert panel <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575012112718455380.html?mod=WSJ\_latestheadlines" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">warned NASA not to outsource manned space to commercial entities.</a> [wsj.com]</p><p>Clearly, this panel was stacked with government bureaucrats, obviously biased against upstanding American businesses.  The fact that commercial space has been 90\% vaporware for the past three decades had nothing to do with it.  And God forbid anyone suggest that for-profit organizations would cut corners for the sake of making more money.</p><p>And certainly corporate capture of NASA had nothing to do with today's announcement.  Perish the thought.<br>
&nbsp; <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee - this is encouraging .
Just a week ago , an expert panel warned NASA not to outsource manned space to commercial entities .
[ wsj.com ] Clearly , this panel was stacked with government bureaucrats , obviously biased against upstanding American businesses .
The fact that commercial space has been 90 \ % vaporware for the past three decades had nothing to do with it .
And God forbid anyone suggest that for-profit organizations would cut corners for the sake of making more money.And certainly corporate capture of NASA had nothing to do with today 's announcement .
Perish the thought .
  /sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee - this is encouraging.
Just a week ago, an expert panel warned NASA not to outsource manned space to commercial entities.
[wsj.com]Clearly, this panel was stacked with government bureaucrats, obviously biased against upstanding American businesses.
The fact that commercial space has been 90\% vaporware for the past three decades had nothing to do with it.
And God forbid anyone suggest that for-profit organizations would cut corners for the sake of making more money.And certainly corporate capture of NASA had nothing to do with today's announcement.
Perish the thought.
   /sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30899144</id>
	<title>Re:Noble Pursuits</title>
	<author>futuretechnology</author>
	<datestamp>1264430460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's a practical decision. I just read yesterday that because of financial difficulties NASA has to sell off some of its older Space Shuttles. Without private financing in the future there may be no NASA program to speak of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a practical decision .
I just read yesterday that because of financial difficulties NASA has to sell off some of its older Space Shuttles .
Without private financing in the future there may be no NASA program to speak of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a practical decision.
I just read yesterday that because of financial difficulties NASA has to sell off some of its older Space Shuttles.
Without private financing in the future there may be no NASA program to speak of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898466</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1264425960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder. Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft. I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks. Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal. Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything. And if you can't pay, don't expect help. Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.</p><p>The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist. He's the opposite of that. He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders. He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.</p></div><p>Gawd I can't decide whether you missed out on the 60s or fully understand the separate but co-equal three branches of government where the US Congress just got told to get off it's collective ass and explicitly define language about Campaign reform if they truly want to be serious about it. They now have a shot at doing it correctly and not the bulls***, watered down crap called McCain/Feingold.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , given recent SCOTUS decisions , the government is now available to the highest bidder .
Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket , while the little guys get the shaft .
I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks .
Everything will be privatized , and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal .
Private police forces , fire departments , roads : everything .
And if you ca n't pay , do n't expect help .
Those who ca n't pay will be expected to starve to death , like stray dogs in the streets.The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist .
He 's the opposite of that .
He 's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death , and he 's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders .
He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.Gawd I ca n't decide whether you missed out on the 60s or fully understand the separate but co-equal three branches of government where the US Congress just got told to get off it 's collective ass and explicitly define language about Campaign reform if they truly want to be serious about it .
They now have a shot at doing it correctly and not the bulls * * * , watered down crap called McCain/Feingold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, given recent SCOTUS decisions, the government is now available to the highest bidder.
Expect to see the power and privileges of multi-national corporations skyrocket, while the little guys get the shaft.
I expect that Disney will buy up all our national parks.
Everything will be privatized, and the uber-corps will make sure all public services are illegal.
Private police forces, fire departments, roads: everything.
And if you can't pay, don't expect help.
Those who can't pay will be expected to starve to death, like stray dogs in the streets.The funny thing is that some people on the right still think Obama is a socialist.
He's the opposite of that.
He's going to make sure health care reform dies a messy and painful death, and he's going to sell off the government to the highest bidders.
He showed his real colors when he kowtowed to Wall Street.Gawd I can't decide whether you missed out on the 60s or fully understand the separate but co-equal three branches of government where the US Congress just got told to get off it's collective ass and explicitly define language about Campaign reform if they truly want to be serious about it.
They now have a shot at doing it correctly and not the bulls***, watered down crap called McCain/Feingold.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</id>
	<title>Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms!</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1264418160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state .
Private firms already fight our wars .
What 's next , private firms taking over the " service " of governing the country ?
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state.
Private firms already fight our wars.
What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country?
Oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897364</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264420860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nonsense. Commercial, or at least semi-private space operations have been putting satellites in orbit for years now. And there is a profit in it.
<br> <br>
Admittedly, there is a difference between putting a satellite in orbit and putting a man on the space station or the moon. But progress <b>is</b> being made.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Commercial , or at least semi-private space operations have been putting satellites in orbit for years now .
And there is a profit in it .
Admittedly , there is a difference between putting a satellite in orbit and putting a man on the space station or the moon .
But progress is being made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Commercial, or at least semi-private space operations have been putting satellites in orbit for years now.
And there is a profit in it.
Admittedly, there is a difference between putting a satellite in orbit and putting a man on the space station or the moon.
But progress is being made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898572</id>
	<title>Soon, none of this will matter</title>
	<author>rebelscience</author>
	<datestamp>1264426620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are excellent reasons to believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation. It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels, move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down. An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Soon, we will develop technologies to tap into this energy for propulsion and energy production. Placing satellites in orbit will be a thing of the past because we'll build legions of self-propelling vehicles that can maintain a fixed (or changing) position relative to the surface of the earth without having to be in orbit. Floating sky cities, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours. That's the future of energy and travel.</p><p><a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Physics: The Problem with Motion</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are excellent reasons to believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation .
It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels , move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down .
An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles .
Soon , we will develop technologies to tap into this energy for propulsion and energy production .
Placing satellites in orbit will be a thing of the past because we 'll build legions of self-propelling vehicles that can maintain a fixed ( or changing ) position relative to the surface of the earth without having to be in orbit .
Floating sky cities , New York to Beijing in minutes , Earth to Mars in hours .
That 's the future of energy and travel.Physics : The Problem with Motion [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are excellent reasons to believe that having a correct foundational model of movement will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation.
It will be an age where vehicles have no need of wheels, move silently at enormous speeds with no visible means of propulsion and negotiate right-angle turns without slowing down.
An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles.
Soon, we will develop technologies to tap into this energy for propulsion and energy production.
Placing satellites in orbit will be a thing of the past because we'll build legions of self-propelling vehicles that can maintain a fixed (or changing) position relative to the surface of the earth without having to be in orbit.
Floating sky cities, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours.
That's the future of energy and travel.Physics: The Problem with Motion [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897340</id>
	<title>Re:The right way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264420740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Yes, definitely businesses will cut corners etc, but not at the expense of human lives"</i></p><p>The US healthcare system demonstrates otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , definitely businesses will cut corners etc , but not at the expense of human lives " The US healthcare system demonstrates otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, definitely businesses will cut corners etc, but not at the expense of human lives"The US healthcare system demonstrates otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897152</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264419480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...</p></div><p>Yes! I like that. I can run this for hundreds of billions of dollars less than what the current Government charges! Imagine you just paying hundreds of dollars a year in income taxes! That's right! For just a dollar a day, you will have a Federal Government! Act Now!</p><p>Some restrictions may apply.</p><p>National Defense, Homeland Security, Aid to poor people are extra. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, will be canceled. Basically we'll take the money and run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state .
Private firms already fight our wars .
What 's next , private firms taking over the " service " of governing the country ?
Oh wait...This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state .
Private firms already fight our wars .
What 's next , private firms taking over the " service " of governing the country ?
Oh wait...Yes !
I like that .
I can run this for hundreds of billions of dollars less than what the current Government charges !
Imagine you just paying hundreds of dollars a year in income taxes !
That 's right !
For just a dollar a day , you will have a Federal Government !
Act Now ! Some restrictions may apply.National Defense , Homeland Security , Aid to poor people are extra .
Social Security , Medicaid , Medicare , will be canceled .
Basically we 'll take the money and run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state.
Private firms already fight our wars.
What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country?
Oh wait...This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state.
Private firms already fight our wars.
What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country?
Oh wait...Yes!
I like that.
I can run this for hundreds of billions of dollars less than what the current Government charges!
Imagine you just paying hundreds of dollars a year in income taxes!
That's right!
For just a dollar a day, you will have a Federal Government!
Act Now!Some restrictions may apply.National Defense, Homeland Security, Aid to poor people are extra.
Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, will be canceled.
Basically we'll take the money and run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897636</id>
	<title>Re:Last week NASA was urged not to outsource...</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264422060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it is encouraging.  And actually, the panel was stacked with long-time NASA contractors who benefit from the current cost-plus contracting methods. And corporate interests and petty politics already dominate NASA -- Ares 1 isn't being kept alive for its technical merits, its because ATK and the senators from Alabama are fighting hard to keep it alive.</p><p>As far as vaporware, though I must admit I can be a little optimistic about companies like SpaceX, I'd point out that NASA has become a master of vaporware, and hasn't managed to develop a new launch vehicle since the space shuttle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it is encouraging .
And actually , the panel was stacked with long-time NASA contractors who benefit from the current cost-plus contracting methods .
And corporate interests and petty politics already dominate NASA -- Ares 1 is n't being kept alive for its technical merits , its because ATK and the senators from Alabama are fighting hard to keep it alive.As far as vaporware , though I must admit I can be a little optimistic about companies like SpaceX , I 'd point out that NASA has become a master of vaporware , and has n't managed to develop a new launch vehicle since the space shuttle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it is encouraging.
And actually, the panel was stacked with long-time NASA contractors who benefit from the current cost-plus contracting methods.
And corporate interests and petty politics already dominate NASA -- Ares 1 isn't being kept alive for its technical merits, its because ATK and the senators from Alabama are fighting hard to keep it alive.As far as vaporware, though I must admit I can be a little optimistic about companies like SpaceX, I'd point out that NASA has become a master of vaporware, and hasn't managed to develop a new launch vehicle since the space shuttle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898660</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264427100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until then, they're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function.</p></div><p>Which raises the question: "What more is there to learned about manned space flight given our current limitations"? After all, you can only do the "study of weightlessness on human body" experiments so many times before nothing new or useful is learned by additional repetitions. Personally, I feel that we should shelve manned space flight, or at least place it on the back burner, until we have substantially better propulsion systems (aka interstellar drives) and somewhere interesting to go. As you have already stated, there are few compelling reasons (other than national pride or prestige) for continuing manned space flight at this time. If there were, then private companies would do it, provided that they could earn profits; except right now they really cannot earn much (if any) profit, with the possible exception of government contracts, with manned space flights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until then , they 're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function.Which raises the question : " What more is there to learned about manned space flight given our current limitations " ?
After all , you can only do the " study of weightlessness on human body " experiments so many times before nothing new or useful is learned by additional repetitions .
Personally , I feel that we should shelve manned space flight , or at least place it on the back burner , until we have substantially better propulsion systems ( aka interstellar drives ) and somewhere interesting to go .
As you have already stated , there are few compelling reasons ( other than national pride or prestige ) for continuing manned space flight at this time .
If there were , then private companies would do it , provided that they could earn profits ; except right now they really can not earn much ( if any ) profit , with the possible exception of government contracts , with manned space flights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until then, they're just a vehicle to privatize what is otherwise be a government research function.Which raises the question: "What more is there to learned about manned space flight given our current limitations"?
After all, you can only do the "study of weightlessness on human body" experiments so many times before nothing new or useful is learned by additional repetitions.
Personally, I feel that we should shelve manned space flight, or at least place it on the back burner, until we have substantially better propulsion systems (aka interstellar drives) and somewhere interesting to go.
As you have already stated, there are few compelling reasons (other than national pride or prestige) for continuing manned space flight at this time.
If there were, then private companies would do it, provided that they could earn profits; except right now they really cannot earn much (if any) profit, with the possible exception of government contracts, with manned space flights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30902870</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1264514880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the government wasn't so darn powerful then there wouldn't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer.</p></div> </blockquote><p>If the government wasn't so powerful there would be no <em>need</em> to bribe it before doing some grievously evil corporate sheningan. Libertarians get modded down because they refuse to see that, in the absence of government, some other powerful group would take over and become new rulers; and in all likelihood, that group would be a lot more tyrannical than the current government. Nature abhors vacuum, and that goes for power vacuum too.</p><p>Oh, and some libertarians get modded down because they post rants about how people should starve to death so they wouldn't need to pay taxes to fund social security, but I'm assuming you meant the non-sociopathic variety.</p><blockquote><div><p>One cannot have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices, "manage" freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist.</p></div> </blockquote><p>However, you still have far more choice and freedom than under a feudal lord. That's the alternative to a big government: local strongmen running everything to their liking.</p><blockquote><div><p>The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they <em>claim</em> to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Because the levers will exist, whether they're manned by the government or by individuals. If they're controlled by the government, we at least can have <em>some</em> accountability or rules on how they're used, while if they're held by individuals, I'm at their mercy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government was n't so darn powerful then there would n't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer .
If the government was n't so powerful there would be no need to bribe it before doing some grievously evil corporate sheningan .
Libertarians get modded down because they refuse to see that , in the absence of government , some other powerful group would take over and become new rulers ; and in all likelihood , that group would be a lot more tyrannical than the current government .
Nature abhors vacuum , and that goes for power vacuum too.Oh , and some libertarians get modded down because they post rants about how people should starve to death so they would n't need to pay taxes to fund social security , but I 'm assuming you meant the non-sociopathic variety.One can not have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country ; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices , " manage " freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist .
However , you still have far more choice and freedom than under a feudal lord .
That 's the alternative to a big government : local strongmen running everything to their liking.The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they claim to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity ; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers ?
Because the levers will exist , whether they 're manned by the government or by individuals .
If they 're controlled by the government , we at least can have some accountability or rules on how they 're used , while if they 're held by individuals , I 'm at their mercy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government wasn't so darn powerful then there wouldn't be as many or as high bids and yet the Libertarians here on Slashdot are always modded down for having the temerity to suggest that bigger government is not the answer.
If the government wasn't so powerful there would be no need to bribe it before doing some grievously evil corporate sheningan.
Libertarians get modded down because they refuse to see that, in the absence of government, some other powerful group would take over and become new rulers; and in all likelihood, that group would be a lot more tyrannical than the current government.
Nature abhors vacuum, and that goes for power vacuum too.Oh, and some libertarians get modded down because they post rants about how people should starve to death so they wouldn't need to pay taxes to fund social security, but I'm assuming you meant the non-sociopathic variety.One cannot have lots of individual choice and freedom in a big government country; the desire to use the power of big government to limit choices, "manage" freedoms and control outcomes is simply too much for some to resist.
However, you still have far more choice and freedom than under a feudal lord.
That's the alternative to a big government: local strongmen running everything to their liking.The high-minded left often forgets or ignores the fact that not everyone is as altruistic or benevolent as they claim to be and that human nature absolutely will misuse the levers of power given the opportunity; so why magnify the damage by increasing the size and reach of those levers?
Because the levers will exist, whether they're manned by the government or by individuals.
If they're controlled by the government, we at least can have some accountability or rules on how they're used, while if they're held by individuals, I'm at their mercy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878</id>
	<title>just let them do it?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1264418160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>how about you just let private enterprise go to space or not, and just get out of their way? government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how about you just let private enterprise go to space or not , and just get out of their way ?
government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about you just let private enterprise go to space or not, and just get out of their way?
government $ is the last thing we need to give the private sector at this point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897902</id>
	<title>If done right, this is ideal</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264423320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For far too long, the West (esp. America) starts projects and then does not finish them; Too expensive, when the simple truth is, the next party does not have the fortitude to follow the vision. Clinton killed the Super Collider as well as the IFR. Both were short times away from being done. He started the X-33 as test craft to replace the shuttle. When it was headed towards testing, W/neo-cons killed it. Worse, when DOD BEGGED for multiple years to have the X-33, W/neo-con had the craft destroyed. So then, W starts a new program (constellation), but severely underfunded. In fact, all of the real money was pushed to be done NOW (which we can not really afford).<br>
HOWEVER, if Obama gives the push for MULTIPLE LVs, a private space station, and ideally a tug/fuel depot, then we will see private space take over. Once the corps are making money on the private space station, they will certainly push for the moon. In fact, if done right, we could be back on the moon by 2017. Of course, that depends on BA going back to their old schedule (starting space station by 2011), rather than the new schedule (2014).</htmltext>
<tokenext>For far too long , the West ( esp .
America ) starts projects and then does not finish them ; Too expensive , when the simple truth is , the next party does not have the fortitude to follow the vision .
Clinton killed the Super Collider as well as the IFR .
Both were short times away from being done .
He started the X-33 as test craft to replace the shuttle .
When it was headed towards testing , W/neo-cons killed it .
Worse , when DOD BEGGED for multiple years to have the X-33 , W/neo-con had the craft destroyed .
So then , W starts a new program ( constellation ) , but severely underfunded .
In fact , all of the real money was pushed to be done NOW ( which we can not really afford ) .
HOWEVER , if Obama gives the push for MULTIPLE LVs , a private space station , and ideally a tug/fuel depot , then we will see private space take over .
Once the corps are making money on the private space station , they will certainly push for the moon .
In fact , if done right , we could be back on the moon by 2017 .
Of course , that depends on BA going back to their old schedule ( starting space station by 2011 ) , rather than the new schedule ( 2014 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For far too long, the West (esp.
America) starts projects and then does not finish them; Too expensive, when the simple truth is, the next party does not have the fortitude to follow the vision.
Clinton killed the Super Collider as well as the IFR.
Both were short times away from being done.
He started the X-33 as test craft to replace the shuttle.
When it was headed towards testing, W/neo-cons killed it.
Worse, when DOD BEGGED for multiple years to have the X-33, W/neo-con had the craft destroyed.
So then, W starts a new program (constellation), but severely underfunded.
In fact, all of the real money was pushed to be done NOW (which we can not really afford).
HOWEVER, if Obama gives the push for MULTIPLE LVs, a private space station, and ideally a tug/fuel depot, then we will see private space take over.
Once the corps are making money on the private space station, they will certainly push for the moon.
In fact, if done right, we could be back on the moon by 2017.
Of course, that depends on BA going back to their old schedule (starting space station by 2011), rather than the new schedule (2014).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897806</id>
	<title>Re:just let them do it?</title>
	<author>Necron69</author>
	<datestamp>1264422900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that virtual everyone with experience in developing a working launch vehicle at NASA retired years ago? Your 50 year legacy is dust or in the nursing home.</p><p>SpaceX has at least built a rocket that flies and is more than vaporware. Better yet, they did it with ZERO taxpayer dollars, and no government bureaucracy.</p><p>What the New Space industry needs right now is more customers, and for that, the gov't is perfect to help jump start the market.</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that virtual everyone with experience in developing a working launch vehicle at NASA retired years ago ?
Your 50 year legacy is dust or in the nursing home.SpaceX has at least built a rocket that flies and is more than vaporware .
Better yet , they did it with ZERO taxpayer dollars , and no government bureaucracy.What the New Space industry needs right now is more customers , and for that , the gov't is perfect to help jump start the market.Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that virtual everyone with experience in developing a working launch vehicle at NASA retired years ago?
Your 50 year legacy is dust or in the nursing home.SpaceX has at least built a rocket that flies and is more than vaporware.
Better yet, they did it with ZERO taxpayer dollars, and no government bureaucracy.What the New Space industry needs right now is more customers, and for that, the gov't is perfect to help jump start the market.Necron69</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896990</id>
	<title>Bureaucracy Fail</title>
	<author>Plugh</author>
	<datestamp>1264418640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government programs don't "encourage" free enterprise. At best, they steal from some people who would not have spent it The Right Way and give the money to the wonderful people who will use it the way the Bureaucracy feels is Much Better.</p><p>The way to actually encourage free enterprise, is to stop threatening violence against the people who practice it.</p><p>Stop stealing their money. End the "license raj". Let the people do business with anyone who will freely trade with them -- whether or not they have a government-granted "permit". Let the people do whatever they want on and with their own private property, as long as they're not harming anybody else.</p><p>Of course, all that will never happen. Not unless people who feel the same way concentrate their efforts in one place. Fortunately... we already are. See my sig</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government programs do n't " encourage " free enterprise .
At best , they steal from some people who would not have spent it The Right Way and give the money to the wonderful people who will use it the way the Bureaucracy feels is Much Better.The way to actually encourage free enterprise , is to stop threatening violence against the people who practice it.Stop stealing their money .
End the " license raj " .
Let the people do business with anyone who will freely trade with them -- whether or not they have a government-granted " permit " .
Let the people do whatever they want on and with their own private property , as long as they 're not harming anybody else.Of course , all that will never happen .
Not unless people who feel the same way concentrate their efforts in one place .
Fortunately... we already are .
See my sig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government programs don't "encourage" free enterprise.
At best, they steal from some people who would not have spent it The Right Way and give the money to the wonderful people who will use it the way the Bureaucracy feels is Much Better.The way to actually encourage free enterprise, is to stop threatening violence against the people who practice it.Stop stealing their money.
End the "license raj".
Let the people do business with anyone who will freely trade with them -- whether or not they have a government-granted "permit".
Let the people do whatever they want on and with their own private property, as long as they're not harming anybody else.Of course, all that will never happen.
Not unless people who feel the same way concentrate their efforts in one place.
Fortunately... we already are.
See my sig</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30901040</id>
	<title>Why so negative?</title>
	<author>colonelquesadilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure why all the negative responses.  A great deal of space research is already private or semi private.  University groups send up small satellites on refitted ICBMs, european rockets, whatever.  SpaceX has a decent program, spaceship 2 is on the way.  Given the way Ares is shaping up, I'd rather fly on something built by private industry.  I know we're all space fans, but beyond the Air Force space program, which is clearly for defense, there is no reason for spaceflight to be a federal program.  There is absolutely no reason for it to be a monopoly.  Another side of this is that competition essentially multiplies investment.  If I want to develop a rocket, I have to spend X dollars.  If I say everyone who develops a rocket that does this gets Y dollars, I get a number of people Z each spending X dollars.  As long as Z*X &gt; Y, I got some free research.  That's how the X-prize worked, and it turned out well.  You all fly on EADS (Airbus) and Boeing products, Boeing and Lockheed martin are private and develop our military aircraft, private industry is really good at this stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why all the negative responses .
A great deal of space research is already private or semi private .
University groups send up small satellites on refitted ICBMs , european rockets , whatever .
SpaceX has a decent program , spaceship 2 is on the way .
Given the way Ares is shaping up , I 'd rather fly on something built by private industry .
I know we 're all space fans , but beyond the Air Force space program , which is clearly for defense , there is no reason for spaceflight to be a federal program .
There is absolutely no reason for it to be a monopoly .
Another side of this is that competition essentially multiplies investment .
If I want to develop a rocket , I have to spend X dollars .
If I say everyone who develops a rocket that does this gets Y dollars , I get a number of people Z each spending X dollars .
As long as Z * X &gt; Y , I got some free research .
That 's how the X-prize worked , and it turned out well .
You all fly on EADS ( Airbus ) and Boeing products , Boeing and Lockheed martin are private and develop our military aircraft , private industry is really good at this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why all the negative responses.
A great deal of space research is already private or semi private.
University groups send up small satellites on refitted ICBMs, european rockets, whatever.
SpaceX has a decent program, spaceship 2 is on the way.
Given the way Ares is shaping up, I'd rather fly on something built by private industry.
I know we're all space fans, but beyond the Air Force space program, which is clearly for defense, there is no reason for spaceflight to be a federal program.
There is absolutely no reason for it to be a monopoly.
Another side of this is that competition essentially multiplies investment.
If I want to develop a rocket, I have to spend X dollars.
If I say everyone who develops a rocket that does this gets Y dollars, I get a number of people Z each spending X dollars.
As long as Z*X &gt; Y, I got some free research.
That's how the X-prize worked, and it turned out well.
You all fly on EADS (Airbus) and Boeing products, Boeing and Lockheed martin are private and develop our military aircraft, private industry is really good at this stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897150</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1264419420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...</p></div></blockquote><p>
This one <a href="http://www.serco.com/" title="serco.com">is the biggest one you've never heard of</a> [serco.com], operates in all western democracies, everything from prisons to nuclear weapons handling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state .
Private firms already fight our wars .
What 's next , private firms taking over the " service " of governing the country ?
Oh wait.. . This one is the biggest one you 've never heard of [ serco.com ] , operates in all western democracies , everything from prisons to nuclear weapons handling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state.
Private firms already fight our wars.
What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country?
Oh wait...
This one is the biggest one you've never heard of [serco.com], operates in all western democracies, everything from prisons to nuclear weapons handling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898786</id>
	<title>Re:Almost anything's better than how we do it now</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1264427760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the more reason, IMHO, to cut the budget for manned space flight and spend the money elsewhere in the Federal government or, gasp, return it to the taxpayers from whom we took it in the first place. I don't think that its too controversial to say that manned space flight is the highest cost and lowest value program that NASA is currently involved with. The International Space Station has become little more than an orbiting hotel for bored billionaires subsidized by ordinary taxpayers. There are virtually no experiments worth doing, at least as far as I am aware, that couldn't be done both better and more cheaply here on the ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the more reason , IMHO , to cut the budget for manned space flight and spend the money elsewhere in the Federal government or , gasp , return it to the taxpayers from whom we took it in the first place .
I do n't think that its too controversial to say that manned space flight is the highest cost and lowest value program that NASA is currently involved with .
The International Space Station has become little more than an orbiting hotel for bored billionaires subsidized by ordinary taxpayers .
There are virtually no experiments worth doing , at least as far as I am aware , that could n't be done both better and more cheaply here on the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the more reason, IMHO, to cut the budget for manned space flight and spend the money elsewhere in the Federal government or, gasp, return it to the taxpayers from whom we took it in the first place.
I don't think that its too controversial to say that manned space flight is the highest cost and lowest value program that NASA is currently involved with.
The International Space Station has become little more than an orbiting hotel for bored billionaires subsidized by ordinary taxpayers.
There are virtually no experiments worth doing, at least as far as I am aware, that couldn't be done both better and more cheaply here on the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897510</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264421520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know there are some things that Private Companies can do better then the government.  Some things the government can do better.  And then there are things that companies can do well with the correct regulations.</p><p>For some things the government does creates a lot of red-tape and a lot of trying to please the right person and a lot of compromises in order to get everyone happy or at least equally unhappy.  Companies have a more direct approach to this, less politics and more getting the job done.  So they can make a profit and complete the project under budget.</p><p>However... Private firms are focused a lot of keeping profits high and costs low, which could effect quality.  For that case you will need government control or at least regulations/oversight to make sure that nothing critical is being cut or skimped on.</p><p>Then there are other tasks such as maintenance wich has a defined job this can run will with government control  such as Trash,Water, Sewer etc...</p><p>So it is really the right organization for the right job. I personally hate the Politics of saying X is better then Y... It is about getting the right balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know there are some things that Private Companies can do better then the government .
Some things the government can do better .
And then there are things that companies can do well with the correct regulations.For some things the government does creates a lot of red-tape and a lot of trying to please the right person and a lot of compromises in order to get everyone happy or at least equally unhappy .
Companies have a more direct approach to this , less politics and more getting the job done .
So they can make a profit and complete the project under budget.However... Private firms are focused a lot of keeping profits high and costs low , which could effect quality .
For that case you will need government control or at least regulations/oversight to make sure that nothing critical is being cut or skimped on.Then there are other tasks such as maintenance wich has a defined job this can run will with government control such as Trash,Water , Sewer etc...So it is really the right organization for the right job .
I personally hate the Politics of saying X is better then Y... It is about getting the right balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know there are some things that Private Companies can do better then the government.
Some things the government can do better.
And then there are things that companies can do well with the correct regulations.For some things the government does creates a lot of red-tape and a lot of trying to please the right person and a lot of compromises in order to get everyone happy or at least equally unhappy.
Companies have a more direct approach to this, less politics and more getting the job done.
So they can make a profit and complete the project under budget.However... Private firms are focused a lot of keeping profits high and costs low, which could effect quality.
For that case you will need government control or at least regulations/oversight to make sure that nothing critical is being cut or skimped on.Then there are other tasks such as maintenance wich has a defined job this can run will with government control  such as Trash,Water, Sewer etc...So it is really the right organization for the right job.
I personally hate the Politics of saying X is better then Y... It is about getting the right balance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897692</id>
	<title>Re:Gee, let's outsource governing to private firms</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264422240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not many commenters here seem to realize this, but private firms already handle space launches for the DOD and NRO, as well as all of NASA's unmanned science missions. This has been working well. The only new thing about the recent proposals is to have these same private launchers place people in orbit as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not many commenters here seem to realize this , but private firms already handle space launches for the DOD and NRO , as well as all of NASA 's unmanned science missions .
This has been working well .
The only new thing about the recent proposals is to have these same private launchers place people in orbit as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not many commenters here seem to realize this, but private firms already handle space launches for the DOD and NRO, as well as all of NASA's unmanned science missions.
This has been working well.
The only new thing about the recent proposals is to have these same private launchers place people in orbit as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897524</id>
	<title>Vehicle in development for commercial space flight</title>
	<author>spankey51</author>
	<datestamp>1264421520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been mentioned on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. before, but worth mentioning in this context:
A UK company called Reaction Engines Limited is developing a reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft. It is intended for exactly what NASA wants: Commercialized operations with rapid 2-3 day turnaround times and a high degree of reliability when compared to something like the STS space shuttle.
It uses a very interesting hybrid rocket engine that is capable of breathing air up to 26-ish kilometers and a speed of mach 5.5 before switching to an on-board O2 supply for the orbital insertion. Reaction Engines Limited has been working on the design for over 20 years, and the design is basically a modern rework of an older design called HOTOL from the 60's. If anyone has $10 Billion, I'd highly recommend giving it all to these friendly people:
<a href="http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon\_overview.html" title="reactionengines.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon\_overview.html</a> [reactionengines.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been mentioned on / .
before , but worth mentioning in this context : A UK company called Reaction Engines Limited is developing a reusable single-stage-to-orbit ( SSTO ) spacecraft .
It is intended for exactly what NASA wants : Commercialized operations with rapid 2-3 day turnaround times and a high degree of reliability when compared to something like the STS space shuttle .
It uses a very interesting hybrid rocket engine that is capable of breathing air up to 26-ish kilometers and a speed of mach 5.5 before switching to an on-board O2 supply for the orbital insertion .
Reaction Engines Limited has been working on the design for over 20 years , and the design is basically a modern rework of an older design called HOTOL from the 60 's .
If anyone has $ 10 Billion , I 'd highly recommend giving it all to these friendly people : http : //www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon \ _overview.html [ reactionengines.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been mentioned on /.
before, but worth mentioning in this context:
A UK company called Reaction Engines Limited is developing a reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft.
It is intended for exactly what NASA wants: Commercialized operations with rapid 2-3 day turnaround times and a high degree of reliability when compared to something like the STS space shuttle.
It uses a very interesting hybrid rocket engine that is capable of breathing air up to 26-ish kilometers and a speed of mach 5.5 before switching to an on-board O2 supply for the orbital insertion.
Reaction Engines Limited has been working on the design for over 20 years, and the design is basically a modern rework of an older design called HOTOL from the 60's.
If anyone has $10 Billion, I'd highly recommend giving it all to these friendly people:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon\_overview.html [reactionengines.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30904092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30899144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30902648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30902870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30901272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_2029220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30903092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30901272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30902870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30904092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30903092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30902648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30898402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30896888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_2029220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30897776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_2029220.30899144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
