<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_31_0033206</id>
	<title>Give Space a Chance, Says Phil Plait</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264957680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:thebadastronomer@gmAUDENail.comminuspoet" rel="nofollow">The Bad Astronomer</a> writes <i>"A lot of pundits, scientists, and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA, saying that the President's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration. This simply is not true. The budget will call for a new rocket design, and a lot of money will go toward private space companies, who <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/01/30/give-space-a-chance/">may be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares being ready</a> anyway."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bad Astronomer writes " A lot of pundits , scientists , and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA , saying that the President 's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration .
This simply is not true .
The budget will call for a new rocket design , and a lot of money will go toward private space companies , who may be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares being ready anyway .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bad Astronomer writes "A lot of pundits, scientists, and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA, saying that the President's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration.
This simply is not true.
The budget will call for a new rocket design, and a lot of money will go toward private space companies, who may be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares being ready anyway.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968738</id>
	<title>Re:Obama Is Right But for the Wrong Reason</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1264970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving aside your stupidity (or should I say gullibility) what you've just presented here is the old "spaceflight will be easier in the future so why bother now?" argument.  It's true that there may be new technologies available tomorrow, or next week, or next decade, but the majority of evidence suggests that chemical rockets remain the only known technology to produce high enough thrust to get out of planetary gravity wells, and to perform short duration missions beyond LEO.  It's lovely to think that maybe we're on the verge of some breakthrough that will render chemical rockets unnecessary, but even the greatest optimists of alternate propulsion techniques are unwilling to claim that.  Even if we develop cheap, reliable, compact and light fusion reactors tomorrow, to get high thrust you still need a rocket nozzle with a high temperature propellant flowing through it, and most likely that propellant will be even higher temperature than in chemical rockets (otherwise, what's the advantage?) and that's likely to involve an even more complex design.  Even if the design isn't more complex, it is necessarily more *new* and that means most likely less mature than needed for a human rated booster.</p><p>The future of spaceflight only gets easier than today if we fly today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving aside your stupidity ( or should I say gullibility ) what you 've just presented here is the old " spaceflight will be easier in the future so why bother now ?
" argument .
It 's true that there may be new technologies available tomorrow , or next week , or next decade , but the majority of evidence suggests that chemical rockets remain the only known technology to produce high enough thrust to get out of planetary gravity wells , and to perform short duration missions beyond LEO .
It 's lovely to think that maybe we 're on the verge of some breakthrough that will render chemical rockets unnecessary , but even the greatest optimists of alternate propulsion techniques are unwilling to claim that .
Even if we develop cheap , reliable , compact and light fusion reactors tomorrow , to get high thrust you still need a rocket nozzle with a high temperature propellant flowing through it , and most likely that propellant will be even higher temperature than in chemical rockets ( otherwise , what 's the advantage ?
) and that 's likely to involve an even more complex design .
Even if the design is n't more complex , it is necessarily more * new * and that means most likely less mature than needed for a human rated booster.The future of spaceflight only gets easier than today if we fly today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving aside your stupidity (or should I say gullibility) what you've just presented here is the old "spaceflight will be easier in the future so why bother now?
" argument.
It's true that there may be new technologies available tomorrow, or next week, or next decade, but the majority of evidence suggests that chemical rockets remain the only known technology to produce high enough thrust to get out of planetary gravity wells, and to perform short duration missions beyond LEO.
It's lovely to think that maybe we're on the verge of some breakthrough that will render chemical rockets unnecessary, but even the greatest optimists of alternate propulsion techniques are unwilling to claim that.
Even if we develop cheap, reliable, compact and light fusion reactors tomorrow, to get high thrust you still need a rocket nozzle with a high temperature propellant flowing through it, and most likely that propellant will be even higher temperature than in chemical rockets (otherwise, what's the advantage?
) and that's likely to involve an even more complex design.
Even if the design isn't more complex, it is necessarily more *new* and that means most likely less mature than needed for a human rated booster.The future of spaceflight only gets easier than today if we fly today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968528</id>
	<title>Re:taxpayer money wasted</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264879920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, a couple billion will be lost. Long term though is this a better way to proceed with space travel? If so, we'd need to flip over eventually so the cost isn't much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , a couple billion will be lost .
Long term though is this a better way to proceed with space travel ?
If so , we 'd need to flip over eventually so the cost is n't much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, a couple billion will be lost.
Long term though is this a better way to proceed with space travel?
If so, we'd need to flip over eventually so the cost isn't much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968504</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1264879620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What would the incentive be?</p></div><p>Making money?</p><p>Right now there's no money to be made from flights to the Moon or Mars so no company is going to spend the money to do so; but the cost of spaceflight is dropping and sooner or later there will be an economic case for both, even if only as a 'holiday of a lifetime' for rich bankers.</p><p>In the meantime, if there's no economic case for business to go there, why do you think that spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to put a few burrowcrats on the Moon is a good idea? They'll be about as useful as ISS (i.e. hardly at all) and cost even more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would the incentive be ? Making money ? Right now there 's no money to be made from flights to the Moon or Mars so no company is going to spend the money to do so ; but the cost of spaceflight is dropping and sooner or later there will be an economic case for both , even if only as a 'holiday of a lifetime ' for rich bankers.In the meantime , if there 's no economic case for business to go there , why do you think that spending billions of dollars of taxpayers ' money to put a few burrowcrats on the Moon is a good idea ?
They 'll be about as useful as ISS ( i.e .
hardly at all ) and cost even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would the incentive be?Making money?Right now there's no money to be made from flights to the Moon or Mars so no company is going to spend the money to do so; but the cost of spaceflight is dropping and sooner or later there will be an economic case for both, even if only as a 'holiday of a lifetime' for rich bankers.In the meantime, if there's no economic case for business to go there, why do you think that spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to put a few burrowcrats on the Moon is a good idea?
They'll be about as useful as ISS (i.e.
hardly at all) and cost even more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30972888</id>
	<title>Two words: Helium Three</title>
	<author>for9reatjustice</author>
	<datestamp>1264971060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since helium 3 seems to be our best hope for a sustainable controlled fusion reaction, and the moon is the best source for this material,   this move appears short sited and a political stunt that is ultimately bad for the US.  This is yet another reason why the US is in decline ---&gt; POLITICS.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial\_supplies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial\_supplies</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since helium 3 seems to be our best hope for a sustainable controlled fusion reaction , and the moon is the best source for this material , this move appears short sited and a political stunt that is ultimately bad for the US .
This is yet another reason why the US is in decline --- &gt; POLITICS .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 # Extraterrestrial \ _supplies [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since helium 3 seems to be our best hope for a sustainable controlled fusion reaction, and the moon is the best source for this material,   this move appears short sited and a political stunt that is ultimately bad for the US.
This is yet another reason why the US is in decline ---&gt; POLITICS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial\_supplies [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1264876200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. Government funding is the only way manned space flight has proceeded for the last 50 or so years. I'm as big on the free market as anyone, but there are some things worth doing that are simply not profitable in economic terms. In fact, some of humanity's greatest achievements obviously weren't profitable. I doubt the pyramids ever provided the Egyptians with a profit. Well - at least not for several thousand years.</p><p>Sure, private industry, say SpaceX, might be able to develop the technology. But who will be the customer? What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars? What would the incentive be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Government funding is the only way manned space flight has proceeded for the last 50 or so years .
I 'm as big on the free market as anyone , but there are some things worth doing that are simply not profitable in economic terms .
In fact , some of humanity 's greatest achievements obviously were n't profitable .
I doubt the pyramids ever provided the Egyptians with a profit .
Well - at least not for several thousand years.Sure , private industry , say SpaceX , might be able to develop the technology .
But who will be the customer ?
What company , with several billion dollars at it 's disposal , has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars ?
What would the incentive be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Government funding is the only way manned space flight has proceeded for the last 50 or so years.
I'm as big on the free market as anyone, but there are some things worth doing that are simply not profitable in economic terms.
In fact, some of humanity's greatest achievements obviously weren't profitable.
I doubt the pyramids ever provided the Egyptians with a profit.
Well - at least not for several thousand years.Sure, private industry, say SpaceX, might be able to develop the technology.
But who will be the customer?
What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars?
What would the incentive be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970942</id>
	<title>No, it is not</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264958700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Constellation, as far as Orion goes, will continue forward. That would be a lose. In fact, it will be put back on track. Many cuts were made to it because of the Ares I debacle. <br> <br>
OTH, Ares I and even Ares V are NIGHTMARES. Not only were they not funded by W (only in 2007 and 2008 once the congress went neutral did it go up), BUT, we are looking at another 32 BILLION dollars to build these. Ares I is looking at being ready no earlier than 2015 (likely 2017) at a cost of another 5 billion. It will cost about 100 million to launch less than 25MT. A stage one jupiter could be ready in 3 years. It will cost about 6-7 Billion to have ready. It will launch 70+MT into space. It will cost 130 million to launch. THe price per kg is MUCH less for Jupiter than Ares I.<br> <br>
 The Ares V will be another 20-25 billion to develop. The second stage of Jupiter will cost about 2 billion. It would be ready by 2015. Ares V would be a BIT cheaper (per kg) to run than Jupiter, BUT, the difference in development costs is about 18-24 billion. That will buy a LOT of launches on Jupiter.<br> <br>
Losing the Ares is the smartest thing that can be done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Constellation , as far as Orion goes , will continue forward .
That would be a lose .
In fact , it will be put back on track .
Many cuts were made to it because of the Ares I debacle .
OTH , Ares I and even Ares V are NIGHTMARES .
Not only were they not funded by W ( only in 2007 and 2008 once the congress went neutral did it go up ) , BUT , we are looking at another 32 BILLION dollars to build these .
Ares I is looking at being ready no earlier than 2015 ( likely 2017 ) at a cost of another 5 billion .
It will cost about 100 million to launch less than 25MT .
A stage one jupiter could be ready in 3 years .
It will cost about 6-7 Billion to have ready .
It will launch 70 + MT into space .
It will cost 130 million to launch .
THe price per kg is MUCH less for Jupiter than Ares I . The Ares V will be another 20-25 billion to develop .
The second stage of Jupiter will cost about 2 billion .
It would be ready by 2015 .
Ares V would be a BIT cheaper ( per kg ) to run than Jupiter , BUT , the difference in development costs is about 18-24 billion .
That will buy a LOT of launches on Jupiter .
Losing the Ares is the smartest thing that can be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Constellation, as far as Orion goes, will continue forward.
That would be a lose.
In fact, it will be put back on track.
Many cuts were made to it because of the Ares I debacle.
OTH, Ares I and even Ares V are NIGHTMARES.
Not only were they not funded by W (only in 2007 and 2008 once the congress went neutral did it go up), BUT, we are looking at another 32 BILLION dollars to build these.
Ares I is looking at being ready no earlier than 2015 (likely 2017) at a cost of another 5 billion.
It will cost about 100 million to launch less than 25MT.
A stage one jupiter could be ready in 3 years.
It will cost about 6-7 Billion to have ready.
It will launch 70+MT into space.
It will cost 130 million to launch.
THe price per kg is MUCH less for Jupiter than Ares I. 
 The Ares V will be another 20-25 billion to develop.
The second stage of Jupiter will cost about 2 billion.
It would be ready by 2015.
Ares V would be a BIT cheaper (per kg) to run than Jupiter, BUT, the difference in development costs is about 18-24 billion.
That will buy a LOT of launches on Jupiter.
Losing the Ares is the smartest thing that can be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968894</id>
	<title>Anyone remember Venture Star?</title>
	<author>ishmalius</author>
	<datestamp>1264930800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar</a> [wikipedia.org] That was an excellent example of private industry dropping the ball without a guaranteed flow of money from the government. Yes, I can see private industry handling low earth orbit. But the moon or Mars? There is no way that they will pay so much risk money ahead of time without promise of near-term profits. American corporations have forgotten how to invest in the future and only concern themselves with quarterly reports.  Lockheed wouldn't even fund its share of 50\%, or even a single year of development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar [ wikipedia.org ] That was an excellent example of private industry dropping the ball without a guaranteed flow of money from the government .
Yes , I can see private industry handling low earth orbit .
But the moon or Mars ?
There is no way that they will pay so much risk money ahead of time without promise of near-term profits .
American corporations have forgotten how to invest in the future and only concern themselves with quarterly reports .
Lockheed would n't even fund its share of 50 \ % , or even a single year of development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar [wikipedia.org] That was an excellent example of private industry dropping the ball without a guaranteed flow of money from the government.
Yes, I can see private industry handling low earth orbit.
But the moon or Mars?
There is no way that they will pay so much risk money ahead of time without promise of near-term profits.
American corporations have forgotten how to invest in the future and only concern themselves with quarterly reports.
Lockheed wouldn't even fund its share of 50\%, or even a single year of development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30979530</id>
	<title>Correcting The Truth</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1265030340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tBA writes: "A lot of pundits, scientists, and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA, saying that the President's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration. This simply is not true."</p><p>You are quite correct. It is simply not true that "A lot of pundits, scientists, and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA, saying that the President's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration." Very few people of any stripe, and virtually none who 'know better' are saying that. A large number are reporting the budget cuts. A small number are claiming any sort of implications headed towards eliminating manned space projects, and most of those are reprinting the same article. Most are correctly reporting that the intention behind the budget cuts was to promote 'private sector' orbital projects.</p><p>If you need to set up a straw man for you to sucker punch in order to get your point across, then either your confidence in the importance of the material, and/or your confidence in your journalistic skills are lacking. Look up 'fallacy of extension' and 'argument from adverse consequences' at <a href="http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html" title="don-lindsay-archive.org">http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html</a> [don-lindsay-archive.org] Given that you rarely decry demises and death knells ('prestigous jargon' on that list) in your columns, it seems the problem here is more of skills issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tBA writes : " A lot of pundits , scientists , and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA , saying that the President 's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration .
This simply is not true .
" You are quite correct .
It is simply not true that " A lot of pundits , scientists , and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA , saying that the President 's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration .
" Very few people of any stripe , and virtually none who 'know better ' are saying that .
A large number are reporting the budget cuts .
A small number are claiming any sort of implications headed towards eliminating manned space projects , and most of those are reprinting the same article .
Most are correctly reporting that the intention behind the budget cuts was to promote 'private sector ' orbital projects.If you need to set up a straw man for you to sucker punch in order to get your point across , then either your confidence in the importance of the material , and/or your confidence in your journalistic skills are lacking .
Look up 'fallacy of extension ' and 'argument from adverse consequences ' at http : //www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html [ don-lindsay-archive.org ] Given that you rarely decry demises and death knells ( 'prestigous jargon ' on that list ) in your columns , it seems the problem here is more of skills issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tBA writes: "A lot of pundits, scientists, and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA, saying that the President's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration.
This simply is not true.
"You are quite correct.
It is simply not true that "A lot of pundits, scientists, and people who should know better are decrying the demise of NASA, saying that the President's budget cutting the Constellation program and the Ares rockets will sound the death knell of manned space exploration.
" Very few people of any stripe, and virtually none who 'know better' are saying that.
A large number are reporting the budget cuts.
A small number are claiming any sort of implications headed towards eliminating manned space projects, and most of those are reprinting the same article.
Most are correctly reporting that the intention behind the budget cuts was to promote 'private sector' orbital projects.If you need to set up a straw man for you to sucker punch in order to get your point across, then either your confidence in the importance of the material, and/or your confidence in your journalistic skills are lacking.
Look up 'fallacy of extension' and 'argument from adverse consequences' at http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html [don-lindsay-archive.org] Given that you rarely decry demises and death knells ('prestigous jargon' on that list) in your columns, it seems the problem here is more of skills issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968702</id>
	<title>Re:the only reason we ever went to space</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1264969980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space, i look forward to the jamaican space ageny's first man on the moon, all the way on down to vanuatu</p></div><p>I await the day when you stop smoking crack and start using punctuation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space , i look forward to the jamaican space ageny 's first man on the moon , all the way on down to vanuatuI await the day when you stop smoking crack and start using punctuation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space, i look forward to the jamaican space ageny's first man on the moon, all the way on down to vanuatuI await the day when you stop smoking crack and start using punctuation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968420</id>
	<title>Obama Is Right But for the Wrong Reason</title>
	<author>rebelscience</author>
	<datestamp>1264878120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space exploration is really cool but there are good reasons to believe that spending money on more rocket propulsion systems will be money wasted. It&rsquo;s not just because rockets are an extremely expensive, limited and dangerous form of space transportation but because almost every form of transportation and energy production on planet Earth will be obsolete in the not too distant future. Let's face it. We will not colonize the solar system let alone the star systems beyond with a bunch of primitive rockets.</p><p>We are on the verge of a revolution in physics. A new analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in energy, lots and lots of it. Normal matter moves in an immense lattice of energetic particles without which motion itself would be impossible. Soon we&rsquo;ll have vehicles that can move at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damage due to inertial effects. Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes, tsunamis and bad weather, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours; that&rsquo;s the future of energy and travel. Read <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] if you're interested in a novel and truly revolutionary understanding of motion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space exploration is really cool but there are good reasons to believe that spending money on more rocket propulsion systems will be money wasted .
It    s not just because rockets are an extremely expensive , limited and dangerous form of space transportation but because almost every form of transportation and energy production on planet Earth will be obsolete in the not too distant future .
Let 's face it .
We will not colonize the solar system let alone the star systems beyond with a bunch of primitive rockets.We are on the verge of a revolution in physics .
A new analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in energy , lots and lots of it .
Normal matter moves in an immense lattice of energetic particles without which motion itself would be impossible .
Soon we    ll have vehicles that can move at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damage due to inertial effects .
Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes , tsunamis and bad weather , New York to Beijing in minutes , Earth to Mars in hours ; that    s the future of energy and travel .
Read Physics : The Problem with Motion [ blogspot.com ] if you 're interested in a novel and truly revolutionary understanding of motion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space exploration is really cool but there are good reasons to believe that spending money on more rocket propulsion systems will be money wasted.
It’s not just because rockets are an extremely expensive, limited and dangerous form of space transportation but because almost every form of transportation and energy production on planet Earth will be obsolete in the not too distant future.
Let's face it.
We will not colonize the solar system let alone the star systems beyond with a bunch of primitive rockets.We are on the verge of a revolution in physics.
A new analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in energy, lots and lots of it.
Normal matter moves in an immense lattice of energetic particles without which motion itself would be impossible.
Soon we’ll have vehicles that can move at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damage due to inertial effects.
Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes, tsunamis and bad weather, New York to Beijing in minutes, Earth to Mars in hours; that’s the future of energy and travel.
Read Physics: The Problem with Motion [blogspot.com] if you're interested in a novel and truly revolutionary understanding of motion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968392</id>
	<title>Re:Losing Constellation is a set back</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264877700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (and their counterparts in the USSR) made sense because of the cold war. Now that the cold war is gone the old justifications don't apply. The best thing NASA could do would be to buy commercial launches from private operators who prove that they can deliver reliably. That way launch vehicles will be available for public and private exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mercury , Gemini and Apollo ( and their counterparts in the USSR ) made sense because of the cold war .
Now that the cold war is gone the old justifications do n't apply .
The best thing NASA could do would be to buy commercial launches from private operators who prove that they can deliver reliably .
That way launch vehicles will be available for public and private exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (and their counterparts in the USSR) made sense because of the cold war.
Now that the cold war is gone the old justifications don't apply.
The best thing NASA could do would be to buy commercial launches from private operators who prove that they can deliver reliably.
That way launch vehicles will be available for public and private exploration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969078</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>Jaroslav.Tucek</author>
	<datestamp>1264935240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a heap of stone, which doubtless claimed thousands of lives during construction as well as binding production capacity of a nation for decades that could have been invested into future growth infrastructure. And all that for the single purpose of easing one man's afterlife - gobbling up tremendous amounts of other various kinds of resources which could have improved actual lives.of many That is what you consider to be a humanity's great achievement? We're a bunch of poor little bastards then...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So ... a heap of stone , which doubtless claimed thousands of lives during construction as well as binding production capacity of a nation for decades that could have been invested into future growth infrastructure .
And all that for the single purpose of easing one man 's afterlife - gobbling up tremendous amounts of other various kinds of resources which could have improved actual lives.of many That is what you consider to be a humanity 's great achievement ?
We 're a bunch of poor little bastards then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So ... a heap of stone, which doubtless claimed thousands of lives during construction as well as binding production capacity of a nation for decades that could have been invested into future growth infrastructure.
And all that for the single purpose of easing one man's afterlife - gobbling up tremendous amounts of other various kinds of resources which could have improved actual lives.of many That is what you consider to be a humanity's great achievement?
We're a bunch of poor little bastards then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340</id>
	<title>taxpayer money wasted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264876800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chances are though, a -lot- of taxpayer funded research is now going to be either A) unneeded (private space companies are going to use a totally different design) B) unaccessable (classified to the companies) C) unfinished or D) going to be redundant (private companies are now going to use taxpayer money to do the same exact thing)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are though , a -lot- of taxpayer funded research is now going to be either A ) unneeded ( private space companies are going to use a totally different design ) B ) unaccessable ( classified to the companies ) C ) unfinished or D ) going to be redundant ( private companies are now going to use taxpayer money to do the same exact thing )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are though, a -lot- of taxpayer funded research is now going to be either A) unneeded (private space companies are going to use a totally different design) B) unaccessable (classified to the companies) C) unfinished or D) going to be redundant (private companies are now going to use taxpayer money to do the same exact thing)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294</id>
	<title>Losing Constellation is a set back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264876260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Years of work have gone in Ares I,5 and the capsules. Yes is
was just a bigger Apollo with more modern components, but
if its cancelled and NASA have to restart then those years and
dollars are gone, any moon or mars mission is setback at
least 5 years. But as Phil said, these are just rumours, we
don't yet know what will happen to NASA.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/space\%20craft/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Space Craft</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years of work have gone in Ares I,5 and the capsules .
Yes is was just a bigger Apollo with more modern components , but if its cancelled and NASA have to restart then those years and dollars are gone , any moon or mars mission is setback at least 5 years .
But as Phil said , these are just rumours , we do n't yet know what will happen to NASA .
--- Space Craft [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years of work have gone in Ares I,5 and the capsules.
Yes is
was just a bigger Apollo with more modern components, but
if its cancelled and NASA have to restart then those years and
dollars are gone, any moon or mars mission is setback at
least 5 years.
But as Phil said, these are just rumours, we
don't yet know what will happen to NASA.
---

Space Craft [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969316</id>
	<title>Wasteful use of resource?</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1264940400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Constellation was going to be dropped eventually, why pour some much money into it?<br> <br>

Wouldn't it be better to reuse already available technology? And if NASA does not have the budget to to it then transfer the technology to other companies. <br> <br>

The Russians has been using their human launch capabilities for decades without having to go through different launch technologies. They have being using the same rocket family and space ship without pouring money on dead alleys of chopped off projects. How much money has used Russian to put, and keep putting men in space and how much money has use the US to put no man in space in the end?<br> <br>

Why not reuse what is already in place, use the DIRECT Shuttle derivative? Transfer the technology to private firms, and set up goals to be back to space in shorter time and with lower budgets.<br> <br>

It is crazy to keep burning the wheels to reinvent it again.

Even NASA could use such developed system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Constellation was going to be dropped eventually , why pour some much money into it ?
Would n't it be better to reuse already available technology ?
And if NASA does not have the budget to to it then transfer the technology to other companies .
The Russians has been using their human launch capabilities for decades without having to go through different launch technologies .
They have being using the same rocket family and space ship without pouring money on dead alleys of chopped off projects .
How much money has used Russian to put , and keep putting men in space and how much money has use the US to put no man in space in the end ?
Why not reuse what is already in place , use the DIRECT Shuttle derivative ?
Transfer the technology to private firms , and set up goals to be back to space in shorter time and with lower budgets .
It is crazy to keep burning the wheels to reinvent it again .
Even NASA could use such developed system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Constellation was going to be dropped eventually, why pour some much money into it?
Wouldn't it be better to reuse already available technology?
And if NASA does not have the budget to to it then transfer the technology to other companies.
The Russians has been using their human launch capabilities for decades without having to go through different launch technologies.
They have being using the same rocket family and space ship without pouring money on dead alleys of chopped off projects.
How much money has used Russian to put, and keep putting men in space and how much money has use the US to put no man in space in the end?
Why not reuse what is already in place, use the DIRECT Shuttle derivative?
Transfer the technology to private firms, and set up goals to be back to space in shorter time and with lower budgets.
It is crazy to keep burning the wheels to reinvent it again.
Even NASA could use such developed system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968662</id>
	<title>Not an economic matter</title>
	<author>mozzis</author>
	<datestamp>1264969200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but maybe a political one. The governments of India and China both have announced intentions of establishing presences on the Moon. I would rather that the US be a participant in that rather than an onlooker - or hitchhiker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but maybe a political one .
The governments of India and China both have announced intentions of establishing presences on the Moon .
I would rather that the US be a participant in that rather than an onlooker - or hitchhiker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but maybe a political one.
The governments of India and China both have announced intentions of establishing presences on the Moon.
I would rather that the US be a participant in that rather than an onlooker - or hitchhiker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969600</id>
	<title>We Fail to Dream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a simple reason why NASA is dying and that is we as a nation fail to dream. No, you can't blame social problems and political strife. During the time of the moon missions do you remember what was going on? I do because I grew up in that time. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam war. I remember our cities on fire following the killing of Dr. King. Yet in the middle of all of this we were able to go to the moon because we were able to dream the big dreams.</p><p>Today, we no longer dream, and we stop our kids from dreaming. We blame terrorist and take away the tools of the dreamers. Think of the kids who can't do home chemistry because you can't buy chemicals anymore. If you try you will get a visit from the men in dark sunglasses. Or how about the ATF trying to ban model rocket motors as explosives that could be used by terrorist. The National Association of Rocketry and Tripoli have been fighting this for years and appear to have finally won, but 8+ years fighting the government to keep a hobby alive?</p><p>Even our teachers put a stop to our kids dreams. Remember just in the past week there was the 'Technology school' who called the cops because a student brought in a science project that the administration thought was a bomb. And when it was discovered that it wasn't a bomb but a motion detector did the school apologize? NO! They made the kid and his parents seek counseling.</p><p>We as a nation have become a nanny state,where everything is too dangerous. Dreams involve risk, and risk is dangerous, and in our country today risk simply isn't tolerated.</p><p>So NASA will die, and eventually we as a nation will die. We have started down that road. Unless we have a change of soul, we will continue down that road. Other countries will take the lead (can you say China, Russia, India and others) and pass the USA.</p><p>It was nice while it lasted.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a simple reason why NASA is dying and that is we as a nation fail to dream .
No , you ca n't blame social problems and political strife .
During the time of the moon missions do you remember what was going on ?
I do because I grew up in that time .
The civil rights movement and the Vietnam war .
I remember our cities on fire following the killing of Dr. King. Yet in the middle of all of this we were able to go to the moon because we were able to dream the big dreams.Today , we no longer dream , and we stop our kids from dreaming .
We blame terrorist and take away the tools of the dreamers .
Think of the kids who ca n't do home chemistry because you ca n't buy chemicals anymore .
If you try you will get a visit from the men in dark sunglasses .
Or how about the ATF trying to ban model rocket motors as explosives that could be used by terrorist .
The National Association of Rocketry and Tripoli have been fighting this for years and appear to have finally won , but 8 + years fighting the government to keep a hobby alive ? Even our teachers put a stop to our kids dreams .
Remember just in the past week there was the 'Technology school ' who called the cops because a student brought in a science project that the administration thought was a bomb .
And when it was discovered that it was n't a bomb but a motion detector did the school apologize ?
NO ! They made the kid and his parents seek counseling.We as a nation have become a nanny state,where everything is too dangerous .
Dreams involve risk , and risk is dangerous , and in our country today risk simply is n't tolerated.So NASA will die , and eventually we as a nation will die .
We have started down that road .
Unless we have a change of soul , we will continue down that road .
Other countries will take the lead ( can you say China , Russia , India and others ) and pass the USA.It was nice while it lasted .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a simple reason why NASA is dying and that is we as a nation fail to dream.
No, you can't blame social problems and political strife.
During the time of the moon missions do you remember what was going on?
I do because I grew up in that time.
The civil rights movement and the Vietnam war.
I remember our cities on fire following the killing of Dr. King. Yet in the middle of all of this we were able to go to the moon because we were able to dream the big dreams.Today, we no longer dream, and we stop our kids from dreaming.
We blame terrorist and take away the tools of the dreamers.
Think of the kids who can't do home chemistry because you can't buy chemicals anymore.
If you try you will get a visit from the men in dark sunglasses.
Or how about the ATF trying to ban model rocket motors as explosives that could be used by terrorist.
The National Association of Rocketry and Tripoli have been fighting this for years and appear to have finally won, but 8+ years fighting the government to keep a hobby alive?Even our teachers put a stop to our kids dreams.
Remember just in the past week there was the 'Technology school' who called the cops because a student brought in a science project that the administration thought was a bomb.
And when it was discovered that it wasn't a bomb but a motion detector did the school apologize?
NO! They made the kid and his parents seek counseling.We as a nation have become a nanny state,where everything is too dangerous.
Dreams involve risk, and risk is dangerous, and in our country today risk simply isn't tolerated.So NASA will die, and eventually we as a nation will die.
We have started down that road.
Unless we have a change of soul, we will continue down that road.
Other countries will take the lead (can you say China, Russia, India and others) and pass the USA.It was nice while it lasted.
:-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968808</id>
	<title>Losing Duke Nukem Forever is a set back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264929480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Years of work have gone in Duke Nukem Forever. Yes is was just another Duke Nukem with more modern components, but if its cancelled and Take Two Interactive has to restart then those years and dollars are gone, any Duke Nukem is setback at least 5 years. But as Phil said, these are just rumours, we don't yet know what will happen to 3D Realms.</p></div><p>YEAH!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Years of work have gone in Duke Nukem Forever .
Yes is was just another Duke Nukem with more modern components , but if its cancelled and Take Two Interactive has to restart then those years and dollars are gone , any Duke Nukem is setback at least 5 years .
But as Phil said , these are just rumours , we do n't yet know what will happen to 3D Realms.YEAH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years of work have gone in Duke Nukem Forever.
Yes is was just another Duke Nukem with more modern components, but if its cancelled and Take Two Interactive has to restart then those years and dollars are gone, any Duke Nukem is setback at least 5 years.
But as Phil said, these are just rumours, we don't yet know what will happen to 3D Realms.YEAH!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971358</id>
	<title>Loose space to China and India</title>
	<author>KDN</author>
	<datestamp>1264961820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets face it, Obama's change, coupled with the funding neglect of Congress for the past 6 years, means we have effectively handed the future of space to China and India.  If you want a career in space, better learn Chinese.

What would have been better is to give the unmanned projects over to private industry.  Every time we loose a human, we spend 2 years in pause while the rest of the world catches up.
If we loose an unmanned mission, we don't stop the entire program.
When private industry shows a better launch record than NASA (and in a decade or so I believe they will), then maybe we should consider giving them manned programs.
Note: NOTHING stops private industry from doing it now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , Obama 's change , coupled with the funding neglect of Congress for the past 6 years , means we have effectively handed the future of space to China and India .
If you want a career in space , better learn Chinese .
What would have been better is to give the unmanned projects over to private industry .
Every time we loose a human , we spend 2 years in pause while the rest of the world catches up .
If we loose an unmanned mission , we do n't stop the entire program .
When private industry shows a better launch record than NASA ( and in a decade or so I believe they will ) , then maybe we should consider giving them manned programs .
Note : NOTHING stops private industry from doing it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, Obama's change, coupled with the funding neglect of Congress for the past 6 years, means we have effectively handed the future of space to China and India.
If you want a career in space, better learn Chinese.
What would have been better is to give the unmanned projects over to private industry.
Every time we loose a human, we spend 2 years in pause while the rest of the world catches up.
If we loose an unmanned mission, we don't stop the entire program.
When private industry shows a better launch record than NASA (and in a decade or so I believe they will), then maybe we should consider giving them manned programs.
Note: NOTHING stops private industry from doing it now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969418</id>
	<title>The US could close down NASA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and ban space flight, it still wouldn't be the "death knell of manned space exploration". There are other space agencies. If anything, seeing the Chinese or Indians land people on the moon might get you started again. I think international competition is more likely to drive space exploration than all of us holding hands and doing it together.
</p><p>
Either way, fact is that the US will not be able to maintain their lead indefinitely, it's just part of its decline in relative power and capabilities. When people someday travel permanently into space, it won't be the Americans doing the driving.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and ban space flight , it still would n't be the " death knell of manned space exploration " .
There are other space agencies .
If anything , seeing the Chinese or Indians land people on the moon might get you started again .
I think international competition is more likely to drive space exploration than all of us holding hands and doing it together .
Either way , fact is that the US will not be able to maintain their lead indefinitely , it 's just part of its decline in relative power and capabilities .
When people someday travel permanently into space , it wo n't be the Americans doing the driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and ban space flight, it still wouldn't be the "death knell of manned space exploration".
There are other space agencies.
If anything, seeing the Chinese or Indians land people on the moon might get you started again.
I think international competition is more likely to drive space exploration than all of us holding hands and doing it together.
Either way, fact is that the US will not be able to maintain their lead indefinitely, it's just part of its decline in relative power and capabilities.
When people someday travel permanently into space, it won't be the Americans doing the driving.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971018</id>
	<title>Re:Private Companies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I can never imagine why any private company would want to have satellites. Likewise, no company would want to mine an asteroid or even the moon with automated equipment and not have to deal with EPA. Likewise, no company would want to discover a new vaccine that is only possible in space and not on high g's. And no company will be able to come up with new ideas in which to make money.<br> <br>
I mean, ask Portugal and China all about that. It worked great for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I can never imagine why any private company would want to have satellites .
Likewise , no company would want to mine an asteroid or even the moon with automated equipment and not have to deal with EPA .
Likewise , no company would want to discover a new vaccine that is only possible in space and not on high g 's .
And no company will be able to come up with new ideas in which to make money .
I mean , ask Portugal and China all about that .
It worked great for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I can never imagine why any private company would want to have satellites.
Likewise, no company would want to mine an asteroid or even the moon with automated equipment and not have to deal with EPA.
Likewise, no company would want to discover a new vaccine that is only possible in space and not on high g's.
And no company will be able to come up with new ideas in which to make money.
I mean, ask Portugal and China all about that.
It worked great for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970980</id>
	<title>Re:taxpayer money wasted</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>All of the private space will use standard connectors when it comes to hooking up large parts. For example, NASA will come up with standards for various liquid and gas exchange, electricity, etc. Otherwise, we will do what is done today; an adopter will be used.</li>
<li>If the research is taxpayer funded, then it is owned by us.</li>
<li>RD is always unfinished.</li>
<li>RD is always redundant. That allows for checks and balance IN SCIENCE.</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the private space will use standard connectors when it comes to hooking up large parts .
For example , NASA will come up with standards for various liquid and gas exchange , electricity , etc .
Otherwise , we will do what is done today ; an adopter will be used .
If the research is taxpayer funded , then it is owned by us .
RD is always unfinished .
RD is always redundant .
That allows for checks and balance IN SCIENCE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
All of the private space will use standard connectors when it comes to hooking up large parts.
For example, NASA will come up with standards for various liquid and gas exchange, electricity, etc.
Otherwise, we will do what is done today; an adopter will be used.
If the research is taxpayer funded, then it is owned by us.
RD is always unfinished.
RD is always redundant.
That allows for checks and balance IN SCIENCE.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232</id>
	<title>Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weee!  They'll be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares!  Because putting people into orbit is exactly why Ares was being built, since NASA can't do that with their current rockets.</p><p>The private industry is decades away from what NASA can do today.  It's at least a century away from what NASA could do 40 years ago.  They're <b>never</b> going to get us into mars, because there's simply no profit in it.  Government funding is the only way space exploration can go forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weee !
They 'll be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares !
Because putting people into orbit is exactly why Ares was being built , since NASA ca n't do that with their current rockets.The private industry is decades away from what NASA can do today .
It 's at least a century away from what NASA could do 40 years ago .
They 're never going to get us into mars , because there 's simply no profit in it .
Government funding is the only way space exploration can go forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weee!
They'll be able to launch people into orbit years ahead of Ares!
Because putting people into orbit is exactly why Ares was being built, since NASA can't do that with their current rockets.The private industry is decades away from what NASA can do today.
It's at least a century away from what NASA could do 40 years ago.
They're never going to get us into mars, because there's simply no profit in it.
Government funding is the only way space exploration can go forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968474</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264879140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They're never going to get us into mars, because there's simply no profit in it. Government funding is the only way space exploration can go forward."<br> <br>Good thing you read the summary. "...a lot of money will go toward private space companies..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They 're never going to get us into mars , because there 's simply no profit in it .
Government funding is the only way space exploration can go forward .
" Good thing you read the summary .
" ...a lot of money will go toward private space companies... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They're never going to get us into mars, because there's simply no profit in it.
Government funding is the only way space exploration can go forward.
" Good thing you read the summary.
"...a lot of money will go toward private space companies..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968606</id>
	<title>Re:Losing Constellation is a set back</title>
	<author>KibibyteBrain</author>
	<datestamp>1264968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The years and dollars aren't gone. Most of the effort of Ares from what I can tell has been relearning how to do what we did in the past, slightly better, with modern technology and the team at NASA now. Its not like that team will magically forget everything they learned with that time and money if the White House and Congress want a different rocket. They will only lose the marginal differences between the old design and the new design requirements.Overall, it could actually save years and dollars if the new design winds up superior to the last, in a certain way of thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The years and dollars are n't gone .
Most of the effort of Ares from what I can tell has been relearning how to do what we did in the past , slightly better , with modern technology and the team at NASA now .
Its not like that team will magically forget everything they learned with that time and money if the White House and Congress want a different rocket .
They will only lose the marginal differences between the old design and the new design requirements.Overall , it could actually save years and dollars if the new design winds up superior to the last , in a certain way of thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The years and dollars aren't gone.
Most of the effort of Ares from what I can tell has been relearning how to do what we did in the past, slightly better, with modern technology and the team at NASA now.
Its not like that team will magically forget everything they learned with that time and money if the White House and Congress want a different rocket.
They will only lose the marginal differences between the old design and the new design requirements.Overall, it could actually save years and dollars if the new design winds up superior to the last, in a certain way of thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970574</id>
	<title>Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space Frontie</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1264955580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space Frontier</p><p>Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space</p><p>by James Bowery, Chairman, Coalition for Science and Commerce</p><p>July 31, 1991</p><p>Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:</p><p>I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.</p><p>The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services. We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization. We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property. We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility. We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government. We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them. Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services. We also oppose government subsidy of technology development. Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.</p><p>In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector. The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's founders, but now rarely seen in America.</p><p>We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States. There is no collective action, no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans. We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Americans need a frontier, not a program.</p><p>Incentives open frontiers, not plans.</p><p>If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.</p><p>Americans Need a Frontier</p><p>When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race" against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.</p><p>The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans. Something almost primal. Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier." But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest, we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls. The result is that Americans will never again truly believe in government space programs and plans.</p><p>Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space FrontierTestimony before the House Subcommittee on Spaceby James Bowery , Chairman , Coalition for Science and CommerceJuly 31 , 1991Mr .
Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee : I am James Bowery , Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce .
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services .
We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization .
We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property .
We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility .
We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government .
We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists , supposedly in service of them .
Rather we support the inclusion , on a per-grant basis , of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services , thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services .
We also oppose government subsidy of technology development .
Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.In 1990 , after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard ( CA ) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders , we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 , a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector .
The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country 's founders , but now rarely seen in America.We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute : The voluntary and targeted investment of time , energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States .
There is no collective action , no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition : Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process , which is their birthright and duty as Americans .
We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.IntroductionAmericans need a frontier , not a program.Incentives open frontiers , not plans.If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies , projections and policy recommendations , it must hear this message .
A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world , a nation and as individuals.Americans Need a FrontierWhen Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon , we won the " space race " against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans .
Something almost primal .
Apollo was President Kennedy 's " New Frontier .
" But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest , we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls .
The result is that Americans will never again truly believe in government space programs and plans.Without a frontier , for the past two decades , Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land , raw materi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space FrontierTestimony before the House Subcommittee on Spaceby James Bowery, Chairman, Coalition for Science and CommerceJuly 31, 1991Mr.
Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services.
We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization.
We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property.
We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility.
We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government.
We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them.
Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services.
We also oppose government subsidy of technology development.
Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector.
The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's founders, but now rarely seen in America.We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States.
There is no collective action, no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans.
We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.IntroductionAmericans need a frontier, not a program.Incentives open frontiers, not plans.If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message.
A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.Americans Need a FrontierWhen Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race" against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans.
Something almost primal.
Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier.
" But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest, we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls.
The result is that Americans will never again truly believe in government space programs and plans.Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968428</id>
	<title>the only reason we ever went to space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264878300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was as a nationalistic machismo chest thumping exercise</p><p>like two drunks at a party trying to impress the same chick by grandstanding who can catch steak knives in their mouth</p><p>i'm sorry, but for all those who see spacefaring as the noblest of mankind's pursuits, the actual reasons for getting our butts into space was amongst the basest of motivations: tribal rivalry</p><p>india wants to thump its chest now, china, brazil, etc., and let them. its an enjoyable quaint nationalistic pasttime at this point, like hosting the olympics or setting off a nuclear bomb</p><p>i await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space, i look forward to the jamaican space ageny's first man on the moon, all the way on down to vanuatu</p><p>the future will be chest thumping by multinational corporations. what better way for microsoft to win PR for its product line over google's than to have its probe to ganymede run on windows 7 starter? or have it actually serve up search returns for select searches, with a slight latency?</p><p>and if a man ever gets into space again, his craft and his suit will look like nascar. gloves by nike, second stage booster with "viagra" on the side. its the american way, privatize everything: space agency, healthcare, prison systems, hired mercenaries. god bless america. i'm sorry, is that trademarked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was as a nationalistic machismo chest thumping exerciselike two drunks at a party trying to impress the same chick by grandstanding who can catch steak knives in their mouthi 'm sorry , but for all those who see spacefaring as the noblest of mankind 's pursuits , the actual reasons for getting our butts into space was amongst the basest of motivations : tribal rivalryindia wants to thump its chest now , china , brazil , etc. , and let them .
its an enjoyable quaint nationalistic pasttime at this point , like hosting the olympics or setting off a nuclear bombi await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space , i look forward to the jamaican space ageny 's first man on the moon , all the way on down to vanuatuthe future will be chest thumping by multinational corporations .
what better way for microsoft to win PR for its product line over google 's than to have its probe to ganymede run on windows 7 starter ?
or have it actually serve up search returns for select searches , with a slight latency ? and if a man ever gets into space again , his craft and his suit will look like nascar .
gloves by nike , second stage booster with " viagra " on the side .
its the american way , privatize everything : space agency , healthcare , prison systems , hired mercenaries .
god bless america .
i 'm sorry , is that trademarked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was as a nationalistic machismo chest thumping exerciselike two drunks at a party trying to impress the same chick by grandstanding who can catch steak knives in their mouthi'm sorry, but for all those who see spacefaring as the noblest of mankind's pursuits, the actual reasons for getting our butts into space was amongst the basest of motivations: tribal rivalryindia wants to thump its chest now, china, brazil, etc., and let them.
its an enjoyable quaint nationalistic pasttime at this point, like hosting the olympics or setting off a nuclear bombi await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space, i look forward to the jamaican space ageny's first man on the moon, all the way on down to vanuatuthe future will be chest thumping by multinational corporations.
what better way for microsoft to win PR for its product line over google's than to have its probe to ganymede run on windows 7 starter?
or have it actually serve up search returns for select searches, with a slight latency?and if a man ever gets into space again, his craft and his suit will look like nascar.
gloves by nike, second stage booster with "viagra" on the side.
its the american way, privatize everything: space agency, healthcare, prison systems, hired mercenaries.
god bless america.
i'm sorry, is that trademarked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969364</id>
	<title>Lift, Harvest, Supply, Return</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1264941000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current issue is heavy lift.  This is the struggle we have had for a few decades.</p><p>Once we can lift LOTS of equipment and personal we need into high earth orbit things start to change.  Why?  Well we can finally start lifting equipment that can finally start to live off of the environment.  Currently the only thing we extract in space is solar radiation.  Why?  Well we simply can not lift equipment that can harvest the matter that exists in space.  Why can't we?  Well it's bloody expensive.  Case in point the International Space station.  This is a science platform.  One that has a very hard time sampling it's environment let alone harvesting it.</p><p>We need to be able to lift devices that can land on rocks, asteroids, moons, and planets. From there extract resources and deliver those resource to orbital devices that can process them for further use.  The use is NOT for return to earth.  But rather to supplement the resources for subsequent space missions.  Once this feedback loop starts to take hold the cost of subsequent space exploration deeper into the solar system and beyond drops radically.  The trick is to only lift the bare minimum into orbit with the majority of supplies being extracted from the local environment.</p><p>With luck the feedback loop of resources will eventually start to spill back to earth.   At some point the harvesting in space will exceed the space born demands for resources.  At this point we start to see a viable return resources to earth policy.   The loop starts to close.</p><p>It will take time before the returns start to exceed the lift in cost.  Only at the point where return exceeds lift cost can we state we are a space born culture.  Because at this point we explode into space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current issue is heavy lift .
This is the struggle we have had for a few decades.Once we can lift LOTS of equipment and personal we need into high earth orbit things start to change .
Why ? Well we can finally start lifting equipment that can finally start to live off of the environment .
Currently the only thing we extract in space is solar radiation .
Why ? Well we simply can not lift equipment that can harvest the matter that exists in space .
Why ca n't we ?
Well it 's bloody expensive .
Case in point the International Space station .
This is a science platform .
One that has a very hard time sampling it 's environment let alone harvesting it.We need to be able to lift devices that can land on rocks , asteroids , moons , and planets .
From there extract resources and deliver those resource to orbital devices that can process them for further use .
The use is NOT for return to earth .
But rather to supplement the resources for subsequent space missions .
Once this feedback loop starts to take hold the cost of subsequent space exploration deeper into the solar system and beyond drops radically .
The trick is to only lift the bare minimum into orbit with the majority of supplies being extracted from the local environment.With luck the feedback loop of resources will eventually start to spill back to earth .
At some point the harvesting in space will exceed the space born demands for resources .
At this point we start to see a viable return resources to earth policy .
The loop starts to close.It will take time before the returns start to exceed the lift in cost .
Only at the point where return exceeds lift cost can we state we are a space born culture .
Because at this point we explode into space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current issue is heavy lift.
This is the struggle we have had for a few decades.Once we can lift LOTS of equipment and personal we need into high earth orbit things start to change.
Why?  Well we can finally start lifting equipment that can finally start to live off of the environment.
Currently the only thing we extract in space is solar radiation.
Why?  Well we simply can not lift equipment that can harvest the matter that exists in space.
Why can't we?
Well it's bloody expensive.
Case in point the International Space station.
This is a science platform.
One that has a very hard time sampling it's environment let alone harvesting it.We need to be able to lift devices that can land on rocks, asteroids, moons, and planets.
From there extract resources and deliver those resource to orbital devices that can process them for further use.
The use is NOT for return to earth.
But rather to supplement the resources for subsequent space missions.
Once this feedback loop starts to take hold the cost of subsequent space exploration deeper into the solar system and beyond drops radically.
The trick is to only lift the bare minimum into orbit with the majority of supplies being extracted from the local environment.With luck the feedback loop of resources will eventually start to spill back to earth.
At some point the harvesting in space will exceed the space born demands for resources.
At this point we start to see a viable return resources to earth policy.
The loop starts to close.It will take time before the returns start to exceed the lift in cost.
Only at the point where return exceeds lift cost can we state we are a space born culture.
Because at this point we explode into space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969888</id>
	<title>Space Exploration</title>
	<author>Chris Lawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1264948320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As much as I would like to see us go back to the moon and to Mars, I think humanity may have missed its window.  The future of space exploration seems quite bleak at this point, at least for the next couple hundred years.

</p><p>
<a href="http://www.watchinghistory.com/2009/11/future-of-space-exploration.html" title="watchinghistory.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.watchinghistory.com/2009/11/future-of-space-exploration.html</a> [watchinghistory.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I would like to see us go back to the moon and to Mars , I think humanity may have missed its window .
The future of space exploration seems quite bleak at this point , at least for the next couple hundred years .
http : //www.watchinghistory.com/2009/11/future-of-space-exploration.html [ watchinghistory.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As much as I would like to see us go back to the moon and to Mars, I think humanity may have missed its window.
The future of space exploration seems quite bleak at this point, at least for the next couple hundred years.
http://www.watchinghistory.com/2009/11/future-of-space-exploration.html [watchinghistory.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968498</id>
	<title>New Launch Vehicle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264879560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we need is a new design for a launch vehicle, something a 3rd the size of the shuttle, for passengers only, and something larger then the shuttle, a normal rocket, for cargo. The new human lift vehicle needs to be single stage to orbit, and be capable of refueling in orbit for trips to the moon, and should be capable of runway and VTL. I don't know why they have been cheap and spent all this time working on trying to improve 40 year old designs with some modern upgrades. It just isn't going to be capable enough to advance things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is a new design for a launch vehicle , something a 3rd the size of the shuttle , for passengers only , and something larger then the shuttle , a normal rocket , for cargo .
The new human lift vehicle needs to be single stage to orbit , and be capable of refueling in orbit for trips to the moon , and should be capable of runway and VTL .
I do n't know why they have been cheap and spent all this time working on trying to improve 40 year old designs with some modern upgrades .
It just is n't going to be capable enough to advance things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is a new design for a launch vehicle, something a 3rd the size of the shuttle, for passengers only, and something larger then the shuttle, a normal rocket, for cargo.
The new human lift vehicle needs to be single stage to orbit, and be capable of refueling in orbit for trips to the moon, and should be capable of runway and VTL.
I don't know why they have been cheap and spent all this time working on trying to improve 40 year old designs with some modern upgrades.
It just isn't going to be capable enough to advance things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968810</id>
	<title>Time for a trust fund</title>
	<author>BlueCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1264929480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really need to get away from all this political BS.</p><p>Let's just setup a multi trillion dollar trust fund over the next 20 years and be done with it.  Then we won't have to support it with taxes anymore.  I think we can afford to spend 20 years frugally developing space engineering. Let's work on getting garbage collectors and street cleaners in space before we start polluting the moon and mars.</p><p>We spend how many billions of dollars putting the ISS into space and it's scheduled for a 2020 end of service...?  How many billions do we spend on satellites only to have them come crashing back into the atmosphere?  It costs way too much money sending all those pounds of metal up there only to waste it.<br>We need to concentrate on manufacturing and recycling.  We need more automation in space.</p><p>We need plans to harvest asteroids and comets and put then into orbit around mars and Saturn for future manufacturing; I seriously doubt with all the asteroid doomsday movies that putting asteroids into earth orbit will get that much support.  Mars is the scene of the next industrial revolution.  The next wild west though it may take us a couple hundred years.  And if you didn't realize it farming is destined for space.  Power?  You don't want a nuclear reactor next door?  Guess where we can put it?  It's all about real estate baby.  Always has been and always will be and fortunately there is a quite a bit of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really need to get away from all this political BS.Let 's just setup a multi trillion dollar trust fund over the next 20 years and be done with it .
Then we wo n't have to support it with taxes anymore .
I think we can afford to spend 20 years frugally developing space engineering .
Let 's work on getting garbage collectors and street cleaners in space before we start polluting the moon and mars.We spend how many billions of dollars putting the ISS into space and it 's scheduled for a 2020 end of service... ?
How many billions do we spend on satellites only to have them come crashing back into the atmosphere ?
It costs way too much money sending all those pounds of metal up there only to waste it.We need to concentrate on manufacturing and recycling .
We need more automation in space.We need plans to harvest asteroids and comets and put then into orbit around mars and Saturn for future manufacturing ; I seriously doubt with all the asteroid doomsday movies that putting asteroids into earth orbit will get that much support .
Mars is the scene of the next industrial revolution .
The next wild west though it may take us a couple hundred years .
And if you did n't realize it farming is destined for space .
Power ? You do n't want a nuclear reactor next door ?
Guess where we can put it ?
It 's all about real estate baby .
Always has been and always will be and fortunately there is a quite a bit of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really need to get away from all this political BS.Let's just setup a multi trillion dollar trust fund over the next 20 years and be done with it.
Then we won't have to support it with taxes anymore.
I think we can afford to spend 20 years frugally developing space engineering.
Let's work on getting garbage collectors and street cleaners in space before we start polluting the moon and mars.We spend how many billions of dollars putting the ISS into space and it's scheduled for a 2020 end of service...?
How many billions do we spend on satellites only to have them come crashing back into the atmosphere?
It costs way too much money sending all those pounds of metal up there only to waste it.We need to concentrate on manufacturing and recycling.
We need more automation in space.We need plans to harvest asteroids and comets and put then into orbit around mars and Saturn for future manufacturing; I seriously doubt with all the asteroid doomsday movies that putting asteroids into earth orbit will get that much support.
Mars is the scene of the next industrial revolution.
The next wild west though it may take us a couple hundred years.
And if you didn't realize it farming is destined for space.
Power?  You don't want a nuclear reactor next door?
Guess where we can put it?
It's all about real estate baby.
Always has been and always will be and fortunately there is a quite a bit of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968436</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264878420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars? </p></div><p>Apple?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What company , with several billion dollars at it 's disposal , has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars ?
Apple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars?
Apple?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968740</id>
	<title>private industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose some private corporation decided to invest in space travel, and presently established a mining colony on the moon or Mars.</p><p>Government(s) would at once try to tax the crap out of that corporation rather than allow it to soak up those riches.  Not that the governments are providing any real benefit to the corporation for the tax revenue.</p><p>Any corporation that has the capability to establish a colony in space has the capability to figure out the conclusion in the previous paragraph.  Before they even embark upon such a project, they are going to prepare their response.</p><p>That response will almost certainly be to establish themselves as their own sovereign entity, with the military capability to defend their sovereignty.</p><p>Uh-oh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose some private corporation decided to invest in space travel , and presently established a mining colony on the moon or Mars.Government ( s ) would at once try to tax the crap out of that corporation rather than allow it to soak up those riches .
Not that the governments are providing any real benefit to the corporation for the tax revenue.Any corporation that has the capability to establish a colony in space has the capability to figure out the conclusion in the previous paragraph .
Before they even embark upon such a project , they are going to prepare their response.That response will almost certainly be to establish themselves as their own sovereign entity , with the military capability to defend their sovereignty.Uh-oh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose some private corporation decided to invest in space travel, and presently established a mining colony on the moon or Mars.Government(s) would at once try to tax the crap out of that corporation rather than allow it to soak up those riches.
Not that the governments are providing any real benefit to the corporation for the tax revenue.Any corporation that has the capability to establish a colony in space has the capability to figure out the conclusion in the previous paragraph.
Before they even embark upon such a project, they are going to prepare their response.That response will almost certainly be to establish themselves as their own sovereign entity, with the military capability to defend their sovereignty.Uh-oh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30982868</id>
	<title>Re:Lift, Harvest, Supply, Return</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starfleet, motherfuckers. Beyond just being an obscenely nerdy tip-of-the-hat to a Mr. Roddenberry, if we ever do get to that point of a closed-loop system, I would hope that we could create a unifying body of agencies and private companies from around the world. This unifying body would handle claims made on assets and resources found in space, as well as providing a framework for interfacing with any life (sentient or otherwise) found off-planet. If aliens have been observing us for decades, as suspected by many tin-hat aficionados, they certainly exercise a policy similar to the Prime Directive. Socially, we are infants, and we need to grow up before we try interacting with anyone on a cosmic scale.</p><p>Beyond that, bring on the Vulcan hotties!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starfleet , motherfuckers .
Beyond just being an obscenely nerdy tip-of-the-hat to a Mr. Roddenberry , if we ever do get to that point of a closed-loop system , I would hope that we could create a unifying body of agencies and private companies from around the world .
This unifying body would handle claims made on assets and resources found in space , as well as providing a framework for interfacing with any life ( sentient or otherwise ) found off-planet .
If aliens have been observing us for decades , as suspected by many tin-hat aficionados , they certainly exercise a policy similar to the Prime Directive .
Socially , we are infants , and we need to grow up before we try interacting with anyone on a cosmic scale.Beyond that , bring on the Vulcan hotties !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starfleet, motherfuckers.
Beyond just being an obscenely nerdy tip-of-the-hat to a Mr. Roddenberry, if we ever do get to that point of a closed-loop system, I would hope that we could create a unifying body of agencies and private companies from around the world.
This unifying body would handle claims made on assets and resources found in space, as well as providing a framework for interfacing with any life (sentient or otherwise) found off-planet.
If aliens have been observing us for decades, as suspected by many tin-hat aficionados, they certainly exercise a policy similar to the Prime Directive.
Socially, we are infants, and we need to grow up before we try interacting with anyone on a cosmic scale.Beyond that, bring on the Vulcan hotties!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968852</id>
	<title>Re:taxpayer money wasted</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1264930200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good thing the government on the other hand is so very efficient and trustworthy</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing the government on the other hand is so very efficient and trustworthy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing the government on the other hand is so very efficient and trustworthy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968374</id>
	<title>Private Companies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264877280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why, pray-tell would private companies be interested in space exploration?</p><p>Outside of space tourism or communications/military sats there's no profit in space.<br>And if all we're getting is LEO then why bother with manned space travel at all?</p><p>WE (humanity) need to get off this rock. Having the rovers up there is nice and all, but we would be far better served with a permanent base.<br>I'd like to live to see the day when someone can call themselves "martian born".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why , pray-tell would private companies be interested in space exploration ? Outside of space tourism or communications/military sats there 's no profit in space.And if all we 're getting is LEO then why bother with manned space travel at all ? WE ( humanity ) need to get off this rock .
Having the rovers up there is nice and all , but we would be far better served with a permanent base.I 'd like to live to see the day when someone can call themselves " martian born " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why, pray-tell would private companies be interested in space exploration?Outside of space tourism or communications/military sats there's no profit in space.And if all we're getting is LEO then why bother with manned space travel at all?WE (humanity) need to get off this rock.
Having the rovers up there is nice and all, but we would be far better served with a permanent base.I'd like to live to see the day when someone can call themselves "martian born".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968592</id>
	<title>underinvesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264881240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the way to innovate is to under-invest, it makes perfect sense!  Let's try this with all of our other problems...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the way to innovate is to under-invest , it makes perfect sense !
Let 's try this with all of our other problems.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the way to innovate is to under-invest, it makes perfect sense!
Let's try this with all of our other problems...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971110</id>
	<title>Re:the only reason we ever went to space</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264959900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, centuries old China, Vikings, and several hundred years ago Portugal will agree with your assessment. It worked great for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , centuries old China , Vikings , and several hundred years ago Portugal will agree with your assessment .
It worked great for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, centuries old China, Vikings, and several hundred years ago Portugal will agree with your assessment.
It worked great for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969230</id>
	<title>Go private sector!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe with a bit of government funding and creative out of the box thinking, they can launch Burj Dubai into outer space!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe with a bit of government funding and creative out of the box thinking , they can launch Burj Dubai into outer space !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe with a bit of government funding and creative out of the box thinking, they can launch Burj Dubai into outer space!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969938</id>
	<title>Phil Plat, owns Space X stock?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264948920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so obviously an Elon "I wrote a check to Barrack" Musk payback that it is beyond funny.</p><p>Do you own Space X stock Phil?  Or are you at least getting a free Tesla out of the deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so obviously an Elon " I wrote a check to Barrack " Musk payback that it is beyond funny.Do you own Space X stock Phil ?
Or are you at least getting a free Tesla out of the deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so obviously an Elon "I wrote a check to Barrack" Musk payback that it is beyond funny.Do you own Space X stock Phil?
Or are you at least getting a free Tesla out of the deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971424</id>
	<title>Dammned Peasants !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The (official) U.S. seems intent on denying wider / closer access to space. Or air-travel, for that matter.</p><p>There are laws forbidding ciizens from going there on their own. Also, contrary to UN International Space Legislation (or Declarations, Accords, or whatever), there is some kind of directive (or law - too lazy to dredge up details) saying something to the effect that their permission is necessary for anything (person / org / country) going there. Stating, in effect, that space is 'their dominion' and anyone out there without their permission is a trespasser. And they'll apply the same one-and-only solution they ever consider for anything. They'll intimidate. Overpower. And kill. And kill. And kill again, just to be sure.</p><p>Meanwhile, Russia has cheaper and more robust spacecraft (comfort is damned, but hey..). China has its Taikonaut - with more to come. Israel, Japan, India have launched satellites with their own rockets and coordinated and controlled their own space missions. Many more countries have space agencies, and/or have made their own satelites.</p><p>China has said - at the highest levels - that it's going to mars. And Russia seems a bit more than just slightly interested in some '<a href="http://rt.com/Sci\_Tech/2010-01-20/asteroid-apophis-earth-collision.html" title="rt.com" rel="nofollow">extra</a> [rt.com] <a href="http://rt.com/Sci\_Tech/2010-01-12/nuclear-spacecraft-space-mars.html" title="rt.com" rel="nofollow">projects</a> [rt.com]'. On their spare time, I suppose.</p><p>None of them seem to really want space to be open and easily accessible. Generalized paranoid power at its usual setting : dementedly envious, violently malignant, ignorant, introverted, seeped in nihilistic denial and spite, spreading corruption through fear, scarcity, greed, deceitful inane sophistry - and more.</p><p>Always, with great public support from the - usually heavily leashed - 'movers and shakers'. And that minor or greater half which will wave flags and support anything, as long as whatever they fear is shaken in their faces, and then promised to be kept way from them - if they accept everything with vigorous and prompt subservience.</p><p>The usual nazi Germany process. Charmingly nicknamed : 'Snakes-Egg'. Well. It's spread around a lot. Changed its name a few times. Got laid in spots previously considered intrinsically, or constitutionally impossible.</p><p>My regards to the better half, that still attempts sanity. Meanwhile, unless sanity rallies the wide-eyed fearfull masses, frothing in panic - using small words and small, simple, easy emotional concepts  - we'll have keep pushing and watch for fraying edges (around the paddy-wagons).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ( official ) U.S. seems intent on denying wider / closer access to space .
Or air-travel , for that matter.There are laws forbidding ciizens from going there on their own .
Also , contrary to UN International Space Legislation ( or Declarations , Accords , or whatever ) , there is some kind of directive ( or law - too lazy to dredge up details ) saying something to the effect that their permission is necessary for anything ( person / org / country ) going there .
Stating , in effect , that space is 'their dominion ' and anyone out there without their permission is a trespasser .
And they 'll apply the same one-and-only solution they ever consider for anything .
They 'll intimidate .
Overpower. And kill .
And kill .
And kill again , just to be sure.Meanwhile , Russia has cheaper and more robust spacecraft ( comfort is damned , but hey.. ) .
China has its Taikonaut - with more to come .
Israel , Japan , India have launched satellites with their own rockets and coordinated and controlled their own space missions .
Many more countries have space agencies , and/or have made their own satelites.China has said - at the highest levels - that it 's going to mars .
And Russia seems a bit more than just slightly interested in some 'extra [ rt.com ] projects [ rt.com ] ' .
On their spare time , I suppose.None of them seem to really want space to be open and easily accessible .
Generalized paranoid power at its usual setting : dementedly envious , violently malignant , ignorant , introverted , seeped in nihilistic denial and spite , spreading corruption through fear , scarcity , greed , deceitful inane sophistry - and more.Always , with great public support from the - usually heavily leashed - 'movers and shakers' .
And that minor or greater half which will wave flags and support anything , as long as whatever they fear is shaken in their faces , and then promised to be kept way from them - if they accept everything with vigorous and prompt subservience.The usual nazi Germany process .
Charmingly nicknamed : 'Snakes-Egg' .
Well. It 's spread around a lot .
Changed its name a few times .
Got laid in spots previously considered intrinsically , or constitutionally impossible.My regards to the better half , that still attempts sanity .
Meanwhile , unless sanity rallies the wide-eyed fearfull masses , frothing in panic - using small words and small , simple , easy emotional concepts - we 'll have keep pushing and watch for fraying edges ( around the paddy-wagons ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The (official) U.S. seems intent on denying wider / closer access to space.
Or air-travel, for that matter.There are laws forbidding ciizens from going there on their own.
Also, contrary to UN International Space Legislation (or Declarations, Accords, or whatever), there is some kind of directive (or law - too lazy to dredge up details) saying something to the effect that their permission is necessary for anything (person / org / country) going there.
Stating, in effect, that space is 'their dominion' and anyone out there without their permission is a trespasser.
And they'll apply the same one-and-only solution they ever consider for anything.
They'll intimidate.
Overpower. And kill.
And kill.
And kill again, just to be sure.Meanwhile, Russia has cheaper and more robust spacecraft (comfort is damned, but hey..).
China has its Taikonaut - with more to come.
Israel, Japan, India have launched satellites with their own rockets and coordinated and controlled their own space missions.
Many more countries have space agencies, and/or have made their own satelites.China has said - at the highest levels - that it's going to mars.
And Russia seems a bit more than just slightly interested in some 'extra [rt.com] projects [rt.com]'.
On their spare time, I suppose.None of them seem to really want space to be open and easily accessible.
Generalized paranoid power at its usual setting : dementedly envious, violently malignant, ignorant, introverted, seeped in nihilistic denial and spite, spreading corruption through fear, scarcity, greed, deceitful inane sophistry - and more.Always, with great public support from the - usually heavily leashed - 'movers and shakers'.
And that minor or greater half which will wave flags and support anything, as long as whatever they fear is shaken in their faces, and then promised to be kept way from them - if they accept everything with vigorous and prompt subservience.The usual nazi Germany process.
Charmingly nicknamed : 'Snakes-Egg'.
Well. It's spread around a lot.
Changed its name a few times.
Got laid in spots previously considered intrinsically, or constitutionally impossible.My regards to the better half, that still attempts sanity.
Meanwhile, unless sanity rallies the wide-eyed fearfull masses, frothing in panic - using small words and small, simple, easy emotional concepts  - we'll have keep pushing and watch for fraying edges (around the paddy-wagons).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968424</id>
	<title>What Phil Plait also says</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1264878240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He called me a yarf.  I don't know what that is, but I think it's something goofy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He called me a yarf .
I do n't know what that is , but I think it 's something goofy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He called me a yarf.
I don't know what that is, but I think it's something goofy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969762</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264946580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once the climate crisis and the food unsustainability crisis (and the peak oil crisis) reach full tilt, hundreds of thousands of people with enough money will be begging to move to Mars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the climate crisis and the food unsustainability crisis ( and the peak oil crisis ) reach full tilt , hundreds of thousands of people with enough money will be begging to move to Mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the climate crisis and the food unsustainability crisis (and the peak oil crisis) reach full tilt, hundreds of thousands of people with enough money will be begging to move to Mars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969080</id>
	<title>Is there some reason...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264935300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why we can't put the capsule on a D4-Heavy and get people to LEO and the ISS?  I know the D4H has only had a couple launches, but the Delta II series has had a pretty solid track record.  I understand the need for the Ares V and it's super heavy lift capability.  But I never understood the point of the Ares I.  Why spend the money when it seems like the Delta IV series could work and it's available now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why we ca n't put the capsule on a D4-Heavy and get people to LEO and the ISS ?
I know the D4H has only had a couple launches , but the Delta II series has had a pretty solid track record .
I understand the need for the Ares V and it 's super heavy lift capability .
But I never understood the point of the Ares I. Why spend the money when it seems like the Delta IV series could work and it 's available now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why we can't put the capsule on a D4-Heavy and get people to LEO and the ISS?
I know the D4H has only had a couple launches, but the Delta II series has had a pretty solid track record.
I understand the need for the Ares V and it's super heavy lift capability.
But I never understood the point of the Ares I.  Why spend the money when it seems like the Delta IV series could work and it's available now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970004</id>
	<title>Private interests are not going for the planets!</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1264949820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As individuals we pretty much all share the same goal of seeing man on another planet.  Personally I'd love to walk on Mars.</p><p>However when it comes to making money the bigger the rock the less likely it's a target for "exploitation".  Gravity wells mean expensive.  So most of the planets are no go zones.   If not all of them.  Moons are a maybe.  Floating rocks much more likely.</p><p>Unfortunately I don't think any of us will see another human land on any planet including the moon.  I wish it weren't true.  But in this day and age it's no longer about national pride, it's about dollars.  Man only made it to the moon because the US and USSR were in a pissing match.  Our only hope now to see another man on the moon is to see the same pissing match between China, India and Japan.</p><p>Space for the foreseeable future is the domain of robots.  This will persist until the economics change.  Either the value of a human drops to the point where we can send them up to work in unbelievable danger or the volume of product being developed in space can justify local human supervision.  Personally I'm hoping humans don't drop in value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As individuals we pretty much all share the same goal of seeing man on another planet .
Personally I 'd love to walk on Mars.However when it comes to making money the bigger the rock the less likely it 's a target for " exploitation " .
Gravity wells mean expensive .
So most of the planets are no go zones .
If not all of them .
Moons are a maybe .
Floating rocks much more likely.Unfortunately I do n't think any of us will see another human land on any planet including the moon .
I wish it were n't true .
But in this day and age it 's no longer about national pride , it 's about dollars .
Man only made it to the moon because the US and USSR were in a pissing match .
Our only hope now to see another man on the moon is to see the same pissing match between China , India and Japan.Space for the foreseeable future is the domain of robots .
This will persist until the economics change .
Either the value of a human drops to the point where we can send them up to work in unbelievable danger or the volume of product being developed in space can justify local human supervision .
Personally I 'm hoping humans do n't drop in value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As individuals we pretty much all share the same goal of seeing man on another planet.
Personally I'd love to walk on Mars.However when it comes to making money the bigger the rock the less likely it's a target for "exploitation".
Gravity wells mean expensive.
So most of the planets are no go zones.
If not all of them.
Moons are a maybe.
Floating rocks much more likely.Unfortunately I don't think any of us will see another human land on any planet including the moon.
I wish it weren't true.
But in this day and age it's no longer about national pride, it's about dollars.
Man only made it to the moon because the US and USSR were in a pissing match.
Our only hope now to see another man on the moon is to see the same pissing match between China, India and Japan.Space for the foreseeable future is the domain of robots.
This will persist until the economics change.
Either the value of a human drops to the point where we can send them up to work in unbelievable danger or the volume of product being developed in space can justify local human supervision.
Personally I'm hoping humans don't drop in value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969104</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, orbit!</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264935720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars? What would the incentive be?</p></div><p>This is pretty much what the proposal is -- having private industry focus on the well-understood problem of low-Earth orbit access, so that NASA can use its limited funds to explore the actual frontiers (i.e. Moon/Mars).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What company , with several billion dollars at it 's disposal , has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars ?
What would the incentive be ? This is pretty much what the proposal is -- having private industry focus on the well-understood problem of low-Earth orbit access , so that NASA can use its limited funds to explore the actual frontiers ( i.e .
Moon/Mars ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars?
What would the incentive be?This is pretty much what the proposal is -- having private industry focus on the well-understood problem of low-Earth orbit access, so that NASA can use its limited funds to explore the actual frontiers (i.e.
Moon/Mars).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30979588</id>
	<title>ofcourse it's not the end</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1265030940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you'll just have to lag behind the russians, the chinese, the indians and maybe soon Iran too hehe. Can still find a little consolation that Europe will probably lag even further behind</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll just have to lag behind the russians , the chinese , the indians and maybe soon Iran too hehe .
Can still find a little consolation that Europe will probably lag even further behind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll just have to lag behind the russians, the chinese, the indians and maybe soon Iran too hehe.
Can still find a little consolation that Europe will probably lag even further behind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968896</id>
	<title>By private you mean private contributers to ..</title>
	<author>JoshDD</author>
	<datestamp>1264930860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>election campain??</htmltext>
<tokenext>election campain ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>election campain?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30982868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0033206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30982868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30971018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30970980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0033206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30969762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0033206.30968474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
