<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_1716211</id>
	<title>The Upside of the NASA Budget</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265134380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>teeks99 writes <i>"There are a lot of articles circulating about the new changes to the NASA budget, but this one goes into some of the details. From what I'm seeing, it looks great &mdash; cutting off the big, expensive, over-budget stuff and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/nasa-reboots-focuses-on-cheaper-sustainable-exploration.ars">allowing a whole bunch of important and revolutionary programs</a> to get going: <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020110-layer8-nasa-commercial-space-contracts.html?hpg1=bn">commercial space transportation</a>; keeping the ISS going (now that we've finally got it up and running); working on orbital propellant storage (so someday we <em>can</em> go off to the far flung places); automated rendezvous and docking (allowing multiple, smaller launches, which then form into one large spacecraft in orbit). Quoting: 'NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit, and doesn't see getting back in to it. The Agency now sees its role as doing interesting things with people once they get there, hence its emphasis on in-orbit construction, heavy lift capabilities, and resource harvesting hardware. Given budgetary constraints and the real issues with the Constellation program, none of that is necessarily unreasonable.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>teeks99 writes " There are a lot of articles circulating about the new changes to the NASA budget , but this one goes into some of the details .
From what I 'm seeing , it looks great    cutting off the big , expensive , over-budget stuff and allowing a whole bunch of important and revolutionary programs to get going : commercial space transportation ; keeping the ISS going ( now that we 've finally got it up and running ) ; working on orbital propellant storage ( so someday we can go off to the far flung places ) ; automated rendezvous and docking ( allowing multiple , smaller launches , which then form into one large spacecraft in orbit ) .
Quoting : 'NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit , and does n't see getting back in to it .
The Agency now sees its role as doing interesting things with people once they get there , hence its emphasis on in-orbit construction , heavy lift capabilities , and resource harvesting hardware .
Given budgetary constraints and the real issues with the Constellation program , none of that is necessarily unreasonable .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teeks99 writes "There are a lot of articles circulating about the new changes to the NASA budget, but this one goes into some of the details.
From what I'm seeing, it looks great — cutting off the big, expensive, over-budget stuff and allowing a whole bunch of important and revolutionary programs to get going: commercial space transportation; keeping the ISS going (now that we've finally got it up and running); working on orbital propellant storage (so someday we can go off to the far flung places); automated rendezvous and docking (allowing multiple, smaller launches, which then form into one large spacecraft in orbit).
Quoting: 'NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit, and doesn't see getting back in to it.
The Agency now sees its role as doing interesting things with people once they get there, hence its emphasis on in-orbit construction, heavy lift capabilities, and resource harvesting hardware.
Given budgetary constraints and the real issues with the Constellation program, none of that is necessarily unreasonable.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</id>
	<title>Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also a pretty good <a href="http://www.space.com/news/nasa-far-out-plans-100201.html" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [space.com] from space.com that talks about a couple of the different points</p><p> They go into some more detail about the commercial space transportation part paving the way for more "space tourist" like stuff.  Obviously this will still be extremely expensive, but I hope that it could increase the total number of launches, and help bring some economies of scale.</p><p> This is also the reason I'm excited about the orbital propellant storage and automated rendezvous technology.  These items will allow us to launch big (weight wise) missions by using a bunch of smaller launch vehicles, instead of one really huge (and really expensive) one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also a pretty good article [ space.com ] from space.com that talks about a couple of the different points They go into some more detail about the commercial space transportation part paving the way for more " space tourist " like stuff .
Obviously this will still be extremely expensive , but I hope that it could increase the total number of launches , and help bring some economies of scale .
This is also the reason I 'm excited about the orbital propellant storage and automated rendezvous technology .
These items will allow us to launch big ( weight wise ) missions by using a bunch of smaller launch vehicles , instead of one really huge ( and really expensive ) one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also a pretty good article [space.com] from space.com that talks about a couple of the different points They go into some more detail about the commercial space transportation part paving the way for more "space tourist" like stuff.
Obviously this will still be extremely expensive, but I hope that it could increase the total number of launches, and help bring some economies of scale.
This is also the reason I'm excited about the orbital propellant storage and automated rendezvous technology.
These items will allow us to launch big (weight wise) missions by using a bunch of smaller launch vehicles, instead of one really huge (and really expensive) one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001008</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1265104200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for automated rendezvous, the Russians have been doing this for years.  Just buy it from them.</p></div><p>The ESA too, with their ATV programme.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for automated rendezvous , the Russians have been doing this for years .
Just buy it from them.The ESA too , with their ATV programme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for automated rendezvous, the Russians have been doing this for years.
Just buy it from them.The ESA too, with their ATV programme.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000172</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just. Kill. NASA.<br>
It's that easy.<br>
Just. Kill. NASA.<br>
<br>
The sooner the US is out of space, the safer the rest of us will be. America no longer deserves access to space. When you fix the mess you made on THIS planet, THEN you can think about moving out to somewhere else. Until then, you made your bed, now LIE IN IT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just .
Kill. NASA .
It 's that easy .
Just. Kill .
NASA . The sooner the US is out of space , the safer the rest of us will be .
America no longer deserves access to space .
When you fix the mess you made on THIS planet , THEN you can think about moving out to somewhere else .
Until then , you made your bed , now LIE IN IT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just.
Kill. NASA.
It's that easy.
Just. Kill.
NASA.

The sooner the US is out of space, the safer the rest of us will be.
America no longer deserves access to space.
When you fix the mess you made on THIS planet, THEN you can think about moving out to somewhere else.
Until then, you made your bed, now LIE IN IT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002570</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>BigPappa</author>
	<datestamp>1265112840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for automated rendezvous, the Russians have been doing this for years.  Just buy it from them.</p></div><p>Problem is the Russian one sucks bad. Seems like 8/10 times the ISS crew has to bring the Progress ships in manually anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for automated rendezvous , the Russians have been doing this for years .
Just buy it from them.Problem is the Russian one sucks bad .
Seems like 8/10 times the ISS crew has to bring the Progress ships in manually anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for automated rendezvous, the Russians have been doing this for years.
Just buy it from them.Problem is the Russian one sucks bad.
Seems like 8/10 times the ISS crew has to bring the Progress ships in manually anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001494</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1265106660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was trying to figure out how that post got modded "insightful".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course I might be wrong,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Ah, there we go...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trying to figure out how that post got modded " insightful " .Of course I might be wrong , ...Ah , there we go.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trying to figure out how that post got modded "insightful".Of course I might be wrong, ...Ah, there we go...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003742</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>4181</author>
	<datestamp>1265119200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To gain a sense of the openness of Skylab, check out some of the old video of astronauts "jogging" inside around its circumference, such as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S\_p7LiyOUx0" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [youtube.com].  Then compare it to a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srQdr6kGii4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">tour of the ISS</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>To gain a sense of the openness of Skylab , check out some of the old video of astronauts " jogging " inside around its circumference , such as this [ youtube.com ] .
Then compare it to a tour of the ISS [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To gain a sense of the openness of Skylab, check out some of the old video of astronauts "jogging" inside around its circumference, such as this [youtube.com].
Then compare it to a tour of the ISS [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001676</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>RzUpAnmsCwrds</author>
	<datestamp>1265107800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Skylab was still probably bigger in total volume than the ISS is today, as it nears completion.</p></div></blockquote><p>Skylab was 77,000 kg; the ISS is 344,000 kg. I don't even have volume figures, but it's probably not even close unless the ISS is extremely dense compared to Skylab.</p><blockquote><div><p>The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the Chinese</p></div></blockquote><p>No, NASA has ceded LEO light lift capability to private entities, which are already quite capable in this role.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skylab was still probably bigger in total volume than the ISS is today , as it nears completion.Skylab was 77,000 kg ; the ISS is 344,000 kg .
I do n't even have volume figures , but it 's probably not even close unless the ISS is extremely dense compared to Skylab.The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the ChineseNo , NASA has ceded LEO light lift capability to private entities , which are already quite capable in this role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Skylab was still probably bigger in total volume than the ISS is today, as it nears completion.Skylab was 77,000 kg; the ISS is 344,000 kg.
I don't even have volume figures, but it's probably not even close unless the ISS is extremely dense compared to Skylab.The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the ChineseNo, NASA has ceded LEO light lift capability to private entities, which are already quite capable in this role.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999322</id>
	<title>Re:NASA-National Aeronautic and Space Administrati</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1265140260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that NASA works with lots of people to do what it does.  It works with lots of universities and contractors at private companies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>They basically do what you say they should do already.   They manage things for the most part, and do some stuff in house because they are the center point to it all and farming it out wouldn't be nearly as cost effective.</p><p>The current NASA is a government organization, not military.  They work closely with the military, sure, but they do more civilian work than military.</p><p>Putting it all in one big pot allows for all the knowledge and experience to be shared rather than counting on a bunch of competing companies or individual universities fighting with each other to be the first.  They help organize the effort and keep things from being tucked away at only one organization so everyone benefits from everyone elses work as much as possible.</p><p>We have rules governing the things you talk about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and NASA is the division with the knowledge to understand, implement and guide those rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that NASA works with lots of people to do what it does .
It works with lots of universities and contractors at private companies ...They basically do what you say they should do already .
They manage things for the most part , and do some stuff in house because they are the center point to it all and farming it out would n't be nearly as cost effective.The current NASA is a government organization , not military .
They work closely with the military , sure , but they do more civilian work than military.Putting it all in one big pot allows for all the knowledge and experience to be shared rather than counting on a bunch of competing companies or individual universities fighting with each other to be the first .
They help organize the effort and keep things from being tucked away at only one organization so everyone benefits from everyone elses work as much as possible.We have rules governing the things you talk about ... and NASA is the division with the knowledge to understand , implement and guide those rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that NASA works with lots of people to do what it does.
It works with lots of universities and contractors at private companies ...They basically do what you say they should do already.
They manage things for the most part, and do some stuff in house because they are the center point to it all and farming it out wouldn't be nearly as cost effective.The current NASA is a government organization, not military.
They work closely with the military, sure, but they do more civilian work than military.Putting it all in one big pot allows for all the knowledge and experience to be shared rather than counting on a bunch of competing companies or individual universities fighting with each other to be the first.
They help organize the effort and keep things from being tucked away at only one organization so everyone benefits from everyone elses work as much as possible.We have rules governing the things you talk about ... and NASA is the division with the knowledge to understand, implement and guide those rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003354</id>
	<title>Re:A breath of fresh air</title>
	<author>SpazmodeusG</author>
	<datestamp>1265117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Royal Society that funded both Cook and Darwin was a privately established organisation.<br> <br>
It receives some funding from government grants but i think National Geographic does too. So essentially both organisations historically fill the same niche for different countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Royal Society that funded both Cook and Darwin was a privately established organisation .
It receives some funding from government grants but i think National Geographic does too .
So essentially both organisations historically fill the same niche for different countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Royal Society that funded both Cook and Darwin was a privately established organisation.
It receives some funding from government grants but i think National Geographic does too.
So essentially both organisations historically fill the same niche for different countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002146</id>
	<title>Re:A breath of fresh air</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1265110320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's not NASA's job to put a man on Mars (or the moon). It's NASA's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars.</p> </div><p>Enabling third-party space development is a nice goal... you do realise, though, that making it possible for National Geographic to go privately into orbit also means making it possible for Al Quaeda to go privately into orbit and drop rocks on our heads?</p><p>At least, I assume this is why NASA has been reluctant to let go of the LEO monopoly. 'Launch vehicle' is just a pretty name for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65\_Atlas" title="wikipedia.org">ICBM without a warhead</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not NASA 's job to put a man on Mars ( or the moon ) .
It 's NASA 's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars .
Enabling third-party space development is a nice goal... you do realise , though , that making it possible for National Geographic to go privately into orbit also means making it possible for Al Quaeda to go privately into orbit and drop rocks on our heads ? At least , I assume this is why NASA has been reluctant to let go of the LEO monopoly .
'Launch vehicle ' is just a pretty name for ICBM without a warhead [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not NASA's job to put a man on Mars (or the moon).
It's NASA's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars.
Enabling third-party space development is a nice goal... you do realise, though, that making it possible for National Geographic to go privately into orbit also means making it possible for Al Quaeda to go privately into orbit and drop rocks on our heads?At least, I assume this is why NASA has been reluctant to let go of the LEO monopoly.
'Launch vehicle' is just a pretty name for ICBM without a warhead [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000690</id>
	<title>Re:Survival of mankind</title>
	<author>assemblyronin</author>
	<datestamp>1265103060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For this to work, we'd need RNA Shots and a knowledge that the state has use for an empty man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For this to work , we 'd need RNA Shots and a knowledge that the state has use for an empty man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this to work, we'd need RNA Shots and a knowledge that the state has use for an empty man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999394</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>rijrunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265140620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Depends on the type of license. The manned reusable license is actually pretty well thought out. (Scaled was easily able to get such a license). The FAA is more than reasonable about that. You might want to actually research that.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Mexico is not really an option as American companies - or companies with primary American ownership/staff - are still subject to US laws. Space and associated technologies are too close to arms proliferation and the laws are written with that in mind.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The reality is that US companies can, and do, get all the necessary licenses.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; What is difficult is the reverse engineering of existing technologies. Almost everything NASA paid for in X programs the last 30 years is still owned exclusively by the company whom they contracted the work. The Linear Aerospike engines that were tested for X-33 has been sitting on shelf at LockMart for almost 10 years, so other companies wanting to explore the concept have to rebuild the design. The only real design in the last decade to come out of NASA itself without outside contracts has been TransHab. (Which they promptly signed a sole-source distribution contract with Bigelow to handle).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; And therein lies the problem with NASA. Their R&amp;D programs are not like the old NACA development programs. The technology is not moving to off-the-shelf. They are on-the-shelf technologies because that is primarily where they stay. Any company that wants to build a small orbital vehicle will have to do that from scratch or with whatever they can leverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the type of license .
The manned reusable license is actually pretty well thought out .
( Scaled was easily able to get such a license ) .
The FAA is more than reasonable about that .
You might want to actually research that .
    Mexico is not really an option as American companies - or companies with primary American ownership/staff - are still subject to US laws .
Space and associated technologies are too close to arms proliferation and the laws are written with that in mind .
    The reality is that US companies can , and do , get all the necessary licenses .
      What is difficult is the reverse engineering of existing technologies .
Almost everything NASA paid for in X programs the last 30 years is still owned exclusively by the company whom they contracted the work .
The Linear Aerospike engines that were tested for X-33 has been sitting on shelf at LockMart for almost 10 years , so other companies wanting to explore the concept have to rebuild the design .
The only real design in the last decade to come out of NASA itself without outside contracts has been TransHab .
( Which they promptly signed a sole-source distribution contract with Bigelow to handle ) .
    And therein lies the problem with NASA .
Their R&amp;D programs are not like the old NACA development programs .
The technology is not moving to off-the-shelf .
They are on-the-shelf technologies because that is primarily where they stay .
Any company that wants to build a small orbital vehicle will have to do that from scratch or with whatever they can leverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Depends on the type of license.
The manned reusable license is actually pretty well thought out.
(Scaled was easily able to get such a license).
The FAA is more than reasonable about that.
You might want to actually research that.
    Mexico is not really an option as American companies - or companies with primary American ownership/staff - are still subject to US laws.
Space and associated technologies are too close to arms proliferation and the laws are written with that in mind.
    The reality is that US companies can, and do, get all the necessary licenses.
      What is difficult is the reverse engineering of existing technologies.
Almost everything NASA paid for in X programs the last 30 years is still owned exclusively by the company whom they contracted the work.
The Linear Aerospike engines that were tested for X-33 has been sitting on shelf at LockMart for almost 10 years, so other companies wanting to explore the concept have to rebuild the design.
The only real design in the last decade to come out of NASA itself without outside contracts has been TransHab.
(Which they promptly signed a sole-source distribution contract with Bigelow to handle).
    And therein lies the problem with NASA.
Their R&amp;D programs are not like the old NACA development programs.
The technology is not moving to off-the-shelf.
They are on-the-shelf technologies because that is primarily where they stay.
Any company that wants to build a small orbital vehicle will have to do that from scratch or with whatever they can leverage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000122</id>
	<title>Re:NASA's budget is nothing more than a</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1265143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Siphoning off just 20B from the Military Budget would take care of this.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Siphoning off just 20B from the Military Budget would take care of this.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Siphoning off just 20B from the Military Budget would take care of this.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31004292</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1265123280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard Michael D. Griffin (former head of NASA) interviewed on the radio this morning, and he was very pessimistic about this budget. He hoped that Congress would make some changes and fund NASA the way it should be funded.<br><br>You have to remember that NASA's budget was cut severely during the Clinton administration, and was basically kept at the lower level of funding throughout the Bush administration.<br><br>Personally I don't see the private sector being able to do in the foreseeable future what NASA does now. We're talking about a VERY tiny part of the nation's overall budget, and government wastes more than that just about every day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard Michael D. Griffin ( former head of NASA ) interviewed on the radio this morning , and he was very pessimistic about this budget .
He hoped that Congress would make some changes and fund NASA the way it should be funded.You have to remember that NASA 's budget was cut severely during the Clinton administration , and was basically kept at the lower level of funding throughout the Bush administration.Personally I do n't see the private sector being able to do in the foreseeable future what NASA does now .
We 're talking about a VERY tiny part of the nation 's overall budget , and government wastes more than that just about every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard Michael D. Griffin (former head of NASA) interviewed on the radio this morning, and he was very pessimistic about this budget.
He hoped that Congress would make some changes and fund NASA the way it should be funded.You have to remember that NASA's budget was cut severely during the Clinton administration, and was basically kept at the lower level of funding throughout the Bush administration.Personally I don't see the private sector being able to do in the foreseeable future what NASA does now.
We're talking about a VERY tiny part of the nation's overall budget, and government wastes more than that just about every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31004586</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>trout007</author>
	<datestamp>1265125020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope to offset some of the costs to the government the private companies are allowed to run launch ticket lotteries. 50 million tickets at $1 each could help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope to offset some of the costs to the government the private companies are allowed to run launch ticket lotteries .
50 million tickets at $ 1 each could help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope to offset some of the costs to the government the private companies are allowed to run launch ticket lotteries.
50 million tickets at $1 each could help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000898</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>dintlu</author>
	<datestamp>1265103780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA's constellation program was ill-conceived waste of taxpayer money.  Florida's been a "purple" state for the past three elections, and NASA has a tremendous presence down here.  To argue that cutting NASA's budget is politically motivated is to say that Obama's administrations *wants to lose votes* in the state of Florida, which is patently absurd.</p><p>What's happening to NASA is like an alcoholic stopping the sauce.  Not only do they save a bunch of money, but they also free up a bunch of time and brainpower to pursue better things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA 's constellation program was ill-conceived waste of taxpayer money .
Florida 's been a " purple " state for the past three elections , and NASA has a tremendous presence down here .
To argue that cutting NASA 's budget is politically motivated is to say that Obama 's administrations * wants to lose votes * in the state of Florida , which is patently absurd.What 's happening to NASA is like an alcoholic stopping the sauce .
Not only do they save a bunch of money , but they also free up a bunch of time and brainpower to pursue better things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA's constellation program was ill-conceived waste of taxpayer money.
Florida's been a "purple" state for the past three elections, and NASA has a tremendous presence down here.
To argue that cutting NASA's budget is politically motivated is to say that Obama's administrations *wants to lose votes* in the state of Florida, which is patently absurd.What's happening to NASA is like an alcoholic stopping the sauce.
Not only do they save a bunch of money, but they also free up a bunch of time and brainpower to pursue better things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002430</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>holmstar</author>
	<datestamp>1265111940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Robots can do, at best, what they are designed to do plus maybe a bit more.  Humans can do vastly more than that, but require things like oxygen and food and heat.  Until we have truly intelligent machines there will be a place for both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robots can do , at best , what they are designed to do plus maybe a bit more .
Humans can do vastly more than that , but require things like oxygen and food and heat .
Until we have truly intelligent machines there will be a place for both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robots can do, at best, what they are designed to do plus maybe a bit more.
Humans can do vastly more than that, but require things like oxygen and food and heat.
Until we have truly intelligent machines there will be a place for both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999716</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1265141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the mentally-challenged:  Instead of blasting your ship into space, bring space down to your ship<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the mentally-challenged : Instead of blasting your ship into space , bring space down to your ship : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the mentally-challenged:  Instead of blasting your ship into space, bring space down to your ship :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999564</id>
	<title>Re:Survival of mankind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265141280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL.<br>If such a disaster made the Earth inhospitable and difficult to live in, how is that any different from a barren planet with no running water, vegetation or other means of sustenance?</p><p>The idea to me is ridiculous. Seems to me that by the time we can actually terraform another planet, we'll also be completely capable of "terra re-forming" Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL.If such a disaster made the Earth inhospitable and difficult to live in , how is that any different from a barren planet with no running water , vegetation or other means of sustenance ? The idea to me is ridiculous .
Seems to me that by the time we can actually terraform another planet , we 'll also be completely capable of " terra re-forming " Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.If such a disaster made the Earth inhospitable and difficult to live in, how is that any different from a barren planet with no running water, vegetation or other means of sustenance?The idea to me is ridiculous.
Seems to me that by the time we can actually terraform another planet, we'll also be completely capable of "terra re-forming" Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001938</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1265109300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We are never going to get out of sight with our current propellant technology.  The money spent on this is a waste, like building yet another pony express station. Its time to focus in another direction.</p></div><p>I notice that the people who keep saying this are the same people who pour ridicule on NASAs funding of the initial development of technologies needed for a space elevator, and decry nuclear rockets as too unsafe and environmentally unfriendly.</p><p>Throw us a bone here: what the heck <em>do</em> you think NASA should be developing w.r.t. launch technology?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are never going to get out of sight with our current propellant technology .
The money spent on this is a waste , like building yet another pony express station .
Its time to focus in another direction.I notice that the people who keep saying this are the same people who pour ridicule on NASAs funding of the initial development of technologies needed for a space elevator , and decry nuclear rockets as too unsafe and environmentally unfriendly.Throw us a bone here : what the heck do you think NASA should be developing w.r.t .
launch technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are never going to get out of sight with our current propellant technology.
The money spent on this is a waste, like building yet another pony express station.
Its time to focus in another direction.I notice that the people who keep saying this are the same people who pour ridicule on NASAs funding of the initial development of technologies needed for a space elevator, and decry nuclear rockets as too unsafe and environmentally unfriendly.Throw us a bone here: what the heck do you think NASA should be developing w.r.t.
launch technology?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002452</id>
	<title>Re:A breath of fresh air</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're insane.  NASA is still blazing the trail, just in a way that controls costs and expenditure of life within government constraints.  Blazing the trail by collecting data with relatively cheap robots and expanding the technology base upon which private industry can draw from is precisely what a science-based space administration should do.  Data collection should be automated, anyway.  Reduction in potential human error is good.  I can't believe someone on slashdot is effectively arguing against optimization through automation.</p><p>So stop being insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're insane .
NASA is still blazing the trail , just in a way that controls costs and expenditure of life within government constraints .
Blazing the trail by collecting data with relatively cheap robots and expanding the technology base upon which private industry can draw from is precisely what a science-based space administration should do .
Data collection should be automated , anyway .
Reduction in potential human error is good .
I ca n't believe someone on slashdot is effectively arguing against optimization through automation.So stop being insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're insane.
NASA is still blazing the trail, just in a way that controls costs and expenditure of life within government constraints.
Blazing the trail by collecting data with relatively cheap robots and expanding the technology base upon which private industry can draw from is precisely what a science-based space administration should do.
Data collection should be automated, anyway.
Reduction in potential human error is good.
I can't believe someone on slashdot is effectively arguing against optimization through automation.So stop being insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000738</id>
	<title>Re:It's not rocket science</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1265103300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Getting to LEO isn't rocket science, any more.</p></div><p>
Leo? You're nuts. I can see a Virgo round trip being a trivial engineering project, maybe even Aquarius. But Leo is still very challenging.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting to LEO is n't rocket science , any more .
Leo ? You 're nuts .
I can see a Virgo round trip being a trivial engineering project , maybe even Aquarius .
But Leo is still very challenging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting to LEO isn't rocket science, any more.
Leo? You're nuts.
I can see a Virgo round trip being a trivial engineering project, maybe even Aquarius.
But Leo is still very challenging.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>coolmoose25</author>
	<datestamp>1265142660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what they are proposing is that we will do lots with relatively small rockets, and anything BIG that is needed can be built piecemeal.  That is an approach - the one followed by ISS.  The other approach is Skylab.  We had a Saturn IVb knocking around, so we built a space station and lofted it up in one shot.  Skylab was still probably bigger in total volume than the ISS is today, as it nears completion.<br> <br>

Maybe this new approach will work, and I hope it will.  But I believe that it won't.  The Mercury astronauts said it best.  No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.  Without manned spaceflight, we'll mostly turn our attention to unmanned spaceflight, which is cool, and cheap, and makes great discoveries.  The public will tire of this too.  Robots are good and they can be used successfully, but "boots on the ground" or in this case "boots in space" are also required. <br> <br>

The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the Chinese... just as Spain and Portugal ceded the new world to the English and French.  Unless there is a national commitment to a GOAL in manned spaceflight, not much of it will make sense, other than going back and forth to the ISS.<br> <br>

By all means, we should look on the bright side... but the bright side is considerably dimmer now</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what they are proposing is that we will do lots with relatively small rockets , and anything BIG that is needed can be built piecemeal .
That is an approach - the one followed by ISS .
The other approach is Skylab .
We had a Saturn IVb knocking around , so we built a space station and lofted it up in one shot .
Skylab was still probably bigger in total volume than the ISS is today , as it nears completion .
Maybe this new approach will work , and I hope it will .
But I believe that it wo n't .
The Mercury astronauts said it best .
No Buck Rogers , No Bucks .
Without manned spaceflight , we 'll mostly turn our attention to unmanned spaceflight , which is cool , and cheap , and makes great discoveries .
The public will tire of this too .
Robots are good and they can be used successfully , but " boots on the ground " or in this case " boots in space " are also required .
The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the Chinese... just as Spain and Portugal ceded the new world to the English and French .
Unless there is a national commitment to a GOAL in manned spaceflight , not much of it will make sense , other than going back and forth to the ISS .
By all means , we should look on the bright side... but the bright side is considerably dimmer now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what they are proposing is that we will do lots with relatively small rockets, and anything BIG that is needed can be built piecemeal.
That is an approach - the one followed by ISS.
The other approach is Skylab.
We had a Saturn IVb knocking around, so we built a space station and lofted it up in one shot.
Skylab was still probably bigger in total volume than the ISS is today, as it nears completion.
Maybe this new approach will work, and I hope it will.
But I believe that it won't.
The Mercury astronauts said it best.
No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.
Without manned spaceflight, we'll mostly turn our attention to unmanned spaceflight, which is cool, and cheap, and makes great discoveries.
The public will tire of this too.
Robots are good and they can be used successfully, but "boots on the ground" or in this case "boots in space" are also required.
The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the Chinese... just as Spain and Portugal ceded the new world to the English and French.
Unless there is a national commitment to a GOAL in manned spaceflight, not much of it will make sense, other than going back and forth to the ISS.
By all means, we should look on the bright side... but the bright side is considerably dimmer now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999518</id>
	<title>Sounds like Aries V may still happen.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1265141100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know!  But from reading the article, it is not entirely clear that the Aries V has been canceled.  What they are saying is that the Aries V wasn't scheduled to receive any funding until 2016, so this is not necessarily a shift away from developing that vehicle, but other heavy lift options will be considered as well and once they get to that point they will decide what to do.  In the mean time the Aries I has definitely been canceled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know !
But from reading the article , it is not entirely clear that the Aries V has been canceled .
What they are saying is that the Aries V was n't scheduled to receive any funding until 2016 , so this is not necessarily a shift away from developing that vehicle , but other heavy lift options will be considered as well and once they get to that point they will decide what to do .
In the mean time the Aries I has definitely been canceled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know!
But from reading the article, it is not entirely clear that the Aries V has been canceled.
What they are saying is that the Aries V wasn't scheduled to receive any funding until 2016, so this is not necessarily a shift away from developing that vehicle, but other heavy lift options will be considered as well and once they get to that point they will decide what to do.
In the mean time the Aries I has definitely been canceled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999878</id>
	<title>Re:Just wanted to say</title>
	<author>mitchell\_pgh</author>
	<datestamp>1265142660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current budget is a far cry from a "little for space research." The United States of America leads the world in raw spending for space exploration. I would argue that we are spending about as much as the rest of the world combined. I am in NO way saying we are the best, or we haven't had our fair share of failures, but to say that NASA's budget is a "little" amount is simply wrong.</p><p>$17.2 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (United States of America GDP: $14.25 trillion (2009 est.)<br>$5.4 billion - European Space Agency (European Union GDP: $14.52 trillion [2009 est.])<br>$2.4 billion - Russian Federal Space Agency (Russian GDP: $2.103 trillion [2009 est.])<br>$2.15 billion - Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (Japan's GDP: $4.141 trillion [2009 est.])<br>$2.0 billion - China (Chinese GDP: $8.767 trillion [2009 est.])<br>$1.01 billion - Indian Space Research Organization (Indian GDP: $3.548 trillion [2009 est.])</p><p>We can care about space AND make sure people aren't being kicked out of their homes because of a recession. I would hate to lose our edge on space, but at the same time... I would rather live with less poverty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current budget is a far cry from a " little for space research .
" The United States of America leads the world in raw spending for space exploration .
I would argue that we are spending about as much as the rest of the world combined .
I am in NO way saying we are the best , or we have n't had our fair share of failures , but to say that NASA 's budget is a " little " amount is simply wrong. $ 17.2 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( United States of America GDP : $ 14.25 trillion ( 2009 est .
) $ 5.4 billion - European Space Agency ( European Union GDP : $ 14.52 trillion [ 2009 est .
] ) $ 2.4 billion - Russian Federal Space Agency ( Russian GDP : $ 2.103 trillion [ 2009 est .
] ) $ 2.15 billion - Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency ( Japan 's GDP : $ 4.141 trillion [ 2009 est .
] ) $ 2.0 billion - China ( Chinese GDP : $ 8.767 trillion [ 2009 est .
] ) $ 1.01 billion - Indian Space Research Organization ( Indian GDP : $ 3.548 trillion [ 2009 est .
] ) We can care about space AND make sure people are n't being kicked out of their homes because of a recession .
I would hate to lose our edge on space , but at the same time... I would rather live with less poverty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current budget is a far cry from a "little for space research.
" The United States of America leads the world in raw spending for space exploration.
I would argue that we are spending about as much as the rest of the world combined.
I am in NO way saying we are the best, or we haven't had our fair share of failures, but to say that NASA's budget is a "little" amount is simply wrong.$17.2 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (United States of America GDP: $14.25 trillion (2009 est.
)$5.4 billion - European Space Agency (European Union GDP: $14.52 trillion [2009 est.
])$2.4 billion - Russian Federal Space Agency (Russian GDP: $2.103 trillion [2009 est.
])$2.15 billion - Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (Japan's GDP: $4.141 trillion [2009 est.
])$2.0 billion - China (Chinese GDP: $8.767 trillion [2009 est.
])$1.01 billion - Indian Space Research Organization (Indian GDP: $3.548 trillion [2009 est.
])We can care about space AND make sure people aren't being kicked out of their homes because of a recession.
I would hate to lose our edge on space, but at the same time... I would rather live with less poverty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999846</id>
	<title>The obvious fraud...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that this whole space privatization thing is anything more than a kill NASA move.  Like, come on, we're supposed to believe that a political party that seems to think people should not be allowed to own rifles should be allowed to develop ICBMs?  Would Democrats really ever let me own my own rocketship, when, the mere possession of the energy required to get into myself orbit makes for a hugely powerful weapon?</p><p>Come on, Democrats banned mercury and lead, and they are going to let us have our own rockets?</p><p>What a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that this whole space privatization thing is anything more than a kill NASA move .
Like , come on , we 're supposed to believe that a political party that seems to think people should not be allowed to own rifles should be allowed to develop ICBMs ?
Would Democrats really ever let me own my own rocketship , when , the mere possession of the energy required to get into myself orbit makes for a hugely powerful weapon ? Come on , Democrats banned mercury and lead , and they are going to let us have our own rockets ? What a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that this whole space privatization thing is anything more than a kill NASA move.
Like, come on, we're supposed to believe that a political party that seems to think people should not be allowed to own rifles should be allowed to develop ICBMs?
Would Democrats really ever let me own my own rocketship, when, the mere possession of the energy required to get into myself orbit makes for a hugely powerful weapon?Come on, Democrats banned mercury and lead, and they are going to let us have our own rockets?What a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000214</id>
	<title>Re:Heavy lift capabilities?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265144100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The falcon 9 heavy configuration lifts 30Mg to LEO. It will probably be up and running in next year or two. (The Falcon 9 regular's maiden flight will be in the next month or two). The ares 5 lifts 150Mg to LEO. Problem is that it wouldn't be ready for 2018~2020. That is quite a big difference! That and the cost will be many times as much. (I did notice the size difference, but I still think SpaceX will be working towards a heavy lift vehicle by the time ares would be completed)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The falcon 9 heavy configuration lifts 30Mg to LEO .
It will probably be up and running in next year or two .
( The Falcon 9 regular 's maiden flight will be in the next month or two ) .
The ares 5 lifts 150Mg to LEO .
Problem is that it would n't be ready for 2018 ~ 2020 .
That is quite a big difference !
That and the cost will be many times as much .
( I did notice the size difference , but I still think SpaceX will be working towards a heavy lift vehicle by the time ares would be completed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The falcon 9 heavy configuration lifts 30Mg to LEO.
It will probably be up and running in next year or two.
(The Falcon 9 regular's maiden flight will be in the next month or two).
The ares 5 lifts 150Mg to LEO.
Problem is that it wouldn't be ready for 2018~2020.
That is quite a big difference!
That and the cost will be many times as much.
(I did notice the size difference, but I still think SpaceX will be working towards a heavy lift vehicle by the time ares would be completed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000572</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a bit selfish don't you think?</p><p>Would you rather we ruin the country just so you can see it?</p><p>Or would you rather that we build the foundation so that future generations can get there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a bit selfish do n't you think ? Would you rather we ruin the country just so you can see it ? Or would you rather that we build the foundation so that future generations can get there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a bit selfish don't you think?Would you rather we ruin the country just so you can see it?Or would you rather that we build the foundation so that future generations can get there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999790</id>
	<title>anon1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this was an actual cut to the budget i would be all for it.</p><p>Obama is actually increasing NASA's budget and re-purposing NASA to study global warming.</p><p>http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/02/poll-president-obamas-cancellation-of-nasas-constellation-program.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was an actual cut to the budget i would be all for it.Obama is actually increasing NASA 's budget and re-purposing NASA to study global warming.http : //opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/02/poll-president-obamas-cancellation-of-nasas-constellation-program.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was an actual cut to the budget i would be all for it.Obama is actually increasing NASA's budget and re-purposing NASA to study global warming.http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/02/poll-president-obamas-cancellation-of-nasas-constellation-program.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001358</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265106000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny?  If you're sure...  Sounds like it might be pretty practical compared with e.g. a Space Elevator that would have to extend beyond \_Geosynchronous Orbit\_</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny ?
If you 're sure... Sounds like it might be pretty practical compared with e.g .
a Space Elevator that would have to extend beyond \ _Geosynchronous Orbit \ _</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny?
If you're sure...  Sounds like it might be pretty practical compared with e.g.
a Space Elevator that would have to extend beyond \_Geosynchronous Orbit\_</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000108</id>
	<title>Ok...But...</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1265143740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand why it was done (Cancellation of Constellation) but I have some concerns about not having ANY capability to get people into space until some commercial contractor has the equipment to do so. Also, saying "TBD" when it comes to when we will be back exploring space is the equivalent to "never" in terms of washington priorities.</p><p>Also, what is to inspire the youth of tomorrow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand why it was done ( Cancellation of Constellation ) but I have some concerns about not having ANY capability to get people into space until some commercial contractor has the equipment to do so .
Also , saying " TBD " when it comes to when we will be back exploring space is the equivalent to " never " in terms of washington priorities.Also , what is to inspire the youth of tomorrow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand why it was done (Cancellation of Constellation) but I have some concerns about not having ANY capability to get people into space until some commercial contractor has the equipment to do so.
Also, saying "TBD" when it comes to when we will be back exploring space is the equivalent to "never" in terms of washington priorities.Also, what is to inspire the youth of tomorrow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999080</id>
	<title>NASA-National Aeronautic and Space Administration.</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1265139420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't their whole mission be getting people and stuff into the air and/or into space?  For bonus points, getting those people/things <i>back</i> would be kinda cool (where applicable - frankly, they can leave satellites in orbit if that's what's required).<p>
<i>Science?</i>  That sounds like a job for some other organization.  NASA should strictly be in the business of managing air/spacecraft (although with the FAA existing to handle <i>atmospheric</i> flight, I suppose we could change the acronym to NSA - National Space Administration<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^).</p><p>
We're gonna need a whole body of <i>laws</i> to deal with space travel - how much junk you're allowed to leave in orbital space, precisely what orbit you're allowed to leave that junk at, what orbits you can have, how long, who pays when stuff goes wrong, et cetera.  We're also gonna need a whole body of technology to get there.  Let someone else (National Weather Service, Universities, etc.) do the science.  The new NSA will be there to make sure that they can put stuff in space to do the science, and it would divorce pure and commercial research from direct government control.  NSA should see to it that space travel is available, affordable (as possible) and safe (as possible).  Leave science to scientists (lets face it, the current NASA is a quasi-military organization).  Leave profit to corporations.  Let the new NSA give us a path to the stars, and let that be their only mandate.  The government doesn't need to decide what to do in space, only how best to get us there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't their whole mission be getting people and stuff into the air and/or into space ?
For bonus points , getting those people/things back would be kinda cool ( where applicable - frankly , they can leave satellites in orbit if that 's what 's required ) .
Science ? That sounds like a job for some other organization .
NASA should strictly be in the business of managing air/spacecraft ( although with the FAA existing to handle atmospheric flight , I suppose we could change the acronym to NSA - National Space Administration : ^ ) .
We 're gon na need a whole body of laws to deal with space travel - how much junk you 're allowed to leave in orbital space , precisely what orbit you 're allowed to leave that junk at , what orbits you can have , how long , who pays when stuff goes wrong , et cetera .
We 're also gon na need a whole body of technology to get there .
Let someone else ( National Weather Service , Universities , etc .
) do the science .
The new NSA will be there to make sure that they can put stuff in space to do the science , and it would divorce pure and commercial research from direct government control .
NSA should see to it that space travel is available , affordable ( as possible ) and safe ( as possible ) .
Leave science to scientists ( lets face it , the current NASA is a quasi-military organization ) .
Leave profit to corporations .
Let the new NSA give us a path to the stars , and let that be their only mandate .
The government does n't need to decide what to do in space , only how best to get us there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't their whole mission be getting people and stuff into the air and/or into space?
For bonus points, getting those people/things back would be kinda cool (where applicable - frankly, they can leave satellites in orbit if that's what's required).
Science?  That sounds like a job for some other organization.
NASA should strictly be in the business of managing air/spacecraft (although with the FAA existing to handle atmospheric flight, I suppose we could change the acronym to NSA - National Space Administration :^).
We're gonna need a whole body of laws to deal with space travel - how much junk you're allowed to leave in orbital space, precisely what orbit you're allowed to leave that junk at, what orbits you can have, how long, who pays when stuff goes wrong, et cetera.
We're also gonna need a whole body of technology to get there.
Let someone else (National Weather Service, Universities, etc.
) do the science.
The new NSA will be there to make sure that they can put stuff in space to do the science, and it would divorce pure and commercial research from direct government control.
NSA should see to it that space travel is available, affordable (as possible) and safe (as possible).
Leave science to scientists (lets face it, the current NASA is a quasi-military organization).
Leave profit to corporations.
Let the new NSA give us a path to the stars, and let that be their only mandate.
The government doesn't need to decide what to do in space, only how best to get us there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999100</id>
	<title>Re:A breath of fresh air</title>
	<author>Minimum\_Wage</author>
	<datestamp>1265139420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The manned spaceflight program has always been the most popular element of NASA, both to the general public and to Congress. If the planned cuts to the manned program are successfully enacted, I'm not sure the how long the rest of this stuff will survive in the current bugetary climate. Note that I'm not necessarily saying the Constellation program is on the right track, but there is an element of the old proverb about a rising tide lifting all the boats that I think applies here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The manned spaceflight program has always been the most popular element of NASA , both to the general public and to Congress .
If the planned cuts to the manned program are successfully enacted , I 'm not sure the how long the rest of this stuff will survive in the current bugetary climate .
Note that I 'm not necessarily saying the Constellation program is on the right track , but there is an element of the old proverb about a rising tide lifting all the boats that I think applies here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The manned spaceflight program has always been the most popular element of NASA, both to the general public and to Congress.
If the planned cuts to the manned program are successfully enacted, I'm not sure the how long the rest of this stuff will survive in the current bugetary climate.
Note that I'm not necessarily saying the Constellation program is on the right track, but there is an element of the old proverb about a rising tide lifting all the boats that I think applies here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999122</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's that defeatist attitude that will have you stuck on this planet when it finally goes belly-up.</p><p>The FAA and EPA are social obstacles, and like all others they'll crumble given enough time, pressure, and opportunity.  Furthermore, where's it written that the technology NASA develops has to be launched from within US borders?</p><p>Figure out the whole space travel thing first, then start worrying about convincing your neighbors.  By that point it probably won't even be an issue anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's that defeatist attitude that will have you stuck on this planet when it finally goes belly-up.The FAA and EPA are social obstacles , and like all others they 'll crumble given enough time , pressure , and opportunity .
Furthermore , where 's it written that the technology NASA develops has to be launched from within US borders ? Figure out the whole space travel thing first , then start worrying about convincing your neighbors .
By that point it probably wo n't even be an issue anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's that defeatist attitude that will have you stuck on this planet when it finally goes belly-up.The FAA and EPA are social obstacles, and like all others they'll crumble given enough time, pressure, and opportunity.
Furthermore, where's it written that the technology NASA develops has to be launched from within US borders?Figure out the whole space travel thing first, then start worrying about convincing your neighbors.
By that point it probably won't even be an issue anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999112</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1265139480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.</p></div><p>Perhaps the most attractive point of the commercial swing is that it makes the FAA/EPA factor moot.  A launch provider is a launch provider...if the payload sports an American flag on the delivery vehicle, so be it.  If it is economically more feasible to hitch a ride into orbit on a Cold War R-7 out of Kazakhstan, that will be the commercial solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.Perhaps the most attractive point of the commercial swing is that it makes the FAA/EPA factor moot .
A launch provider is a launch provider...if the payload sports an American flag on the delivery vehicle , so be it .
If it is economically more feasible to hitch a ride into orbit on a Cold War R-7 out of Kazakhstan , that will be the commercial solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.Perhaps the most attractive point of the commercial swing is that it makes the FAA/EPA factor moot.
A launch provider is a launch provider...if the payload sports an American flag on the delivery vehicle, so be it.
If it is economically more feasible to hitch a ride into orbit on a Cold War R-7 out of Kazakhstan, that will be the commercial solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001758</id>
	<title>Re:A breath of fresh air</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265108280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The manned spaceflight program has always been the most popular element of NASA, both to the general public and to Congress. If the planned cuts to the manned program are successfully enacted, I'm not sure the how long the rest of this stuff will survive in the current bugetary climate. Note that I'm not necessarily saying the Constellation program is on the right track, but there is an element of the old proverb about a rising tide lifting all the boats that I think applies here.</p></div><p>The budget cut was going to happen, period. It's my impression that the new priorities that came with the budget cuts weren't meant to make NASA seem more interesting, but rather for NASA to focus on developing new technologies that are thought to be most helpful to creating jobs and inspiring development of related technologies in the private sector. This plan is designed specifically to survive in the current budgetary climate, as one defends against it's detractors not by pointing to symbolic and inspirational goals, but by pointing to fiscal ones. It's the "boots on the ground" concept that's more vulnerable with this level of deficit. That doesn't mean the end to manned space flight, of course, more like it's being shelved in favour of less expensive projects that are still valuable to developing the space program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The manned spaceflight program has always been the most popular element of NASA , both to the general public and to Congress .
If the planned cuts to the manned program are successfully enacted , I 'm not sure the how long the rest of this stuff will survive in the current bugetary climate .
Note that I 'm not necessarily saying the Constellation program is on the right track , but there is an element of the old proverb about a rising tide lifting all the boats that I think applies here.The budget cut was going to happen , period .
It 's my impression that the new priorities that came with the budget cuts were n't meant to make NASA seem more interesting , but rather for NASA to focus on developing new technologies that are thought to be most helpful to creating jobs and inspiring development of related technologies in the private sector .
This plan is designed specifically to survive in the current budgetary climate , as one defends against it 's detractors not by pointing to symbolic and inspirational goals , but by pointing to fiscal ones .
It 's the " boots on the ground " concept that 's more vulnerable with this level of deficit .
That does n't mean the end to manned space flight , of course , more like it 's being shelved in favour of less expensive projects that are still valuable to developing the space program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The manned spaceflight program has always been the most popular element of NASA, both to the general public and to Congress.
If the planned cuts to the manned program are successfully enacted, I'm not sure the how long the rest of this stuff will survive in the current bugetary climate.
Note that I'm not necessarily saying the Constellation program is on the right track, but there is an element of the old proverb about a rising tide lifting all the boats that I think applies here.The budget cut was going to happen, period.
It's my impression that the new priorities that came with the budget cuts weren't meant to make NASA seem more interesting, but rather for NASA to focus on developing new technologies that are thought to be most helpful to creating jobs and inspiring development of related technologies in the private sector.
This plan is designed specifically to survive in the current budgetary climate, as one defends against it's detractors not by pointing to symbolic and inspirational goals, but by pointing to fiscal ones.
It's the "boots on the ground" concept that's more vulnerable with this level of deficit.
That doesn't mean the end to manned space flight, of course, more like it's being shelved in favour of less expensive projects that are still valuable to developing the space program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000362</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Cally</author>
	<datestamp>1265101560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With Constellation getting knifed, =anything= else is gravy as far as I'm concerned. Good riddance to an empty rhetorical gesture by Dubya in a pathetic attempt to be the 21st Century JFK. There was NEVER any funding for it, and the only positive result was the finally force the retirement of the ludicrous, dangerous, and ridiculously expensive STS. Sure, it makes awesome eye candy, but you got that in '81.  Going back to the moon would be an empty gesture that would also burn through huge sums of money. I'm glad the charade is finally over.  The only useful thing it would have provided would have been a heavy-lift booster capable of pushing 50 tons to Mars.

For NASA to actually get a $6B<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/INCREASE/ -- on the previous year's budget of only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/$13B/-- is absolutely fantastic, far better than I dared hope for. (Yes yes, the $6B is spread over 5 years. So it's only an annual increase of 9\% over the 2009-10 budget, every year for the next five years.)

My own interest is Mars; this budget raises the possibility that the next decade need not be a re-run of the data drought  we suffered in the 80s and much of the 90s. (At the moment, there are only two Mars landers: Mars Science Laboratory, the gigantic nuclear-powered laser-armed beast, of which there is only one, and which is supposed to land with one of the most bizarre EDL systems I've heard of. Search for it on YouTube and prepare to shit yourself as you realised that there's just the one shot for it to work, or the $3B MSL gets lithobraked.  Anyway, after that there's a vague plan to land TWO rovers in 2016: one by JPL and one by ESA, on the same vehicle. As the ESA rover, aka ExoMars, has been in development for well over a decade and has repeatedly slipped - in fact it's slipped further than it's been in development, I believe - I put the chances of that coming off at no better than 20\%. AND THAT IS ALL. Ridiculous when you remember that the two MERs that are still running today, in the sixth year after landing for a planned 90 Sol prime mission, cost less than two Shuttle launches. I know what kind of footage and images *I* would like to see on the TV news in 5 years time, and it's doesn't include fleshy ones floating around clogging up the view.



Anyone in the "space community" (meaning the non-professional interested people, e.g. those posting on this thread) who's moaning about the NASA budget at this point either hasn't been paying attention, is a whacked out 60s reject suffering an acid flashback, or has been watching too much Star Trek.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Constellation getting knifed , = anything = else is gravy as far as I 'm concerned .
Good riddance to an empty rhetorical gesture by Dubya in a pathetic attempt to be the 21st Century JFK .
There was NEVER any funding for it , and the only positive result was the finally force the retirement of the ludicrous , dangerous , and ridiculously expensive STS .
Sure , it makes awesome eye candy , but you got that in '81 .
Going back to the moon would be an empty gesture that would also burn through huge sums of money .
I 'm glad the charade is finally over .
The only useful thing it would have provided would have been a heavy-lift booster capable of pushing 50 tons to Mars .
For NASA to actually get a $ 6B /INCREASE/ -- on the previous year 's budget of only / $ 13B/-- is absolutely fantastic , far better than I dared hope for .
( Yes yes , the $ 6B is spread over 5 years .
So it 's only an annual increase of 9 \ % over the 2009-10 budget , every year for the next five years .
) My own interest is Mars ; this budget raises the possibility that the next decade need not be a re-run of the data drought we suffered in the 80s and much of the 90s .
( At the moment , there are only two Mars landers : Mars Science Laboratory , the gigantic nuclear-powered laser-armed beast , of which there is only one , and which is supposed to land with one of the most bizarre EDL systems I 've heard of .
Search for it on YouTube and prepare to shit yourself as you realised that there 's just the one shot for it to work , or the $ 3B MSL gets lithobraked .
Anyway , after that there 's a vague plan to land TWO rovers in 2016 : one by JPL and one by ESA , on the same vehicle .
As the ESA rover , aka ExoMars , has been in development for well over a decade and has repeatedly slipped - in fact it 's slipped further than it 's been in development , I believe - I put the chances of that coming off at no better than 20 \ % .
AND THAT IS ALL .
Ridiculous when you remember that the two MERs that are still running today , in the sixth year after landing for a planned 90 Sol prime mission , cost less than two Shuttle launches .
I know what kind of footage and images * I * would like to see on the TV news in 5 years time , and it 's does n't include fleshy ones floating around clogging up the view .
Anyone in the " space community " ( meaning the non-professional interested people , e.g .
those posting on this thread ) who 's moaning about the NASA budget at this point either has n't been paying attention , is a whacked out 60s reject suffering an acid flashback , or has been watching too much Star Trek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Constellation getting knifed, =anything= else is gravy as far as I'm concerned.
Good riddance to an empty rhetorical gesture by Dubya in a pathetic attempt to be the 21st Century JFK.
There was NEVER any funding for it, and the only positive result was the finally force the retirement of the ludicrous, dangerous, and ridiculously expensive STS.
Sure, it makes awesome eye candy, but you got that in '81.
Going back to the moon would be an empty gesture that would also burn through huge sums of money.
I'm glad the charade is finally over.
The only useful thing it would have provided would have been a heavy-lift booster capable of pushing 50 tons to Mars.
For NASA to actually get a $6B /INCREASE/ -- on the previous year's budget of only /$13B/-- is absolutely fantastic, far better than I dared hope for.
(Yes yes, the $6B is spread over 5 years.
So it's only an annual increase of 9\% over the 2009-10 budget, every year for the next five years.
)

My own interest is Mars; this budget raises the possibility that the next decade need not be a re-run of the data drought  we suffered in the 80s and much of the 90s.
(At the moment, there are only two Mars landers: Mars Science Laboratory, the gigantic nuclear-powered laser-armed beast, of which there is only one, and which is supposed to land with one of the most bizarre EDL systems I've heard of.
Search for it on YouTube and prepare to shit yourself as you realised that there's just the one shot for it to work, or the $3B MSL gets lithobraked.
Anyway, after that there's a vague plan to land TWO rovers in 2016: one by JPL and one by ESA, on the same vehicle.
As the ESA rover, aka ExoMars, has been in development for well over a decade and has repeatedly slipped - in fact it's slipped further than it's been in development, I believe - I put the chances of that coming off at no better than 20\%.
AND THAT IS ALL.
Ridiculous when you remember that the two MERs that are still running today, in the sixth year after landing for a planned 90 Sol prime mission, cost less than two Shuttle launches.
I know what kind of footage and images *I* would like to see on the TV news in 5 years time, and it's doesn't include fleshy ones floating around clogging up the view.
Anyone in the "space community" (meaning the non-professional interested people, e.g.
those posting on this thread) who's moaning about the NASA budget at this point either hasn't been paying attention, is a whacked out 60s reject suffering an acid flashback, or has been watching too much Star Trek.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999014</id>
	<title>NASA's budget is nothing more than a</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265139180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rounding error with what the President proposed for FY2010.  Considering they are spending an unheard of 40\% over their income I guess we should feel damn lucky NASA got anything.</p><p>Being a geek I want NASA to receive funding an put people into space and on the moon.  The space station comes off to me as a camper, someone looking for excitement and adventure but not wanting to commit to the log cabin in the mountains.</p><p>Being a cynic, this unabashed spending has got to stop.  If it means shutting down the manned space program then please do so.  Just cut everything else you can to get a budget down where my children dream of space and not how to pay off the debt of my generation.  The cynic in me also says, we canceled all of this because Bush pushed for it and therefor it has to be wrong, and if not wrong, well damnit WE WON.</p><p>So NASA will become what? Beholden to corporate interest who may or may not sell services to it because of regulation?  Is that the future?  We no longer get to dream about going to the stars?</p><p>The ultimate cynic in me says, going to the moon and playing in space make for less votes than swimming pools named after Congressmen and schools named after Presidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rounding error with what the President proposed for FY2010 .
Considering they are spending an unheard of 40 \ % over their income I guess we should feel damn lucky NASA got anything.Being a geek I want NASA to receive funding an put people into space and on the moon .
The space station comes off to me as a camper , someone looking for excitement and adventure but not wanting to commit to the log cabin in the mountains.Being a cynic , this unabashed spending has got to stop .
If it means shutting down the manned space program then please do so .
Just cut everything else you can to get a budget down where my children dream of space and not how to pay off the debt of my generation .
The cynic in me also says , we canceled all of this because Bush pushed for it and therefor it has to be wrong , and if not wrong , well damnit WE WON.So NASA will become what ?
Beholden to corporate interest who may or may not sell services to it because of regulation ?
Is that the future ?
We no longer get to dream about going to the stars ? The ultimate cynic in me says , going to the moon and playing in space make for less votes than swimming pools named after Congressmen and schools named after Presidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rounding error with what the President proposed for FY2010.
Considering they are spending an unheard of 40\% over their income I guess we should feel damn lucky NASA got anything.Being a geek I want NASA to receive funding an put people into space and on the moon.
The space station comes off to me as a camper, someone looking for excitement and adventure but not wanting to commit to the log cabin in the mountains.Being a cynic, this unabashed spending has got to stop.
If it means shutting down the manned space program then please do so.
Just cut everything else you can to get a budget down where my children dream of space and not how to pay off the debt of my generation.
The cynic in me also says, we canceled all of this because Bush pushed for it and therefor it has to be wrong, and if not wrong, well damnit WE WON.So NASA will become what?
Beholden to corporate interest who may or may not sell services to it because of regulation?
Is that the future?
We no longer get to dream about going to the stars?The ultimate cynic in me says, going to the moon and playing in space make for less votes than swimming pools named after Congressmen and schools named after Presidents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000106</id>
	<title>Re:Just wanted to say</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1265143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doomed is country that is paying a lot for unemployment benefits and welfare and little for space research.</p></div><p>You do realize that the new budget has an additional $6 billion for NASA than it previously had, much of it dedicated to reviving research &amp; development at NASA, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doomed is country that is paying a lot for unemployment benefits and welfare and little for space research.You do realize that the new budget has an additional $ 6 billion for NASA than it previously had , much of it dedicated to reviving research &amp; development at NASA , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doomed is country that is paying a lot for unemployment benefits and welfare and little for space research.You do realize that the new budget has an additional $6 billion for NASA than it previously had, much of it dedicated to reviving research &amp; development at NASA, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999210</id>
	<title>Big Risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a big risk relying on commercial transport for transporting crew into orbit, since no private company has done this so far.  A number of commercial ventures say that they will do this in the near future, but it's all just marketing until it is accomplished the first time.  And, to boot, there is no guarantee that they will be in it for the long haul...what happens if they discover that it isn't sufficiently profitable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a big risk relying on commercial transport for transporting crew into orbit , since no private company has done this so far .
A number of commercial ventures say that they will do this in the near future , but it 's all just marketing until it is accomplished the first time .
And , to boot , there is no guarantee that they will be in it for the long haul...what happens if they discover that it is n't sufficiently profitable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a big risk relying on commercial transport for transporting crew into orbit, since no private company has done this so far.
A number of commercial ventures say that they will do this in the near future, but it's all just marketing until it is accomplished the first time.
And, to boot, there is no guarantee that they will be in it for the long haul...what happens if they discover that it isn't sufficiently profitable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999158</id>
	<title>Who the hell modded this comment 'Troll'?</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1265139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moron.<p>
I generally don't touch posts by A/C, but in this case . . . WTF?  The man has a valid point, he put it succinctly and clearly.  Whoever modded the post 'troll' needs to re-read the moderator guidelines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moron .
I generally do n't touch posts by A/C , but in this case .
. .
WTF ? The man has a valid point , he put it succinctly and clearly .
Whoever modded the post 'troll ' needs to re-read the moderator guidelines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moron.
I generally don't touch posts by A/C, but in this case .
. .
WTF?  The man has a valid point, he put it succinctly and clearly.
Whoever modded the post 'troll' needs to re-read the moderator guidelines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999200</id>
	<title>Interesting split...</title>
	<author>Eric Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1265139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...of having NASA do unmanned stuff and private industry do manned.  Manned is far more challenging, and less likely to be profitable, so I would have expected it to make sense for NASA to do manned and private industry to do unmanned.
<p>
That's just an observation.  It's not intended to be criticism of the plan.  I have plenty of criticism of the old plan, but I don't yet know enough about the new one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...of having NASA do unmanned stuff and private industry do manned .
Manned is far more challenging , and less likely to be profitable , so I would have expected it to make sense for NASA to do manned and private industry to do unmanned .
That 's just an observation .
It 's not intended to be criticism of the plan .
I have plenty of criticism of the old plan , but I do n't yet know enough about the new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of having NASA do unmanned stuff and private industry do manned.
Manned is far more challenging, and less likely to be profitable, so I would have expected it to make sense for NASA to do manned and private industry to do unmanned.
That's just an observation.
It's not intended to be criticism of the plan.
I have plenty of criticism of the old plan, but I don't yet know enough about the new one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999134</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's weird, looks like SpaceX easily obtained permission to launch from Cape Canaveral. <a href="http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&amp;um=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ned=us&amp;hl=en&amp;q=spacex+canaveral+launch+falcon+9" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&amp;um=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ned=us&amp;hl=en&amp;q=spacex+canaveral+launch+falcon+9</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's weird , looks like SpaceX easily obtained permission to launch from Cape Canaveral .
http : //news.google.com/news/search ? aq = f&amp;um = 1&amp;cf = all&amp;ned = us&amp;hl = en&amp;q = spacex + canaveral + launch + falcon + 9 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's weird, looks like SpaceX easily obtained permission to launch from Cape Canaveral.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&amp;um=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ned=us&amp;hl=en&amp;q=spacex+canaveral+launch+falcon+9 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999340</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FAA will want you to put lights on your extremely tall 'smokestack', but other than that you are fine from a regulatory perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FAA will want you to put lights on your extremely tall 'smokestack ' , but other than that you are fine from a regulatory perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FAA will want you to put lights on your extremely tall 'smokestack', but other than that you are fine from a regulatory perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1265139480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG brilliant!</p><p>Build a cylindrical wall surrounding the launch complex and the outbound trajectory. Put a hefty airlock at the bottom, at ground level. Make the wall tall enough to poke out of the atmosphere. Install really big vacuum pumps.</p><p>Move the spacecraft into the wall through the airlock. Get everyone out of the walled area. Close the airlock and evacuate all the atmosphere from the walled region. (Pump it into the surrounding open air.)</p><p>When the walled in area is a hard vacuum, from ground to space, launch! The FAA has no say, because there's no atmosphere! The EPA has no say because there's no air!</p><p>The spacecraft never undergoes aerodynamic stress during launch and can be any dang shape you want! Spherical ship? No problem!</p><p>Note to all slashbots: I am joking. Maybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG brilliant ! Build a cylindrical wall surrounding the launch complex and the outbound trajectory .
Put a hefty airlock at the bottom , at ground level .
Make the wall tall enough to poke out of the atmosphere .
Install really big vacuum pumps.Move the spacecraft into the wall through the airlock .
Get everyone out of the walled area .
Close the airlock and evacuate all the atmosphere from the walled region .
( Pump it into the surrounding open air .
) When the walled in area is a hard vacuum , from ground to space , launch !
The FAA has no say , because there 's no atmosphere !
The EPA has no say because there 's no air ! The spacecraft never undergoes aerodynamic stress during launch and can be any dang shape you want !
Spherical ship ?
No problem ! Note to all slashbots : I am joking .
Maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG brilliant!Build a cylindrical wall surrounding the launch complex and the outbound trajectory.
Put a hefty airlock at the bottom, at ground level.
Make the wall tall enough to poke out of the atmosphere.
Install really big vacuum pumps.Move the spacecraft into the wall through the airlock.
Get everyone out of the walled area.
Close the airlock and evacuate all the atmosphere from the walled region.
(Pump it into the surrounding open air.
)When the walled in area is a hard vacuum, from ground to space, launch!
The FAA has no say, because there's no atmosphere!
The EPA has no say because there's no air!The spacecraft never undergoes aerodynamic stress during launch and can be any dang shape you want!
Spherical ship?
No problem!Note to all slashbots: I am joking.
Maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000420</id>
	<title>Um, yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit, and doesn't see getting back in to it."</p><p>That's like GM saying "You know what? We've been producing cars for a long time now. People should have a pretty good idea of how to figure it out. We are getting out of the car business, let people build their own cars from scratch now." (All GM sucks at building cars aside)</p><p>Only building a shuttle capable of carrying humans to LEO and docking with a space station MIGHT be a bit more complicated.</p><p>Perhaps say the difference between smoke signals and my iPhone.</p><p>What this REALLY means is that for a Very Long time, if you want to go to the ISS, you are going to be flying the Russian Rocket.</p><p>I can't wait to see what happens when they figure out that they are the only game in town...</p><p>I for one welcome my new comrade overlords.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I am from Soviet Canuckistan anyway, with my communist health care, so I won't notice much differance anyway... I might drink more Vodka, but I think I can deal with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit , and does n't see getting back in to it .
" That 's like GM saying " You know what ?
We 've been producing cars for a long time now .
People should have a pretty good idea of how to figure it out .
We are getting out of the car business , let people build their own cars from scratch now .
" ( All GM sucks at building cars aside ) Only building a shuttle capable of carrying humans to LEO and docking with a space station MIGHT be a bit more complicated.Perhaps say the difference between smoke signals and my iPhone.What this REALLY means is that for a Very Long time , if you want to go to the ISS , you are going to be flying the Russian Rocket.I ca n't wait to see what happens when they figure out that they are the only game in town...I for one welcome my new comrade overlords .
: ) I am from Soviet Canuckistan anyway , with my communist health care , so I wo n't notice much differance anyway... I might drink more Vodka , but I think I can deal with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit, and doesn't see getting back in to it.
"That's like GM saying "You know what?
We've been producing cars for a long time now.
People should have a pretty good idea of how to figure it out.
We are getting out of the car business, let people build their own cars from scratch now.
" (All GM sucks at building cars aside)Only building a shuttle capable of carrying humans to LEO and docking with a space station MIGHT be a bit more complicated.Perhaps say the difference between smoke signals and my iPhone.What this REALLY means is that for a Very Long time, if you want to go to the ISS, you are going to be flying the Russian Rocket.I can't wait to see what happens when they figure out that they are the only game in town...I for one welcome my new comrade overlords.
:)I am from Soviet Canuckistan anyway, with my communist health care, so I won't notice much differance anyway... I might drink more Vodka, but I think I can deal with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31006058</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1265134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"That's a bit selfish don't you think?"

Yep.

"Would you rather we ruin the country just so you can see it?"

Please provide some evidence that going to mars, today or ten years from now would ruin the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's a bit selfish do n't you think ?
" Yep .
" Would you rather we ruin the country just so you can see it ?
" Please provide some evidence that going to mars , today or ten years from now would ruin the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's a bit selfish don't you think?
"

Yep.
"Would you rather we ruin the country just so you can see it?
"

Please provide some evidence that going to mars, today or ten years from now would ruin the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999978</id>
	<title>Honestly guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I don't normally post to Slashdot, so you're welcome to ignore this, but replacing a bunch of years-old over budget project with a bunch of new un-started ones is just a great way to clear the balance sheet for future years-old over budget projects.  Going to space, especially with the safety we expect (I don't think explorers to America were as stringent on survival rates), is both unexpectedly difficult and unexpectedly expensive.  Much like Joel Spolsky rails against throwing everything out and starting "fresh," because it's a waste of time, this too is just a further waste of time.  Imagine if in the middle of the Apollo program we were over budget and behind.  If we decided to throw all that initial work out then and start anew, we'd never have gone to the moon.  It is time to finish this.</p><p>On an unrelated note, please stop worrying about the debt you've left your future generations.  It doesn't work like that.  If we don't spend the money now to fix what ails us and to escape the recession, your children will be born into a place the same debt and no job prospects.  Instead we should be spending everything we can to get the economy humming and inflate away our debts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I do n't normally post to Slashdot , so you 're welcome to ignore this , but replacing a bunch of years-old over budget project with a bunch of new un-started ones is just a great way to clear the balance sheet for future years-old over budget projects .
Going to space , especially with the safety we expect ( I do n't think explorers to America were as stringent on survival rates ) , is both unexpectedly difficult and unexpectedly expensive .
Much like Joel Spolsky rails against throwing everything out and starting " fresh , " because it 's a waste of time , this too is just a further waste of time .
Imagine if in the middle of the Apollo program we were over budget and behind .
If we decided to throw all that initial work out then and start anew , we 'd never have gone to the moon .
It is time to finish this.On an unrelated note , please stop worrying about the debt you 've left your future generations .
It does n't work like that .
If we do n't spend the money now to fix what ails us and to escape the recession , your children will be born into a place the same debt and no job prospects .
Instead we should be spending everything we can to get the economy humming and inflate away our debts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I don't normally post to Slashdot, so you're welcome to ignore this, but replacing a bunch of years-old over budget project with a bunch of new un-started ones is just a great way to clear the balance sheet for future years-old over budget projects.
Going to space, especially with the safety we expect (I don't think explorers to America were as stringent on survival rates), is both unexpectedly difficult and unexpectedly expensive.
Much like Joel Spolsky rails against throwing everything out and starting "fresh," because it's a waste of time, this too is just a further waste of time.
Imagine if in the middle of the Apollo program we were over budget and behind.
If we decided to throw all that initial work out then and start anew, we'd never have gone to the moon.
It is time to finish this.On an unrelated note, please stop worrying about the debt you've left your future generations.
It doesn't work like that.
If we don't spend the money now to fix what ails us and to escape the recession, your children will be born into a place the same debt and no job prospects.
Instead we should be spending everything we can to get the economy humming and inflate away our debts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31006466</id>
	<title>Re:The obvious fraud...</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265138460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Come on, Democrats banned mercury and lead, and they are going to let us have our own rockets?</p></div></blockquote><p>

If you cant understand why mercury and lead were banned you aren't smart or responsible enough to have your own rocket.<br> <br>

In fact you aren't responsible enough to have your own vegetable peeler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , Democrats banned mercury and lead , and they are going to let us have our own rockets ?
If you cant understand why mercury and lead were banned you are n't smart or responsible enough to have your own rocket .
In fact you are n't responsible enough to have your own vegetable peeler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, Democrats banned mercury and lead, and they are going to let us have our own rockets?
If you cant understand why mercury and lead were banned you aren't smart or responsible enough to have your own rocket.
In fact you aren't responsible enough to have your own vegetable peeler.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</id>
	<title>Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can change the NASA budget all you want, but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.  If you can't get a license for a launch, you aren't going anywhere.  And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.</p><p>Maybe Mexico would be open to allowing their skies to be used and for the remote possibility of some kind of pollution.  Unfortunately, it is pretty clear they have not been open in the past - or we would be doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can change the NASA budget all you want , but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA .
If you ca n't get a license for a launch , you are n't going anywhere .
And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.Maybe Mexico would be open to allowing their skies to be used and for the remote possibility of some kind of pollution .
Unfortunately , it is pretty clear they have not been open in the past - or we would be doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can change the NASA budget all you want, but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.
If you can't get a license for a launch, you aren't going anywhere.
And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.Maybe Mexico would be open to allowing their skies to be used and for the remote possibility of some kind of pollution.
Unfortunately, it is pretty clear they have not been open in the past - or we would be doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000064</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These items will allow us to launch big (weight wise) missions by using a bunch of smaller launch vehicles, instead of one really huge (and really expensive) one.</p></div></blockquote><p>And the savings of which would be precisely amount to what? The payload to absolute mass ratio tends to be smaller when using small launchers. So, without actual numbers it remains debatable whether small launchers are indeed more efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These items will allow us to launch big ( weight wise ) missions by using a bunch of smaller launch vehicles , instead of one really huge ( and really expensive ) one.And the savings of which would be precisely amount to what ?
The payload to absolute mass ratio tends to be smaller when using small launchers .
So , without actual numbers it remains debatable whether small launchers are indeed more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These items will allow us to launch big (weight wise) missions by using a bunch of smaller launch vehicles, instead of one really huge (and really expensive) one.And the savings of which would be precisely amount to what?
The payload to absolute mass ratio tends to be smaller when using small launchers.
So, without actual numbers it remains debatable whether small launchers are indeed more efficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820</id>
	<title>Survival of mankind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I feel NASA's ongoing mission should be the distribution of people into outer space for permanent relocation. We should focus on saving humanity from the off chance we kill each other with nukes or get hit by an asteroid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I feel NASA 's ongoing mission should be the distribution of people into outer space for permanent relocation .
We should focus on saving humanity from the off chance we kill each other with nukes or get hit by an asteroid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I feel NASA's ongoing mission should be the distribution of people into outer space for permanent relocation.
We should focus on saving humanity from the off chance we kill each other with nukes or get hit by an asteroid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001536</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1265107020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA isn't out of the exploration business.  In fact, once crew launch to LEO is something you can buy off the shelf, NASA can focus its budget on doing beyond LEO exploration.  The plan for that exploration is called The Flexible Path To Mars.  It calls for development of the technologies needed to get there and demonstration missions to interesting intermediate destinations.</p><p>The people saying Obama has canceled human exploration of space are equating Constellation with human exploration for political gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is n't out of the exploration business .
In fact , once crew launch to LEO is something you can buy off the shelf , NASA can focus its budget on doing beyond LEO exploration .
The plan for that exploration is called The Flexible Path To Mars .
It calls for development of the technologies needed to get there and demonstration missions to interesting intermediate destinations.The people saying Obama has canceled human exploration of space are equating Constellation with human exploration for political gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA isn't out of the exploration business.
In fact, once crew launch to LEO is something you can buy off the shelf, NASA can focus its budget on doing beyond LEO exploration.
The plan for that exploration is called The Flexible Path To Mars.
It calls for development of the technologies needed to get there and demonstration missions to interesting intermediate destinations.The people saying Obama has canceled human exploration of space are equating Constellation with human exploration for political gain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000140</id>
	<title>Outsourcing manned space flight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, NASA's jumping on the same bandwagon as private companies now - outsourcing everything they can get away with. I'm not totally anti-outsourcing, but I do think it goes way too far. Executives love the idea of having as few things in-house as possible, especially when a business partner can do it cheaper. The problem is that they don't care how the partner manages to do it cheaper! This happens in every field. Outsource manufacturing, and you get poor product quality. Outsource software development, and you get crappy code that has to be rewritten anyway. Outsource IT, and satisfaction levels go down as the people who knew what was happening get replaced by the cheapest people they can find. How would this apply to space travel?</p><p>Also, here's another thought. In not too many years, China, India or one of the other developing economies is going to be the dominant country on Earth. It's just a fact - they have governments who pursue growth at all costs, and we've decided to stop trying to stay ahead. One of the things that kept the US and the Soviet Union on their toes during the Cold War was the run-up in their space programs. The US push to be first on the moon was basically a government mandate, along with the massive amount of funding that it took. Let's say we wanted to do something like that again - maybe to prove a point to China or something. Now, instead of using unlimited money and power to make things happen, NASA has to go beg/bribe 500 subcontractors to do the job instead of hiring the scientists and engineering staff themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , NASA 's jumping on the same bandwagon as private companies now - outsourcing everything they can get away with .
I 'm not totally anti-outsourcing , but I do think it goes way too far .
Executives love the idea of having as few things in-house as possible , especially when a business partner can do it cheaper .
The problem is that they do n't care how the partner manages to do it cheaper !
This happens in every field .
Outsource manufacturing , and you get poor product quality .
Outsource software development , and you get crappy code that has to be rewritten anyway .
Outsource IT , and satisfaction levels go down as the people who knew what was happening get replaced by the cheapest people they can find .
How would this apply to space travel ? Also , here 's another thought .
In not too many years , China , India or one of the other developing economies is going to be the dominant country on Earth .
It 's just a fact - they have governments who pursue growth at all costs , and we 've decided to stop trying to stay ahead .
One of the things that kept the US and the Soviet Union on their toes during the Cold War was the run-up in their space programs .
The US push to be first on the moon was basically a government mandate , along with the massive amount of funding that it took .
Let 's say we wanted to do something like that again - maybe to prove a point to China or something .
Now , instead of using unlimited money and power to make things happen , NASA has to go beg/bribe 500 subcontractors to do the job instead of hiring the scientists and engineering staff themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, NASA's jumping on the same bandwagon as private companies now - outsourcing everything they can get away with.
I'm not totally anti-outsourcing, but I do think it goes way too far.
Executives love the idea of having as few things in-house as possible, especially when a business partner can do it cheaper.
The problem is that they don't care how the partner manages to do it cheaper!
This happens in every field.
Outsource manufacturing, and you get poor product quality.
Outsource software development, and you get crappy code that has to be rewritten anyway.
Outsource IT, and satisfaction levels go down as the people who knew what was happening get replaced by the cheapest people they can find.
How would this apply to space travel?Also, here's another thought.
In not too many years, China, India or one of the other developing economies is going to be the dominant country on Earth.
It's just a fact - they have governments who pursue growth at all costs, and we've decided to stop trying to stay ahead.
One of the things that kept the US and the Soviet Union on their toes during the Cold War was the run-up in their space programs.
The US push to be first on the moon was basically a government mandate, along with the massive amount of funding that it took.
Let's say we wanted to do something like that again - maybe to prove a point to China or something.
Now, instead of using unlimited money and power to make things happen, NASA has to go beg/bribe 500 subcontractors to do the job instead of hiring the scientists and engineering staff themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000808</id>
	<title>Notes from press conference on commercial crew</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1265103480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This morning NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had a press conference where he gave more details on NASA's plans and announced the initial contracts for the $50 million commercial crew development contracts (was supposed to be $200 million, but most funding was diverted by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Al) towards Constellation). Mind that this is just for the first year, as the budget hasn't passed yet -- once the budget passes, future contracts will award a total of a few billion spread over a number of years. The video link is here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YvIESqDUk" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YvIESqDUk</a> [youtube.com] </p><p>Here's my notes on the press conference:</p><p>(sorry about the heinous formatting)</p><p>
    Charles Bolden takes a moment to thank the Constellation team for their years of dedicated service<br>
    "We want to explore new worlds, we want to develop more innovative technologies, we want to foster new industries, and we want to increase our understanding of Earth, the solar system, and the universe."<br>
    "each awardee also proposed significant investment from other sources to leverage taxpayer investment"<br>
    Blue Origin<br>o    $3.7 million award to fund "risk mitigation activities related to its development of pusher launch escape system, and to develop a composite crew module for structural testing."<br>
    Boeing<br>o    $18 million for space transportation system which includes a 7-person capsule to launch on medium-lift expendable launch systems<br>
    Paragon<br>o    small business<br>o    has directly supported more than 70 spaceflight missions<br>o    $1.4 million for a development unit of environmental control and lift support air revitalization system<br>
    Sierra Nevada<br>o    $20 million for Dream Chaser, 7-person spacecraft to be launched on Atlas V-402 vehicle<br>
    ULA<br>o    $6.7 million for emergency detection system to monitor vehicle health of Atlas V and Delta IV rockets<br>
    they are the vanguard; certainly adding to this group in the near future<br>
    comments from presidents/reps<br>o    ULA<br>
    EDS work for commercial crew and making sure products are more reliable for all customers<br>o    Blue Origin<br>
    pusher escape system, at back of capsule to avoid jettison event, not consumed on nominal launch so it lowers operating costs<br>
    composite capsule will improve durability over conventional technology and lower weight<br>o    Boeing<br>
    principal teammate Bigelow Aerospace<br>
    Bigelow represents most probable near-term market for crew transportation to LEO other than NASA<br>
    want to satisfy both Bigelow's needs and NASA's<br>
    parallel with Bill Boeing's young company and airmail to delivering cargo and crew to ISS<br>o    Paragon<br>
    developing air revitalization system<br>
    first of its kind: a turn-key system, usable on pretty much any spacecraft<br>
    had very first commercial experiment on ISS<br>o    Sierra Nevada<br>
    developed under unfunded Space Act agreement for past two years<br>
    based on NASA's HL-20 from 20 years ago<br>o    Orbital Sciences (ongoing COTS contract)<br>
    um, talked for quite a while<br>o    SpaceX (ongoing COTS contract)<br>
    spoke about collaborations with NASA<br>
    Q&amp;A<br>o    Do you have a destination and timetable?<br>
    tiger teams working on destinations and putting together timetables now<br>o    in-orbit refueling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This morning NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had a press conference where he gave more details on NASA 's plans and announced the initial contracts for the $ 50 million commercial crew development contracts ( was supposed to be $ 200 million , but most funding was diverted by Sen. Richard Shelby ( R-Al ) towards Constellation ) .
Mind that this is just for the first year , as the budget has n't passed yet -- once the budget passes , future contracts will award a total of a few billion spread over a number of years .
The video link is here : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = e9YvIESqDUk [ youtube.com ] Here 's my notes on the press conference : ( sorry about the heinous formatting ) Charles Bolden takes a moment to thank the Constellation team for their years of dedicated service " We want to explore new worlds , we want to develop more innovative technologies , we want to foster new industries , and we want to increase our understanding of Earth , the solar system , and the universe .
" " each awardee also proposed significant investment from other sources to leverage taxpayer investment " Blue Origino $ 3.7 million award to fund " risk mitigation activities related to its development of pusher launch escape system , and to develop a composite crew module for structural testing .
" Boeingo $ 18 million for space transportation system which includes a 7-person capsule to launch on medium-lift expendable launch systems Paragono small businesso has directly supported more than 70 spaceflight missionso $ 1.4 million for a development unit of environmental control and lift support air revitalization system Sierra Nevadao $ 20 million for Dream Chaser , 7-person spacecraft to be launched on Atlas V-402 vehicle ULAo $ 6.7 million for emergency detection system to monitor vehicle health of Atlas V and Delta IV rockets they are the vanguard ; certainly adding to this group in the near future comments from presidents/repso ULA EDS work for commercial crew and making sure products are more reliable for all customerso Blue Origin pusher escape system , at back of capsule to avoid jettison event , not consumed on nominal launch so it lowers operating costs composite capsule will improve durability over conventional technology and lower weighto Boeing principal teammate Bigelow Aerospace Bigelow represents most probable near-term market for crew transportation to LEO other than NASA want to satisfy both Bigelow 's needs and NASA 's parallel with Bill Boeing 's young company and airmail to delivering cargo and crew to ISSo Paragon developing air revitalization system first of its kind : a turn-key system , usable on pretty much any spacecraft had very first commercial experiment on ISSo Sierra Nevada developed under unfunded Space Act agreement for past two years based on NASA 's HL-20 from 20 years agoo Orbital Sciences ( ongoing COTS contract ) um , talked for quite a whileo SpaceX ( ongoing COTS contract ) spoke about collaborations with NASA Q&amp;Ao Do you have a destination and timetable ?
tiger teams working on destinations and putting together timetables nowo in-orbit refueling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This morning NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had a press conference where he gave more details on NASA's plans and announced the initial contracts for the $50 million commercial crew development contracts (was supposed to be $200 million, but most funding was diverted by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Al) towards Constellation).
Mind that this is just for the first year, as the budget hasn't passed yet -- once the budget passes, future contracts will award a total of a few billion spread over a number of years.
The video link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YvIESqDUk [youtube.com] Here's my notes on the press conference:(sorry about the heinous formatting)
    Charles Bolden takes a moment to thank the Constellation team for their years of dedicated service
    "We want to explore new worlds, we want to develop more innovative technologies, we want to foster new industries, and we want to increase our understanding of Earth, the solar system, and the universe.
"
    "each awardee also proposed significant investment from other sources to leverage taxpayer investment"
    Blue Origino    $3.7 million award to fund "risk mitigation activities related to its development of pusher launch escape system, and to develop a composite crew module for structural testing.
"
    Boeingo    $18 million for space transportation system which includes a 7-person capsule to launch on medium-lift expendable launch systems
    Paragono    small businesso    has directly supported more than 70 spaceflight missionso    $1.4 million for a development unit of environmental control and lift support air revitalization system
    Sierra Nevadao    $20 million for Dream Chaser, 7-person spacecraft to be launched on Atlas V-402 vehicle
    ULAo    $6.7 million for emergency detection system to monitor vehicle health of Atlas V and Delta IV rockets
    they are the vanguard; certainly adding to this group in the near future
    comments from presidents/repso    ULA
    EDS work for commercial crew and making sure products are more reliable for all customerso    Blue Origin
    pusher escape system, at back of capsule to avoid jettison event, not consumed on nominal launch so it lowers operating costs
    composite capsule will improve durability over conventional technology and lower weighto    Boeing
    principal teammate Bigelow Aerospace
    Bigelow represents most probable near-term market for crew transportation to LEO other than NASA
    want to satisfy both Bigelow's needs and NASA's
    parallel with Bill Boeing's young company and airmail to delivering cargo and crew to ISSo    Paragon
    developing air revitalization system
    first of its kind: a turn-key system, usable on pretty much any spacecraft
    had very first commercial experiment on ISSo    Sierra Nevada
    developed under unfunded Space Act agreement for past two years
    based on NASA's HL-20 from 20 years agoo    Orbital Sciences (ongoing COTS contract)
    um, talked for quite a whileo    SpaceX (ongoing COTS contract)
    spoke about collaborations with NASA
    Q&amp;Ao    Do you have a destination and timetable?
tiger teams working on destinations and putting together timetables nowo    in-orbit refueling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002458</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>mrfrostee</author>
	<datestamp>1265112060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sure, scientists and such are clever and will try to figure out how to continue to expand the sciences, even without financial support systems of the past, but the demand in aeronautics will continue to diminish, fewer experts will get involved, and any incentives to stay will simply go away.</i></p><p>This budget restores funding to the science and technology development programs that Constellation cannibalized when it was under-funded. Aeronautics gets a 15\% increase, for instance.</p><p><i>The truth is, there's no great plan, instead these cuts are politically motivated...</i></p><p>NASA's budget was <b>increased</b>, not cut.</p><p>Constellation was a huge unfunded mandate. It sucked all the funds from everything else NASA did. The Augustine report that studied future options for NASA said it would take 3 billion additional dollars per year to implement the program, and it gave several better options for NASA in the unlikely case that the $3 billion was available (but it isn't).</p><p>I see these changes as being common sense, not politically motivated. No politician of any party would want to borrow the money required to see Constellation through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , scientists and such are clever and will try to figure out how to continue to expand the sciences , even without financial support systems of the past , but the demand in aeronautics will continue to diminish , fewer experts will get involved , and any incentives to stay will simply go away.This budget restores funding to the science and technology development programs that Constellation cannibalized when it was under-funded .
Aeronautics gets a 15 \ % increase , for instance.The truth is , there 's no great plan , instead these cuts are politically motivated...NASA 's budget was increased , not cut.Constellation was a huge unfunded mandate .
It sucked all the funds from everything else NASA did .
The Augustine report that studied future options for NASA said it would take 3 billion additional dollars per year to implement the program , and it gave several better options for NASA in the unlikely case that the $ 3 billion was available ( but it is n't ) .I see these changes as being common sense , not politically motivated .
No politician of any party would want to borrow the money required to see Constellation through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, scientists and such are clever and will try to figure out how to continue to expand the sciences, even without financial support systems of the past, but the demand in aeronautics will continue to diminish, fewer experts will get involved, and any incentives to stay will simply go away.This budget restores funding to the science and technology development programs that Constellation cannibalized when it was under-funded.
Aeronautics gets a 15\% increase, for instance.The truth is, there's no great plan, instead these cuts are politically motivated...NASA's budget was increased, not cut.Constellation was a huge unfunded mandate.
It sucked all the funds from everything else NASA did.
The Augustine report that studied future options for NASA said it would take 3 billion additional dollars per year to implement the program, and it gave several better options for NASA in the unlikely case that the $3 billion was available (but it isn't).I see these changes as being common sense, not politically motivated.
No politician of any party would want to borrow the money required to see Constellation through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999142</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>georgewilliamherbert</author>
	<datestamp>1265139600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop the FUD.  Approximately nothing of what you have said is true, cdrguru.</p><p>The FAA's office of Space Transportation (AST) has a mandate written in its authorizing law to both regulate <b>and promote</b> commercial space activities.  They take both parts of that quite seriously.<br>Please do not spread FUD.</p><p>I am not aware of any commercial space activity which was denied an AST license or permit.  There have been a few "Can't fly from this airport" snafu's from the aviation side, who are alternately happy and sad about rockets, but the AST crew are doing the "promote" thing quite seriously.</p><p>Is it always a completely smooth relationship?  No.  Is any of the startup companies spending most of their time (more than 10-20\%) on paperwork?  No.  People are getting licenses and permits, they're flying.</p><p>From a reasonable standpoint, someone does need to be an external review to make sure we don't kill someone on the ground.  If the industry neglected that, we'd eventually *really* get shut down when we did something neglegent.  The reviews and regulation are appropriate to avoid dropping rockets on some poor family some day, which would be a tragedy both for the victims and for the industry.</p><p>EPA has no authority, the FAA has a standing environmental finding that there's no significant impact from the reusable rocket industry.</p><p>Am I personally flying rockets?  No.  Have I had to talk to AST about some proposed activities?  Some.  Do I know the people flying stuff now (Xcor, Armadillo, Masten, Unreasonable)?  Yes, in most cases for decade-plus and personally.  When we all get together, most of the griping is about operational lessons, and learning new things about rocket design, and high-fives for new successes.  Only a small fraction of it is regulatory.  It's there, but we know how to deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop the FUD .
Approximately nothing of what you have said is true , cdrguru.The FAA 's office of Space Transportation ( AST ) has a mandate written in its authorizing law to both regulate and promote commercial space activities .
They take both parts of that quite seriously.Please do not spread FUD.I am not aware of any commercial space activity which was denied an AST license or permit .
There have been a few " Ca n't fly from this airport " snafu 's from the aviation side , who are alternately happy and sad about rockets , but the AST crew are doing the " promote " thing quite seriously.Is it always a completely smooth relationship ?
No. Is any of the startup companies spending most of their time ( more than 10-20 \ % ) on paperwork ?
No. People are getting licenses and permits , they 're flying.From a reasonable standpoint , someone does need to be an external review to make sure we do n't kill someone on the ground .
If the industry neglected that , we 'd eventually * really * get shut down when we did something neglegent .
The reviews and regulation are appropriate to avoid dropping rockets on some poor family some day , which would be a tragedy both for the victims and for the industry.EPA has no authority , the FAA has a standing environmental finding that there 's no significant impact from the reusable rocket industry.Am I personally flying rockets ?
No. Have I had to talk to AST about some proposed activities ?
Some. Do I know the people flying stuff now ( Xcor , Armadillo , Masten , Unreasonable ) ?
Yes , in most cases for decade-plus and personally .
When we all get together , most of the griping is about operational lessons , and learning new things about rocket design , and high-fives for new successes .
Only a small fraction of it is regulatory .
It 's there , but we know how to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop the FUD.
Approximately nothing of what you have said is true, cdrguru.The FAA's office of Space Transportation (AST) has a mandate written in its authorizing law to both regulate and promote commercial space activities.
They take both parts of that quite seriously.Please do not spread FUD.I am not aware of any commercial space activity which was denied an AST license or permit.
There have been a few "Can't fly from this airport" snafu's from the aviation side, who are alternately happy and sad about rockets, but the AST crew are doing the "promote" thing quite seriously.Is it always a completely smooth relationship?
No.  Is any of the startup companies spending most of their time (more than 10-20\%) on paperwork?
No.  People are getting licenses and permits, they're flying.From a reasonable standpoint, someone does need to be an external review to make sure we don't kill someone on the ground.
If the industry neglected that, we'd eventually *really* get shut down when we did something neglegent.
The reviews and regulation are appropriate to avoid dropping rockets on some poor family some day, which would be a tragedy both for the victims and for the industry.EPA has no authority, the FAA has a standing environmental finding that there's no significant impact from the reusable rocket industry.Am I personally flying rockets?
No.  Have I had to talk to AST about some proposed activities?
Some.  Do I know the people flying stuff now (Xcor, Armadillo, Masten, Unreasonable)?
Yes, in most cases for decade-plus and personally.
When we all get together, most of the griping is about operational lessons, and learning new things about rocket design, and high-fives for new successes.
Only a small fraction of it is regulatory.
It's there, but we know how to deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001282</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>srollyson</author>
	<datestamp>1265105700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No Buck Rogers, No Bucks. [...] Robots are good and they can be used successfully, but "boots on the ground" or in this case "boots in space" are also required.</p></div><p>Robots can do a pretty good job of immersing <i>everyone</i> in the discovery, rather than just the astronauts.</p><p>Have a look at this awesome <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria\_Crater,\_Cape\_Verde-Mars.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">panorama</a> [wikipedia.org] that Mars Rover Opportunity took. JAXA also strapped some HD cameras to their lunar orbiter, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELENE" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Kaguya</a> [wikipedia.org]. Kaguya's cameras benefited science greatly by stitching footage together to create a complete lunar topographical map. The side benefit was some brilliant <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1KWtG66lEQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">footage</a> [youtube.com] of the lunar landscape to placate the taxpayers.</p><p>I don't know about you, but I'd <i>love</i> to see some footage of a nuclear-powered robot <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa\_(moon)#Spacecraft\_proposals\_and\_cancellations" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">drilling into Europa's subsurface ocean</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No Buck Rogers , No Bucks .
[ ... ] Robots are good and they can be used successfully , but " boots on the ground " or in this case " boots in space " are also required.Robots can do a pretty good job of immersing everyone in the discovery , rather than just the astronauts.Have a look at this awesome panorama [ wikipedia.org ] that Mars Rover Opportunity took .
JAXA also strapped some HD cameras to their lunar orbiter , Kaguya [ wikipedia.org ] .
Kaguya 's cameras benefited science greatly by stitching footage together to create a complete lunar topographical map .
The side benefit was some brilliant footage [ youtube.com ] of the lunar landscape to placate the taxpayers.I do n't know about you , but I 'd love to see some footage of a nuclear-powered robot drilling into Europa 's subsurface ocean [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.
[...] Robots are good and they can be used successfully, but "boots on the ground" or in this case "boots in space" are also required.Robots can do a pretty good job of immersing everyone in the discovery, rather than just the astronauts.Have a look at this awesome panorama [wikipedia.org] that Mars Rover Opportunity took.
JAXA also strapped some HD cameras to their lunar orbiter, Kaguya [wikipedia.org].
Kaguya's cameras benefited science greatly by stitching footage together to create a complete lunar topographical map.
The side benefit was some brilliant footage [youtube.com] of the lunar landscape to placate the taxpayers.I don't know about you, but I'd love to see some footage of a nuclear-powered robot drilling into Europa's subsurface ocean [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999732</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody explain to me how this helps them go to mars in my lifetime. I may have 50 years left on the planet. I would like to see us go to mars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody explain to me how this helps them go to mars in my lifetime .
I may have 50 years left on the planet .
I would like to see us go to mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody explain to me how this helps them go to mars in my lifetime.
I may have 50 years left on the planet.
I would like to see us go to mars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999902</id>
	<title>Re:Heavy lift capabilities?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1265142780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's $3 billion in the budget starting immediately to develope a heavy lift capability, considering that Ares V developement wasn't suposed to start for several years yet.  Whatever solution they come up with should be delivered earlier than the Ares V would have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's $ 3 billion in the budget starting immediately to develope a heavy lift capability , considering that Ares V developement was n't suposed to start for several years yet .
Whatever solution they come up with should be delivered earlier than the Ares V would have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's $3 billion in the budget starting immediately to develope a heavy lift capability, considering that Ares V developement wasn't suposed to start for several years yet.
Whatever solution they come up with should be delivered earlier than the Ares V would have been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001198</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whites raised their eyes and they saw stars.<br>Obamaman raised his head and he saw bars.<br>Whites dreamed a dream and went to the moon.<br>Obama dreamed a dream of a welfare check for every coon.<br>Whites were sure their destiny lay in the heavens.<br>Obama wants every White elderly person to go to heaven.<br>Whites built cathedrals and rockets ships and made explorations.<br>Blacks did drive-bys and destroyed Detroit and offered no explanations.<br>Obama said, &ldquo;No moon for you, I&rsquo;d rather give your money to the Jew&rdquo;.<br>He said as his minions looted and gloried and lived off of the few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whites raised their eyes and they saw stars.Obamaman raised his head and he saw bars.Whites dreamed a dream and went to the moon.Obama dreamed a dream of a welfare check for every coon.Whites were sure their destiny lay in the heavens.Obama wants every White elderly person to go to heaven.Whites built cathedrals and rockets ships and made explorations.Blacks did drive-bys and destroyed Detroit and offered no explanations.Obama said ,    No moon for you , I    d rather give your money to the Jew    .He said as his minions looted and gloried and lived off of the few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whites raised their eyes and they saw stars.Obamaman raised his head and he saw bars.Whites dreamed a dream and went to the moon.Obama dreamed a dream of a welfare check for every coon.Whites were sure their destiny lay in the heavens.Obama wants every White elderly person to go to heaven.Whites built cathedrals and rockets ships and made explorations.Blacks did drive-bys and destroyed Detroit and offered no explanations.Obama said, “No moon for you, I’d rather give your money to the Jew”.He said as his minions looted and gloried and lived off of the few.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31010306</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1264955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the Chinese."</p><p>Really?  Ceded is a pretty strong word.</p><p>Lots of Russian and Chinese manned missions going up, are there?<br>(I mean Chinese missions that don't show floating BUBBLES, of course...)</p><p>Is the US space program in remission?  Yep.<br>Is NASA floundering?  Yes, it's overbureacratized but occasionally puts out some really astonishingly good science and engineering - witness the Martian rovers, Cassini - so I suspect the talent is there, hiding under an increasing crust of politicized nonsense.</p><p>The space shuttle was a horrible design, made by committee.<br>The ISS is a stupid setpiece project - too low, too small, &amp; too incremental to really advance the concepts of long-term space habitation or construction.</p><p>Face it, we have an ever-increasing population here in the US that is less and less technologically oriented in real terms - sure, there are LOTS of 12 yr olds that can run Facebook or whip through the hardest PS3 game without breaking a sweat, but fewer engineers and astronomers.  These people are electing representatives that choose to continue to spend a massive \% of the Federal purse on:<br>- medical care for elderly and poor<br>- taking care of the seniors that didn't save enough for themselves (far longer than the originally-planned what, 6-8 years that were originally envisaged?)<br>- caring for the unemployed/able</p><p>If you were to look at the economics of it rationally, are ANY of those things (representing about 52\% of the FY2009 spend) really ever going to benefit the country in general in the longest term?</p><p>Basically, having an aggressive space program takes leadership with balls, people willing to accept that astronauts die in a terrifically dangerous job, people willing to accept the guns vs. butter choices economically that will hurt in the short term for a benefit in the longest terms.  We tend not to elect them because they aren't willing to pander to US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the Chinese. " Really ?
Ceded is a pretty strong word.Lots of Russian and Chinese manned missions going up , are there ?
( I mean Chinese missions that do n't show floating BUBBLES , of course... ) Is the US space program in remission ?
Yep.Is NASA floundering ?
Yes , it 's overbureacratized but occasionally puts out some really astonishingly good science and engineering - witness the Martian rovers , Cassini - so I suspect the talent is there , hiding under an increasing crust of politicized nonsense.The space shuttle was a horrible design , made by committee.The ISS is a stupid setpiece project - too low , too small , &amp; too incremental to really advance the concepts of long-term space habitation or construction.Face it , we have an ever-increasing population here in the US that is less and less technologically oriented in real terms - sure , there are LOTS of 12 yr olds that can run Facebook or whip through the hardest PS3 game without breaking a sweat , but fewer engineers and astronomers .
These people are electing representatives that choose to continue to spend a massive \ % of the Federal purse on : - medical care for elderly and poor- taking care of the seniors that did n't save enough for themselves ( far longer than the originally-planned what , 6-8 years that were originally envisaged ?
) - caring for the unemployed/ableIf you were to look at the economics of it rationally , are ANY of those things ( representing about 52 \ % of the FY2009 spend ) really ever going to benefit the country in general in the longest term ? Basically , having an aggressive space program takes leadership with balls , people willing to accept that astronauts die in a terrifically dangerous job , people willing to accept the guns vs. butter choices economically that will hurt in the short term for a benefit in the longest terms .
We tend not to elect them because they are n't willing to pander to US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The US has now essentially ceded manned spaceflight to the Russians and the Chinese."Really?
Ceded is a pretty strong word.Lots of Russian and Chinese manned missions going up, are there?
(I mean Chinese missions that don't show floating BUBBLES, of course...)Is the US space program in remission?
Yep.Is NASA floundering?
Yes, it's overbureacratized but occasionally puts out some really astonishingly good science and engineering - witness the Martian rovers, Cassini - so I suspect the talent is there, hiding under an increasing crust of politicized nonsense.The space shuttle was a horrible design, made by committee.The ISS is a stupid setpiece project - too low, too small, &amp; too incremental to really advance the concepts of long-term space habitation or construction.Face it, we have an ever-increasing population here in the US that is less and less technologically oriented in real terms - sure, there are LOTS of 12 yr olds that can run Facebook or whip through the hardest PS3 game without breaking a sweat, but fewer engineers and astronomers.
These people are electing representatives that choose to continue to spend a massive \% of the Federal purse on:- medical care for elderly and poor- taking care of the seniors that didn't save enough for themselves (far longer than the originally-planned what, 6-8 years that were originally envisaged?
)- caring for the unemployed/ableIf you were to look at the economics of it rationally, are ANY of those things (representing about 52\% of the FY2009 spend) really ever going to benefit the country in general in the longest term?Basically, having an aggressive space program takes leadership with balls, people willing to accept that astronauts die in a terrifically dangerous job, people willing to accept the guns vs. butter choices economically that will hurt in the short term for a benefit in the longest terms.
We tend not to elect them because they aren't willing to pander to US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999048</id>
	<title>It's not rocket science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting to LEO isn't rocket science, any more.  We've been doing that for over 50 years, now.</p><p>By now it's rocket engineering, and appropriate for the private sector.</p><p>Keep NASA in the rocket science business - deep space, new technologies, etc.  The goal here is for the private sector to do it faster and cheaper, enabling other things to piggyback on top - like even further out rocket science.  Too much of NASA's attention is spent on that first 100-200 miles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting to LEO is n't rocket science , any more .
We 've been doing that for over 50 years , now.By now it 's rocket engineering , and appropriate for the private sector.Keep NASA in the rocket science business - deep space , new technologies , etc .
The goal here is for the private sector to do it faster and cheaper , enabling other things to piggyback on top - like even further out rocket science .
Too much of NASA 's attention is spent on that first 100-200 miles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting to LEO isn't rocket science, any more.
We've been doing that for over 50 years, now.By now it's rocket engineering, and appropriate for the private sector.Keep NASA in the rocket science business - deep space, new technologies, etc.
The goal here is for the private sector to do it faster and cheaper, enabling other things to piggyback on top - like even further out rocket science.
Too much of NASA's attention is spent on that first 100-200 miles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000162</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting split...</title>
	<author>Dawn Keyhotie</author>
	<datestamp>1265143920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually that was the old paradigm.  Since the Space Shuttle Challenger's last ill-fated flight, all government payloads, except manned missions, are required by law to procure launch services from commercial providers.</p><p>This new approach proposed by President Obama would remove NASA even from the manned launch business, and outsource all vehicle design, development, and operations to the private sector.</p><p>I'm a child of the sixties and grew up with Apollo, and have followed the Space Shuttle program avidly since 4/12/1981.  I don't know how all of this is going to turn out, right now I feel like I've been sucker-punched by my best friend.</p><p>One thing's for sure, it's the end of an era.  After the last Space Shuttle is launched, we will never see another American space launch.  We might see a Boeing space launch, or a Lockheed-Martin space launch, or even a SpaceX launch.  But those will be for the enrichment of the their stockholders, not the advancement of American technology and interests.</p><p>Say goodbye to American advancement in space, say Hello to our new space-faring corporate overlords.</p><p>Mark S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually that was the old paradigm .
Since the Space Shuttle Challenger 's last ill-fated flight , all government payloads , except manned missions , are required by law to procure launch services from commercial providers.This new approach proposed by President Obama would remove NASA even from the manned launch business , and outsource all vehicle design , development , and operations to the private sector.I 'm a child of the sixties and grew up with Apollo , and have followed the Space Shuttle program avidly since 4/12/1981 .
I do n't know how all of this is going to turn out , right now I feel like I 've been sucker-punched by my best friend.One thing 's for sure , it 's the end of an era .
After the last Space Shuttle is launched , we will never see another American space launch .
We might see a Boeing space launch , or a Lockheed-Martin space launch , or even a SpaceX launch .
But those will be for the enrichment of the their stockholders , not the advancement of American technology and interests.Say goodbye to American advancement in space , say Hello to our new space-faring corporate overlords.Mark S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually that was the old paradigm.
Since the Space Shuttle Challenger's last ill-fated flight, all government payloads, except manned missions, are required by law to procure launch services from commercial providers.This new approach proposed by President Obama would remove NASA even from the manned launch business, and outsource all vehicle design, development, and operations to the private sector.I'm a child of the sixties and grew up with Apollo, and have followed the Space Shuttle program avidly since 4/12/1981.
I don't know how all of this is going to turn out, right now I feel like I've been sucker-punched by my best friend.One thing's for sure, it's the end of an era.
After the last Space Shuttle is launched, we will never see another American space launch.
We might see a Boeing space launch, or a Lockheed-Martin space launch, or even a SpaceX launch.
But those will be for the enrichment of the their stockholders, not the advancement of American technology and interests.Say goodbye to American advancement in space, say Hello to our new space-faring corporate overlords.Mark S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998882</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Mexico did once send a killer whale to the moon for $200.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Mexico did once send a killer whale to the moon for $ 200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Mexico did once send a killer whale to the moon for $200.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999464</id>
	<title>Re:Survival of mankind</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1265140920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I feel NASA's ongoing mission should be the distribution of people into outer space for permanent relocation.</p><p>There, fixed that for you. There was some humorous nonsense about *saving* humanity obviously tacked on by a hacker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I feel NASA 's ongoing mission should be the distribution of people into outer space for permanent relocation.There , fixed that for you .
There was some humorous nonsense about * saving * humanity obviously tacked on by a hacker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I feel NASA's ongoing mission should be the distribution of people into outer space for permanent relocation.There, fixed that for you.
There was some humorous nonsense about *saving* humanity obviously tacked on by a hacker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000102</id>
	<title>Re:It's not rocket science</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, but I'm sensing a contradiction in the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>keeping the ISS going
</p><p>
NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit</p></div> </blockquote><p>

So what, an automated ISS?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , but I 'm sensing a contradiction in the article : keeping the ISS going NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit So what , an automated ISS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, but I'm sensing a contradiction in the article:keeping the ISS going

NASA is out of the business of putting people into low-earth orbit 

So what, an automated ISS?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999752</id>
	<title>This won't end well.</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1265142120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait for the first space war, when the other countries have armoured battleshuttles and we have to hitch a ride on a tourist boat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for the first space war , when the other countries have armoured battleshuttles and we have to hitch a ride on a tourist boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for the first space war, when the other countries have armoured battleshuttles and we have to hitch a ride on a tourist boat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999188</id>
	<title>Socialist!</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1265139780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turning over a government-run system to private business? How socialist can you get!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turning over a government-run system to private business ?
How socialist can you get !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turning over a government-run system to private business?
How socialist can you get!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001306</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Mercury astronauts said it best. No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Mercury astronauts didn't say that at all.  Tom Wolfe made that line up for <i>The Right Stuff</i>.  And it's "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mercury astronauts said it best .
No Buck Rogers , No Bucks.The Mercury astronauts did n't say that at all .
Tom Wolfe made that line up for The Right Stuff .
And it 's " No bucks , no Buck Rogers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mercury astronauts said it best.
No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.The Mercury astronauts didn't say that at all.
Tom Wolfe made that line up for The Right Stuff.
And it's "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999764</id>
	<title>Re:Survival of mankind</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1265142120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I feel that if we're going to colonize the moon (or Mars), that responsibility should not be put in the hands of NASA, the USA, or any other hypercapitalist nation for that matter.  What these bean counters love to ignore is that, once we hit space, money/wealth will quickly become irrelevant.  I don't know about you, but I can't picture debt collectors chasing me through the galaxy so some dirty banker can buy a diamond-encrusted iPad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I feel that if we 're going to colonize the moon ( or Mars ) , that responsibility should not be put in the hands of NASA , the USA , or any other hypercapitalist nation for that matter .
What these bean counters love to ignore is that , once we hit space , money/wealth will quickly become irrelevant .
I do n't know about you , but I ca n't picture debt collectors chasing me through the galaxy so some dirty banker can buy a diamond-encrusted iPad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I feel that if we're going to colonize the moon (or Mars), that responsibility should not be put in the hands of NASA, the USA, or any other hypercapitalist nation for that matter.
What these bean counters love to ignore is that, once we hit space, money/wealth will quickly become irrelevant.
I don't know about you, but I can't picture debt collectors chasing me through the galaxy so some dirty banker can buy a diamond-encrusted iPad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1265142240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how you look at this issue, it's really just putting rosed-colored glasses on a tough situation. Sure, scientists and such are clever and will try to figure out how to continue to expand the sciences, even without financial support systems of the past, but the demand in aeronautics will continue to diminish, fewer experts will get involved, and any incentives to stay will simply go away.</p><p>Of course I might be wrong, but honestly, if this philosophy really worked in governing bodies (the idea that you slash the budget to marginally operating ability, and suddenly you get better "products") then you should not expect record spending, but instead we should expect to see record budget slashing.</p><p>The truth is, there's no great plan, instead these cuts are politically motivated due to the demographics of states affected by this change. Of course that's a president's prerogative and presidents do political things. I just won't pretend it's good news for NASA or US space tech.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how you look at this issue , it 's really just putting rosed-colored glasses on a tough situation .
Sure , scientists and such are clever and will try to figure out how to continue to expand the sciences , even without financial support systems of the past , but the demand in aeronautics will continue to diminish , fewer experts will get involved , and any incentives to stay will simply go away.Of course I might be wrong , but honestly , if this philosophy really worked in governing bodies ( the idea that you slash the budget to marginally operating ability , and suddenly you get better " products " ) then you should not expect record spending , but instead we should expect to see record budget slashing.The truth is , there 's no great plan , instead these cuts are politically motivated due to the demographics of states affected by this change .
Of course that 's a president 's prerogative and presidents do political things .
I just wo n't pretend it 's good news for NASA or US space tech .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how you look at this issue, it's really just putting rosed-colored glasses on a tough situation.
Sure, scientists and such are clever and will try to figure out how to continue to expand the sciences, even without financial support systems of the past, but the demand in aeronautics will continue to diminish, fewer experts will get involved, and any incentives to stay will simply go away.Of course I might be wrong, but honestly, if this philosophy really worked in governing bodies (the idea that you slash the budget to marginally operating ability, and suddenly you get better "products") then you should not expect record spending, but instead we should expect to see record budget slashing.The truth is, there's no great plan, instead these cuts are politically motivated due to the demographics of states affected by this change.
Of course that's a president's prerogative and presidents do political things.
I just won't pretend it's good news for NASA or US space tech.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002668</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but I breathe the air as well as you, and I personally appreciate the fact that people can't just throw whatever bullshit they want into it without a permit.  Some control is better than no control.  You should blame the companies that fucked up the air, water, and soil for profit prior to a republican administration feeling an imperative to propose the EPA, rather than blaming the EPA's controls (which HAVE <b>measurably</b> improved air quality since its inception).  Seriously, fuck you for wanting to fuck up MY air without anyone checking on you.  Fuck you for thinking that business profitability comes before MY health.  Just because you don't give a shit about it doesn't mean that I should have to suffer.  It is a COMMON good that is NECESSARY for survival and <b>SHOULD BE REGULATED</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but I breathe the air as well as you , and I personally appreciate the fact that people ca n't just throw whatever bullshit they want into it without a permit .
Some control is better than no control .
You should blame the companies that fucked up the air , water , and soil for profit prior to a republican administration feeling an imperative to propose the EPA , rather than blaming the EPA 's controls ( which HAVE measurably improved air quality since its inception ) .
Seriously , fuck you for wanting to fuck up MY air without anyone checking on you .
Fuck you for thinking that business profitability comes before MY health .
Just because you do n't give a shit about it does n't mean that I should have to suffer .
It is a COMMON good that is NECESSARY for survival and SHOULD BE REGULATED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but I breathe the air as well as you, and I personally appreciate the fact that people can't just throw whatever bullshit they want into it without a permit.
Some control is better than no control.
You should blame the companies that fucked up the air, water, and soil for profit prior to a republican administration feeling an imperative to propose the EPA, rather than blaming the EPA's controls (which HAVE measurably improved air quality since its inception).
Seriously, fuck you for wanting to fuck up MY air without anyone checking on you.
Fuck you for thinking that business profitability comes before MY health.
Just because you don't give a shit about it doesn't mean that I should have to suffer.
It is a COMMON good that is NECESSARY for survival and SHOULD BE REGULATED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003066</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting split...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265115480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The split is that commercial side does the launches and NASA does the missions. NASA does all the manned and unmanned missions. The commercial side is just provide some infrastructure support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The split is that commercial side does the launches and NASA does the missions .
NASA does all the manned and unmanned missions .
The commercial side is just provide some infrastructure support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The split is that commercial side does the launches and NASA does the missions.
NASA does all the manned and unmanned missions.
The commercial side is just provide some infrastructure support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000658</id>
	<title>FAA and the EPA stopping commercial launches</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1265102940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FAA and the EPA stopping commercial launches</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can change the NASA budget all you want, but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA. If you can't get a license for a launch, you aren't going anywhere.</p></div><p>Fine.</p><p>After I launch, they can come up and arrest me.</p><p>-- Terry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FAA and the EPA stopping commercial launchesYou can change the NASA budget all you want , but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA .
If you ca n't get a license for a launch , you are n't going anywhere.Fine.After I launch , they can come up and arrest me.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAA and the EPA stopping commercial launchesYou can change the NASA budget all you want, but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.
If you can't get a license for a launch, you aren't going anywhere.Fine.After I launch, they can come up and arrest me.-- Terry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000552</id>
	<title>Why do those who like capitalism...</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1265102340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many (not all, of course) of the posters here are in favor of capitalism. Just a guess.</p><p>So, why is it that there are so many her in favor of socialized space exploration? What happened to "The free market can do it better?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many ( not all , of course ) of the posters here are in favor of capitalism .
Just a guess.So , why is it that there are so many her in favor of socialized space exploration ?
What happened to " The free market can do it better ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many (not all, of course) of the posters here are in favor of capitalism.
Just a guess.So, why is it that there are so many her in favor of socialized space exploration?
What happened to "The free market can do it better?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999094</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In 2005 there were 18 orbital commercial launches worldwide, of which 5 were licensed by the FAA. Those 18 launches represent 33 percent of the 55 total launches conducted in 2005 for government and commercial customers worldwide. This marked an increase over 2004, which saw 15 commercial orbital launches worldwide.</p></div></blockquote><p>&mdash;<a href="http://faa.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/faa.cfg/php/enduser/std\_adp.php?p\_faqid=111" title="custhelp.com" rel="nofollow">How many commercial launches take place each year? in the FAA FAQ</a> [custhelp.com]</p><p>This means that the FAA licensed 1/11th (about 9\%) of the total launches in 2005.  That's not that bad, is it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2005 there were 18 orbital commercial launches worldwide , of which 5 were licensed by the FAA .
Those 18 launches represent 33 percent of the 55 total launches conducted in 2005 for government and commercial customers worldwide .
This marked an increase over 2004 , which saw 15 commercial orbital launches worldwide.    How many commercial launches take place each year ?
in the FAA FAQ [ custhelp.com ] This means that the FAA licensed 1/11th ( about 9 \ % ) of the total launches in 2005 .
That 's not that bad , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2005 there were 18 orbital commercial launches worldwide, of which 5 were licensed by the FAA.
Those 18 launches represent 33 percent of the 55 total launches conducted in 2005 for government and commercial customers worldwide.
This marked an increase over 2004, which saw 15 commercial orbital launches worldwide.—How many commercial launches take place each year?
in the FAA FAQ [custhelp.com]This means that the FAA licensed 1/11th (about 9\%) of the total launches in 2005.
That's not that bad, is it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003744</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skylab 283 cubic meters, International Space Station as it is now is over 1000 cubic meters, with more modules due to be installed still</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skylab 283 cubic meters , International Space Station as it is now is over 1000 cubic meters , with more modules due to be installed still</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skylab 283 cubic meters, International Space Station as it is now is over 1000 cubic meters, with more modules due to be installed still</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999438</id>
	<title>Not a retreat, attacking in different direction</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1265140800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much needed overhaul of a partially moribund manned program.<br>Putting science first will create a much more meaningful space<br>program in the long run, one in which a manned presence is<br>essential.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much needed overhaul of a partially moribund manned program.Putting science first will create a much more meaningful spaceprogram in the long run , one in which a manned presence isessential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much needed overhaul of a partially moribund manned program.Putting science first will create a much more meaningful spaceprogram in the long run, one in which a manned presence isessential.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999238</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265139900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.<br></i><br>Don't forget OSHA. And that's a GOOD thing IMO. Note that it didn't stop Space Ship One from reaching space. What it will stop is unscrupulous corporations from using a poisonous propellant because it's cheaper than a nontoxic one, and having pieces of the blown-up rocket land on somebody's house. Let alone shortcuts that endanger workers.</p><p>When they made the <i>Blues Brothers</i> movie they had to do tests to get FAA approval to drop the Nazi's Pinto from a helicopter in Chicago in that one scene; they wanted to make sure it would drop straight down instead of sailing into a residential neighborhood. After dropping three pintos in the Salt Flats in Utah, the FAA granted permission.</p><p>The EPA, FAA, and OSHA protects YOU from corporations who don't care whether you live or die, whether you realize it or not. They're not protecting you from yourself, they're protecting you from ME. Any corporation rich enough to put people in space are rich enough to get EPA, FAA and OSHA approval.</p><p>If government went away tomorrow, you'd be wishing it was back the day after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.Do n't forget OSHA .
And that 's a GOOD thing IMO .
Note that it did n't stop Space Ship One from reaching space .
What it will stop is unscrupulous corporations from using a poisonous propellant because it 's cheaper than a nontoxic one , and having pieces of the blown-up rocket land on somebody 's house .
Let alone shortcuts that endanger workers.When they made the Blues Brothers movie they had to do tests to get FAA approval to drop the Nazi 's Pinto from a helicopter in Chicago in that one scene ; they wanted to make sure it would drop straight down instead of sailing into a residential neighborhood .
After dropping three pintos in the Salt Flats in Utah , the FAA granted permission.The EPA , FAA , and OSHA protects YOU from corporations who do n't care whether you live or die , whether you realize it or not .
They 're not protecting you from yourself , they 're protecting you from ME .
Any corporation rich enough to put people in space are rich enough to get EPA , FAA and OSHA approval.If government went away tomorrow , you 'd be wishing it was back the day after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.Don't forget OSHA.
And that's a GOOD thing IMO.
Note that it didn't stop Space Ship One from reaching space.
What it will stop is unscrupulous corporations from using a poisonous propellant because it's cheaper than a nontoxic one, and having pieces of the blown-up rocket land on somebody's house.
Let alone shortcuts that endanger workers.When they made the Blues Brothers movie they had to do tests to get FAA approval to drop the Nazi's Pinto from a helicopter in Chicago in that one scene; they wanted to make sure it would drop straight down instead of sailing into a residential neighborhood.
After dropping three pintos in the Salt Flats in Utah, the FAA granted permission.The EPA, FAA, and OSHA protects YOU from corporations who don't care whether you live or die, whether you realize it or not.
They're not protecting you from yourself, they're protecting you from ME.
Any corporation rich enough to put people in space are rich enough to get EPA, FAA and OSHA approval.If government went away tomorrow, you'd be wishing it was back the day after.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001036</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, really</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1265104380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can change the NASA budget all you want, but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA. If you can't get a license for a launch, you aren't going anywhere. And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.</p></div><p>This may have been true in the past, but in the last few years, largely thanks to the efforts of many in the space community, the regulations are much less insane than they were before. Even smaller rocketry companies like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems get along with the FAA reasonably well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can change the NASA budget all you want , but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA .
If you ca n't get a license for a launch , you are n't going anywhere .
And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.This may have been true in the past , but in the last few years , largely thanks to the efforts of many in the space community , the regulations are much less insane than they were before .
Even smaller rocketry companies like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems get along with the FAA reasonably well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can change the NASA budget all you want, but the major impediments to commercial space launches are still the FAA and the EPA.
If you can't get a license for a launch, you aren't going anywhere.
And between the FAA and EPA it is almost impossible to get a license in the US.This may have been true in the past, but in the last few years, largely thanks to the efforts of many in the space community, the regulations are much less insane than they were before.
Even smaller rocketry companies like Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems get along with the FAA reasonably well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999360</id>
	<title>Why not the logical?</title>
	<author>ZonkerWilliam</author>
	<datestamp>1265140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe there should be different agency, one devoted to exploitation of space resources,including transportation and habitability,  which is more suited to private industry as compared to NASA who does exploration and science. The two would be interdependent, but it would focus NASA at what it supposed to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there should be different agency , one devoted to exploitation of space resources,including transportation and habitability , which is more suited to private industry as compared to NASA who does exploration and science .
The two would be interdependent , but it would focus NASA at what it supposed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there should be different agency, one devoted to exploitation of space resources,including transportation and habitability,  which is more suited to private industry as compared to NASA who does exploration and science.
The two would be interdependent, but it would focus NASA at what it supposed to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1265141580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is also the reason I'm excited about the orbital propellant storage and automated rendezvous technology.</p></div><p>We are never going to get out of sight with our current propellant technology.  The money spent on this is a waste, like building yet another pony express station. Its time to focus in another direction.</p><p>As for automated rendezvous, the Russians have been doing this for years.  Just buy it from them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also the reason I 'm excited about the orbital propellant storage and automated rendezvous technology.We are never going to get out of sight with our current propellant technology .
The money spent on this is a waste , like building yet another pony express station .
Its time to focus in another direction.As for automated rendezvous , the Russians have been doing this for years .
Just buy it from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also the reason I'm excited about the orbital propellant storage and automated rendezvous technology.We are never going to get out of sight with our current propellant technology.
The money spent on this is a waste, like building yet another pony express station.
Its time to focus in another direction.As for automated rendezvous, the Russians have been doing this for years.
Just buy it from them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999070</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>llZENll</author>
	<datestamp>1265139360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any company that has the resources to make a manned space flight will have no problem either pulling the <a href="http://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/3680" title="dot.gov">correct strings</a> [dot.gov] to get licensing, or simply finding their <a href="http://www.neckerisland.virgin.com/" title="virgin.com">own island</a> [virgin.com] to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any company that has the resources to make a manned space flight will have no problem either pulling the correct strings [ dot.gov ] to get licensing , or simply finding their own island [ virgin.com ] to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any company that has the resources to make a manned space flight will have no problem either pulling the correct strings [dot.gov] to get licensing, or simply finding their own island [virgin.com] to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999994</id>
	<title>Re:Just wanted to say</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1265143200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_program#Highest\_budget\_space\_agencies" title="wikipedia.org">Space budgets world wide:</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>
&nbsp; United States     NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)     $17,600 million[42]<br>
&nbsp; EU           ESA   (European Space Agency)     $5,350 million [43]<br>
&nbsp; France     CNES (French Space Agency)     $2,590 million [44]<br>
&nbsp; Russia     RKA (Russian Federal Space Agency)     $2,400 million<br>
&nbsp; Japan     JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency)     $2,100 million<br>
&nbsp; Germany     DLR (German Aerospace Center)     $1,821 million<br>
&nbsp; Italy     ASI (Italian Space Agency)     $1,550 million<br>
&nbsp; China     CNSA (China National Space Administration)     $1,300 million[45]<br>
&nbsp; India     ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization)     $1,010 million[46]</p><p>So I think we've got a bit of room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space budgets world wide : [ wikipedia.org ]   United States NASA ( National Aeronautics and Space Administration ) $ 17,600 million [ 42 ]   EU ESA ( European Space Agency ) $ 5,350 million [ 43 ]   France CNES ( French Space Agency ) $ 2,590 million [ 44 ]   Russia RKA ( Russian Federal Space Agency ) $ 2,400 million   Japan JAXA ( Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency ) $ 2,100 million   Germany DLR ( German Aerospace Center ) $ 1,821 million   Italy ASI ( Italian Space Agency ) $ 1,550 million   China CNSA ( China National Space Administration ) $ 1,300 million [ 45 ]   India ISRO ( Indian Space Research Organization ) $ 1,010 million [ 46 ] So I think we 've got a bit of room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space budgets world wide: [wikipedia.org]
  United States     NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)     $17,600 million[42]
  EU           ESA   (European Space Agency)     $5,350 million [43]
  France     CNES (French Space Agency)     $2,590 million [44]
  Russia     RKA (Russian Federal Space Agency)     $2,400 million
  Japan     JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency)     $2,100 million
  Germany     DLR (German Aerospace Center)     $1,821 million
  Italy     ASI (Italian Space Agency)     $1,550 million
  China     CNSA (China National Space Administration)     $1,300 million[45]
  India     ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization)     $1,010 million[46]So I think we've got a bit of room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999496</id>
	<title>Re:A breath of fresh air</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265140980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As I've heard said before, it's not NASA's job to put a man on Mars (or the moon). It's NASA's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars. </i></p><p>That's insane. National Geographic's great expeditions followed in the footsteps of many gov't funded expeditions, particularly, all these expeditions were descended from the British sending out the likes of Cook, and geez, Darwin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 've heard said before , it 's not NASA 's job to put a man on Mars ( or the moon ) .
It 's NASA 's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars .
That 's insane .
National Geographic 's great expeditions followed in the footsteps of many gov't funded expeditions , particularly , all these expeditions were descended from the British sending out the likes of Cook , and geez , Darwin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I've heard said before, it's not NASA's job to put a man on Mars (or the moon).
It's NASA's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars.
That's insane.
National Geographic's great expeditions followed in the footsteps of many gov't funded expeditions, particularly, all these expeditions were descended from the British sending out the likes of Cook, and geez, Darwin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214</id>
	<title>Heavy lift capabilities?</title>
	<author>ravenspear</author>
	<datestamp>1265139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is NASA supporting that now that Ares V has been cancelled.
<br> <br>
No private firm is going to build a rocket of that capability anytime in the near future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is NASA supporting that now that Ares V has been cancelled .
No private firm is going to build a rocket of that capability anytime in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is NASA supporting that now that Ares V has been cancelled.
No private firm is going to build a rocket of that capability anytime in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000610</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orbital assembly was an option during Apollo. It would have taken multiple Saturn V launches to get the components up there. Direct ascent could have been done by the "Nova" rocket on Von Braun's drawing board. It was also hideously expensive. Orbit re-configuration from a single stack actually was actively fought against for some time. Turned out to be the best and most economical option available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orbital assembly was an option during Apollo .
It would have taken multiple Saturn V launches to get the components up there .
Direct ascent could have been done by the " Nova " rocket on Von Braun 's drawing board .
It was also hideously expensive .
Orbit re-configuration from a single stack actually was actively fought against for some time .
Turned out to be the best and most economical option available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orbital assembly was an option during Apollo.
It would have taken multiple Saturn V launches to get the components up there.
Direct ascent could have been done by the "Nova" rocket on Von Braun's drawing board.
It was also hideously expensive.
Orbit re-configuration from a single stack actually was actively fought against for some time.
Turned out to be the best and most economical option available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056</id>
	<title>Just wanted to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doomed is country that is paying a lot for unemployment benefits and welfare and little for space research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doomed is country that is paying a lot for unemployment benefits and welfare and little for space research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doomed is country that is paying a lot for unemployment benefits and welfare and little for space research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001848</id>
	<title>Re:Survival of mankind</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265108700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I feel that if we're going to colonize the moon (or Mars), that responsibility should not be put in the hands of NASA, the USA, or any other hypercapitalist nation for that matter.  What these bean counters love to ignore is that, once we hit space, money/wealth will quickly become irrelevant.  I don't know about you, but I can't picture debt collectors chasing me through the galaxy so some dirty banker can buy a diamond-encrusted iPad.</p></div><p>That's funny, when I was younger I often pictured myself as a sort of debt collector chasing some lowlife through the galaxy, bankrolled by some dirty banker.</p><p>See you Space Cowboy...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I feel that if we 're going to colonize the moon ( or Mars ) , that responsibility should not be put in the hands of NASA , the USA , or any other hypercapitalist nation for that matter .
What these bean counters love to ignore is that , once we hit space , money/wealth will quickly become irrelevant .
I do n't know about you , but I ca n't picture debt collectors chasing me through the galaxy so some dirty banker can buy a diamond-encrusted iPad.That 's funny , when I was younger I often pictured myself as a sort of debt collector chasing some lowlife through the galaxy , bankrolled by some dirty banker.See you Space Cowboy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I feel that if we're going to colonize the moon (or Mars), that responsibility should not be put in the hands of NASA, the USA, or any other hypercapitalist nation for that matter.
What these bean counters love to ignore is that, once we hit space, money/wealth will quickly become irrelevant.
I don't know about you, but I can't picture debt collectors chasing me through the galaxy so some dirty banker can buy a diamond-encrusted iPad.That's funny, when I was younger I often pictured myself as a sort of debt collector chasing some lowlife through the galaxy, bankrolled by some dirty banker.See you Space Cowboy...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001584</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1265107380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Robots are good and they can be used successfully, but "boots on the ground" or in this case "boots in space" are also required.</p> </div><p>Er, wake up and smell the 21st century?  News flash: "boots on the ground" is a concept that's on the way out, <i>even in the military</i> where the phrase originates from.  "Boots on the ground" is old and busted, the new hotness is robots fighting your wars for you.  If you think they're going to <i>stop</i> with unmanned aircraft, think again.</p><p>Certainly they can't do <i>everything</i>, but the number of actual, human-filled boots required for any task is going to decrease dramatically, and as much as is possible, the "boots on the ground" that remain are going to remain on the ground of whatever base they start from, regardless of where in the world their robots are operating.</p><p>The fact of the matter is, you can do a lot more with robots than with people.  One of the things holding back our progress is the stubborn insistence on sending men to do a machine's job, consuming huge amounts of resources and money that could have been spent actually accomplishing things rather than making "Buck Rogers" PR out of serious business.  We're are so far less advanced now than we could be, if only we'd spent the money doing useful things instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robots are good and they can be used successfully , but " boots on the ground " or in this case " boots in space " are also required .
Er , wake up and smell the 21st century ?
News flash : " boots on the ground " is a concept that 's on the way out , even in the military where the phrase originates from .
" Boots on the ground " is old and busted , the new hotness is robots fighting your wars for you .
If you think they 're going to stop with unmanned aircraft , think again.Certainly they ca n't do everything , but the number of actual , human-filled boots required for any task is going to decrease dramatically , and as much as is possible , the " boots on the ground " that remain are going to remain on the ground of whatever base they start from , regardless of where in the world their robots are operating.The fact of the matter is , you can do a lot more with robots than with people .
One of the things holding back our progress is the stubborn insistence on sending men to do a machine 's job , consuming huge amounts of resources and money that could have been spent actually accomplishing things rather than making " Buck Rogers " PR out of serious business .
We 're are so far less advanced now than we could be , if only we 'd spent the money doing useful things instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robots are good and they can be used successfully, but "boots on the ground" or in this case "boots in space" are also required.
Er, wake up and smell the 21st century?
News flash: "boots on the ground" is a concept that's on the way out, even in the military where the phrase originates from.
"Boots on the ground" is old and busted, the new hotness is robots fighting your wars for you.
If you think they're going to stop with unmanned aircraft, think again.Certainly they can't do everything, but the number of actual, human-filled boots required for any task is going to decrease dramatically, and as much as is possible, the "boots on the ground" that remain are going to remain on the ground of whatever base they start from, regardless of where in the world their robots are operating.The fact of the matter is, you can do a lot more with robots than with people.
One of the things holding back our progress is the stubborn insistence on sending men to do a machine's job, consuming huge amounts of resources and money that could have been spent actually accomplishing things rather than making "Buck Rogers" PR out of serious business.
We're are so far less advanced now than we could be, if only we'd spent the money doing useful things instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998818</id>
	<title>Whilst america is pissing about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China will build lunar factories, and India will have orbital call centers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China will build lunar factories , and India will have orbital call centers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China will build lunar factories, and India will have orbital call centers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758</id>
	<title>A breath of fresh air</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This new program is far better than the old one. It is so very heartening to see in a NASA program a stated goal to reduce the cost of human spaceflight, along with R&amp;D of enabling technologies (orbital refueling, etc). NASA is finally shifting its human spaceflight focus in the right direction. As I've heard said before, it's not NASA's job to put a man on Mars (or the moon). It's NASA's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars. <br> <br>
Now congress just has to not be a bunch of idiots and ruin it (possibly the greatest challenge to human spaceflight yet).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This new program is far better than the old one .
It is so very heartening to see in a NASA program a stated goal to reduce the cost of human spaceflight , along with R&amp;D of enabling technologies ( orbital refueling , etc ) .
NASA is finally shifting its human spaceflight focus in the right direction .
As I 've heard said before , it 's not NASA 's job to put a man on Mars ( or the moon ) .
It 's NASA 's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars .
Now congress just has to not be a bunch of idiots and ruin it ( possibly the greatest challenge to human spaceflight yet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This new program is far better than the old one.
It is so very heartening to see in a NASA program a stated goal to reduce the cost of human spaceflight, along with R&amp;D of enabling technologies (orbital refueling, etc).
NASA is finally shifting its human spaceflight focus in the right direction.
As I've heard said before, it's not NASA's job to put a man on Mars (or the moon).
It's NASA's job to make it possible for National Geographic to put a man on Mars.
Now congress just has to not be a bunch of idiots and ruin it (possibly the greatest challenge to human spaceflight yet).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999996</id>
	<title>New Technology needed, money needs to be in R&amp;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really think it's time to focus on developing a technology to put the conventional rocket in the history books where it belongs. The most promising new technologies in propulsion have required large amounts of electricity.  Ion and Plasma rockets can produce a faster more efficient thrust (such as Nasa's Vlasmir) but need to be scaled up in power to launch from Earth.  One big limit has been electricity for these systems we need a fusion reactor or some other break through technology to change the rules of the game.  Fusion seems to be really close there was a very promising breakthrough reported a few days ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think it 's time to focus on developing a technology to put the conventional rocket in the history books where it belongs .
The most promising new technologies in propulsion have required large amounts of electricity .
Ion and Plasma rockets can produce a faster more efficient thrust ( such as Nasa 's Vlasmir ) but need to be scaled up in power to launch from Earth .
One big limit has been electricity for these systems we need a fusion reactor or some other break through technology to change the rules of the game .
Fusion seems to be really close there was a very promising breakthrough reported a few days ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think it's time to focus on developing a technology to put the conventional rocket in the history books where it belongs.
The most promising new technologies in propulsion have required large amounts of electricity.
Ion and Plasma rockets can produce a faster more efficient thrust (such as Nasa's Vlasmir) but need to be scaled up in power to launch from Earth.
One big limit has been electricity for these systems we need a fusion reactor or some other break through technology to change the rules of the game.
Fusion seems to be really close there was a very promising breakthrough reported a few days ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31005128</id>
	<title>Re:Economy of Scale</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1265128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One of the things holding back our progress is the stubborn insistence on sending men to do a machine's job</i></p><p>Um. We're actually not sending men <i>anywhere.</i> That's the problem.</p><p><i>We're are so far less advanced now than we could be, if only we'd spent the money doing useful things instead.</i></p><p>Ah yes, like sending a robot to Mars to get stuck in the fucking sand. Not to discount the great work that NASA has done with the Mars rovers, but they've spent a year trying to get Spirit out of about six inches of sand. A man and perhaps a small shovel would have done the job in half an hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things holding back our progress is the stubborn insistence on sending men to do a machine 's jobUm .
We 're actually not sending men anywhere .
That 's the problem.We 're are so far less advanced now than we could be , if only we 'd spent the money doing useful things instead.Ah yes , like sending a robot to Mars to get stuck in the fucking sand .
Not to discount the great work that NASA has done with the Mars rovers , but they 've spent a year trying to get Spirit out of about six inches of sand .
A man and perhaps a small shovel would have done the job in half an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things holding back our progress is the stubborn insistence on sending men to do a machine's jobUm.
We're actually not sending men anywhere.
That's the problem.We're are so far less advanced now than we could be, if only we'd spent the money doing useful things instead.Ah yes, like sending a robot to Mars to get stuck in the fucking sand.
Not to discount the great work that NASA has done with the Mars rovers, but they've spent a year trying to get Spirit out of about six inches of sand.
A man and perhaps a small shovel would have done the job in half an hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001584</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31006466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31010306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31004292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31006058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31005128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31004586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1716211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31004292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31004586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31005128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31010306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31006466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31006058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31003066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1716211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31000658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31002668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.31001358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30999238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1716211.30998882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
