<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_1857200</id>
	<title>NASA Picks 5 Firms To Work On LEO Tech</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265225940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Gary W. Longsine writes <i>"<a href="http://www.space.com/news/nasa-commercial-spaceflight-awards-100202.html">Five contracts</a> have been awarded by NASA today, to firms exploring different aspects of the effort to develop a private launch industry for people to low earth orbit.  Today's winners include: <a href="http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev\_advanced\_systems.php">Sierra Nevada Corp</a> (aka 'SpaceDev') for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceDev\_Dream\_Chaser">Dream Chaser</a>; Boeing in cooperation with <a href="http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/">Bigelow</a> on <a href="http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&amp;t=20196">a capsule design</a>; United Launch Alliance (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) to explore safety issues related to upgrading Atlas and Delta rockets to human flight safety standards; <a href="http://www.blueorigin.com/nsresearch.html">Blue Origin</a> to build a launch escape system; and <a href="http://www.paragonsdc.com/">Paragon Space Development Corp</a> for 'air vitalization' (aka life support).
Will the forecast $6 Billion allocation over five years be enough to inspire private industry to develop not one, but two human rated launch systems (a capsule, and the lifting body Dream Chaser)?  NASA clearly wants competition in the private market, so they seek more than one vendor."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gary W. Longsine writes " Five contracts have been awarded by NASA today , to firms exploring different aspects of the effort to develop a private launch industry for people to low earth orbit .
Today 's winners include : Sierra Nevada Corp ( aka 'SpaceDev ' ) for the Dream Chaser ; Boeing in cooperation with Bigelow on a capsule design ; United Launch Alliance ( Boeing and Lockheed Martin ) to explore safety issues related to upgrading Atlas and Delta rockets to human flight safety standards ; Blue Origin to build a launch escape system ; and Paragon Space Development Corp for 'air vitalization ' ( aka life support ) .
Will the forecast $ 6 Billion allocation over five years be enough to inspire private industry to develop not one , but two human rated launch systems ( a capsule , and the lifting body Dream Chaser ) ?
NASA clearly wants competition in the private market , so they seek more than one vendor .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gary W. Longsine writes "Five contracts have been awarded by NASA today, to firms exploring different aspects of the effort to develop a private launch industry for people to low earth orbit.
Today's winners include: Sierra Nevada Corp (aka 'SpaceDev') for the Dream Chaser; Boeing in cooperation with Bigelow on a capsule design; United Launch Alliance (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) to explore safety issues related to upgrading Atlas and Delta rockets to human flight safety standards; Blue Origin to build a launch escape system; and Paragon Space Development Corp for 'air vitalization' (aka life support).
Will the forecast $6 Billion allocation over five years be enough to inspire private industry to develop not one, but two human rated launch systems (a capsule, and the lifting body Dream Chaser)?
NASA clearly wants competition in the private market, so they seek more than one vendor.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015862</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1264936980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you actually read the report?  It's dishonest to act like you have when its pretty clear you haven't.</p><p>Oh, and it's The Flexible Path To Mars.. I know everyone is so freakin' lazy that they can't even write 9 more letters but they really do add something don't ya think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you actually read the report ?
It 's dishonest to act like you have when its pretty clear you have n't.Oh , and it 's The Flexible Path To Mars.. I know everyone is so freakin ' lazy that they ca n't even write 9 more letters but they really do add something do n't ya think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you actually read the report?
It's dishonest to act like you have when its pretty clear you haven't.Oh, and it's The Flexible Path To Mars.. I know everyone is so freakin' lazy that they can't even write 9 more letters but they really do add something don't ya think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014076</id>
	<title>LEGO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264928400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first read the Headline, my brain told me "LEGO TECH", and I was momentarily excited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first read the Headline , my brain told me " LEGO TECH " , and I was momentarily excited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first read the Headline, my brain told me "LEGO TECH", and I was momentarily excited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014454</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>rijrunner</author>
	<datestamp>1264930500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Umm.  The Augustine Commission report clearly states that Orion is overdesigned and should be scaled back and that EELV-derivatives would significantly reduce the costs of development, they just felt it may have been too late for that. That part was a judgement call on whether you wanted to keep funding or bite the bullet.  The Boeing capsule listed is the Orion scaled properly to existing vehicles. It isn't like we have a bunch of Orion capsules sitting around and going to get thrown away. They are years away from bending hardware. There is also the matter that Constellation and how Griffin handled it was the real fly in the ointment. The capsule/EELV was the design that was originally approved for the ELV program under O'Keefe and that was trashed by Griffin and they had to restart from scratch. They have several years worth of design already done for the exact configuration awarded this contract.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Even if the capsule set the design back a year, so what? The full scale Orion on Ares would not be flying until 2016, or so. By designing to existing launchers, we can eliminate the delays caused by concurrently designing a launch vehicle and capsule. If it takes 4 years to design a capsule, it'll still fly long before NASA managed to launch Ares and Orion.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; When you consider the differences in scale, you are not talking a significant change. The aerodynamic modeling is easily scaled, the command, navigation, and control aspects are also pretty much the same. The materials are pretty much the same. When you get right down to it, the setback in time is pretty minimal as they had not even finalized the launch weight on Orion yet as it had to keep adjusting for design changes in Ares. By having a sitting target to shoot at (the existing payload capabilities/requirements on EELV-derivatives are fixed), they will likely actually finish the design faster than waiting to see what those parameters on Ares would really turn out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Umm .
The Augustine Commission report clearly states that Orion is overdesigned and should be scaled back and that EELV-derivatives would significantly reduce the costs of development , they just felt it may have been too late for that .
That part was a judgement call on whether you wanted to keep funding or bite the bullet .
The Boeing capsule listed is the Orion scaled properly to existing vehicles .
It is n't like we have a bunch of Orion capsules sitting around and going to get thrown away .
They are years away from bending hardware .
There is also the matter that Constellation and how Griffin handled it was the real fly in the ointment .
The capsule/EELV was the design that was originally approved for the ELV program under O'Keefe and that was trashed by Griffin and they had to restart from scratch .
They have several years worth of design already done for the exact configuration awarded this contract .
    Even if the capsule set the design back a year , so what ?
The full scale Orion on Ares would not be flying until 2016 , or so .
By designing to existing launchers , we can eliminate the delays caused by concurrently designing a launch vehicle and capsule .
If it takes 4 years to design a capsule , it 'll still fly long before NASA managed to launch Ares and Orion .
    When you consider the differences in scale , you are not talking a significant change .
The aerodynamic modeling is easily scaled , the command , navigation , and control aspects are also pretty much the same .
The materials are pretty much the same .
When you get right down to it , the setback in time is pretty minimal as they had not even finalized the launch weight on Orion yet as it had to keep adjusting for design changes in Ares .
By having a sitting target to shoot at ( the existing payload capabilities/requirements on EELV-derivatives are fixed ) , they will likely actually finish the design faster than waiting to see what those parameters on Ares would really turn out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Umm.
The Augustine Commission report clearly states that Orion is overdesigned and should be scaled back and that EELV-derivatives would significantly reduce the costs of development, they just felt it may have been too late for that.
That part was a judgement call on whether you wanted to keep funding or bite the bullet.
The Boeing capsule listed is the Orion scaled properly to existing vehicles.
It isn't like we have a bunch of Orion capsules sitting around and going to get thrown away.
They are years away from bending hardware.
There is also the matter that Constellation and how Griffin handled it was the real fly in the ointment.
The capsule/EELV was the design that was originally approved for the ELV program under O'Keefe and that was trashed by Griffin and they had to restart from scratch.
They have several years worth of design already done for the exact configuration awarded this contract.
    Even if the capsule set the design back a year, so what?
The full scale Orion on Ares would not be flying until 2016, or so.
By designing to existing launchers, we can eliminate the delays caused by concurrently designing a launch vehicle and capsule.
If it takes 4 years to design a capsule, it'll still fly long before NASA managed to launch Ares and Orion.
    When you consider the differences in scale, you are not talking a significant change.
The aerodynamic modeling is easily scaled, the command, navigation, and control aspects are also pretty much the same.
The materials are pretty much the same.
When you get right down to it, the setback in time is pretty minimal as they had not even finalized the launch weight on Orion yet as it had to keep adjusting for design changes in Ares.
By having a sitting target to shoot at (the existing payload capabilities/requirements on EELV-derivatives are fixed), they will likely actually finish the design faster than waiting to see what those parameters on Ares would really turn out to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014468</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at it this way:  The army doesn't design tanks.  They just outline what they want, and then some company says "We can make that tank.  It will cost $X".   Similarly, NASA should no longer be designing rockets, capsules, etc.  They should just be outlining what they want and having companies bidding on it.  NASA was getting too deep into the design process, and it was bogging them down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it this way : The army does n't design tanks .
They just outline what they want , and then some company says " We can make that tank .
It will cost $ X " .
Similarly , NASA should no longer be designing rockets , capsules , etc .
They should just be outlining what they want and having companies bidding on it .
NASA was getting too deep into the design process , and it was bogging them down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it this way:  The army doesn't design tanks.
They just outline what they want, and then some company says "We can make that tank.
It will cost $X".
Similarly, NASA should no longer be designing rockets, capsules, etc.
They should just be outlining what they want and having companies bidding on it.
NASA was getting too deep into the design process, and it was bogging them down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018590</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ugh..... lockheed martin and boeing?</p><p>they are already multi billion dollar companies.  and they have been building spacecraft since my father was in diapers.<br>the big companies want fixed cost contracts.  it means that they have a much more steady source of income.  cost plus will only be done for really new stuff (advanced ion engines and space based fission reactors?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ugh..... lockheed martin and boeing ? they are already multi billion dollar companies .
and they have been building spacecraft since my father was in diapers.the big companies want fixed cost contracts .
it means that they have a much more steady source of income .
cost plus will only be done for really new stuff ( advanced ion engines and space based fission reactors ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ugh..... lockheed martin and boeing?they are already multi billion dollar companies.
and they have been building spacecraft since my father was in diapers.the big companies want fixed cost contracts.
it means that they have a much more steady source of income.
cost plus will only be done for really new stuff (advanced ion engines and space based fission reactors?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014774</id>
	<title>Orion Lite?</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1264932120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems the path isn't clear because the outcome hasn't been determined, yet.  NASA seems to be funding the <a href="http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccdev/" title="nasa.gov">CCDev (Commercial Crew Development)</a> [nasa.gov] program at a level far too modest to result in construction of actual hardware suitable for a test flight, at this point.  They are dangling the the same carrot they did last year with COTS, that NASA will buy crewed  flights from commercial industry.  Nobody took it seriously when the requirement was issued in full Valley-Girl Voice:<i> "fly our astronauts to the ISS a few times, like, starting next year when we retire the Shuttle, then we dump you and replace you with Orion, OK?"</i>
<br> <br>
The main difference from last year is that NASA is no longer planning to compete against those efforts, with it's own craft.  That's a huge improvement from the perspective of a company considering this market, but it may not be sufficient, when it's clear that:
<ul>
<li>NASA doesn't want to be dependent on a single vendor, and would like two systems, from two vendors (a smart move, which will reduce the chances of long outages in the event of a design problem, as happened with the Shuttle, twice, but which cuts in half the number of flights you can expect to <b> <i>sell</i> </b> to NASA),</li><li>NASA doesn't seem to have a budget sufficient to fund full development of those systems,</li><li>NASA will only be buying a few flights per year to the ISS, for some time to come,</li><li>the budget for purchasing those flights has already been announced ($6 billion over 5 years), and</li><li>that budget is far lower than NASA's own estimate for building a single man-rated system (Orion + Ares I).</li></ul><p>
You can't just go to the marketplace and say, <i>"I want to buy rides in nuclear powered <a href="http://www.delorean.com/" title="delorean.com">DeLoreon</a> [delorean.com], and I'm willing to pay standard cab fare rates in the D.C. Metro Area, oh, and by the way, half of them should be rides in nuclear powered Porche, which I'll buy from your competition, instead of from you, oh, and I only want three rides per year,"</i> and expect that to actually happen.
<br> <br>
However, everybody involved might be banking on the notion that NASA has now backed themselves into a corner.  They won't have an option other than to buy from the commercial market, once Ares I and Orion are shut down. NASA will be forced to pay "market rates" for these launch services.
If NASA doesn't fund the launcher development, and only buys 1 or 2 flights per year from each vendor, the per-flight market rate is going to be about a billion bucks.  Don't like the price?  We'll give you a discount, if you buy 30 flights per year so we can achieve economies of scale.<br> <br>
The other potential up-side is that private launch firms probably have some market opportunity to sell to other countries which would like to have improved access to the ISS, or other crewed access to space, but which have a reluctance to fund their own system development.  Japan (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE-X" title="wikipedia.org">HOPE-X</a> [wikipedia.org], and ESA (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes\_(shuttle)" title="wikipedia.org">Hermes</a> [wikipedia.org]) are obvious candidates, having previously tried to build a crewed spacecraft, but potentially other nations such as India, which might elect to direct their R&amp;D budgets toward in-space activities, rather than reproducing the ability to get there).
<br> <br>
It also appears that NASA may be transferring the technology from Orion to a private company.  This idea was apparently floated under the name <a href="http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html" title="space.com">Orion Lite</a> [space.com], with the idea being a quicker access to the ISS by reducing the capsule's life support requirements to a few days (down from a few weeks).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems the path is n't clear because the outcome has n't been determined , yet .
NASA seems to be funding the CCDev ( Commercial Crew Development ) [ nasa.gov ] program at a level far too modest to result in construction of actual hardware suitable for a test flight , at this point .
They are dangling the the same carrot they did last year with COTS , that NASA will buy crewed flights from commercial industry .
Nobody took it seriously when the requirement was issued in full Valley-Girl Voice : " fly our astronauts to the ISS a few times , like , starting next year when we retire the Shuttle , then we dump you and replace you with Orion , OK ?
" The main difference from last year is that NASA is no longer planning to compete against those efforts , with it 's own craft .
That 's a huge improvement from the perspective of a company considering this market , but it may not be sufficient , when it 's clear that : NASA does n't want to be dependent on a single vendor , and would like two systems , from two vendors ( a smart move , which will reduce the chances of long outages in the event of a design problem , as happened with the Shuttle , twice , but which cuts in half the number of flights you can expect to sell to NASA ) ,NASA does n't seem to have a budget sufficient to fund full development of those systems,NASA will only be buying a few flights per year to the ISS , for some time to come,the budget for purchasing those flights has already been announced ( $ 6 billion over 5 years ) , andthat budget is far lower than NASA 's own estimate for building a single man-rated system ( Orion + Ares I ) .
You ca n't just go to the marketplace and say , " I want to buy rides in nuclear powered DeLoreon [ delorean.com ] , and I 'm willing to pay standard cab fare rates in the D.C. Metro Area , oh , and by the way , half of them should be rides in nuclear powered Porche , which I 'll buy from your competition , instead of from you , oh , and I only want three rides per year , " and expect that to actually happen .
However , everybody involved might be banking on the notion that NASA has now backed themselves into a corner .
They wo n't have an option other than to buy from the commercial market , once Ares I and Orion are shut down .
NASA will be forced to pay " market rates " for these launch services .
If NASA does n't fund the launcher development , and only buys 1 or 2 flights per year from each vendor , the per-flight market rate is going to be about a billion bucks .
Do n't like the price ?
We 'll give you a discount , if you buy 30 flights per year so we can achieve economies of scale .
The other potential up-side is that private launch firms probably have some market opportunity to sell to other countries which would like to have improved access to the ISS , or other crewed access to space , but which have a reluctance to fund their own system development .
Japan ( HOPE-X [ wikipedia.org ] , and ESA ( Hermes [ wikipedia.org ] ) are obvious candidates , having previously tried to build a crewed spacecraft , but potentially other nations such as India , which might elect to direct their R&amp;D budgets toward in-space activities , rather than reproducing the ability to get there ) .
It also appears that NASA may be transferring the technology from Orion to a private company .
This idea was apparently floated under the name Orion Lite [ space.com ] , with the idea being a quicker access to the ISS by reducing the capsule 's life support requirements to a few days ( down from a few weeks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems the path isn't clear because the outcome hasn't been determined, yet.
NASA seems to be funding the CCDev (Commercial Crew Development) [nasa.gov] program at a level far too modest to result in construction of actual hardware suitable for a test flight, at this point.
They are dangling the the same carrot they did last year with COTS, that NASA will buy crewed  flights from commercial industry.
Nobody took it seriously when the requirement was issued in full Valley-Girl Voice: "fly our astronauts to the ISS a few times, like, starting next year when we retire the Shuttle, then we dump you and replace you with Orion, OK?
"
 
The main difference from last year is that NASA is no longer planning to compete against those efforts, with it's own craft.
That's a huge improvement from the perspective of a company considering this market, but it may not be sufficient, when it's clear that:

NASA doesn't want to be dependent on a single vendor, and would like two systems, from two vendors (a smart move, which will reduce the chances of long outages in the event of a design problem, as happened with the Shuttle, twice, but which cuts in half the number of flights you can expect to  sell  to NASA),NASA doesn't seem to have a budget sufficient to fund full development of those systems,NASA will only be buying a few flights per year to the ISS, for some time to come,the budget for purchasing those flights has already been announced ($6 billion over 5 years), andthat budget is far lower than NASA's own estimate for building a single man-rated system (Orion + Ares I).
You can't just go to the marketplace and say, "I want to buy rides in nuclear powered DeLoreon [delorean.com], and I'm willing to pay standard cab fare rates in the D.C. Metro Area, oh, and by the way, half of them should be rides in nuclear powered Porche, which I'll buy from your competition, instead of from you, oh, and I only want three rides per year," and expect that to actually happen.
However, everybody involved might be banking on the notion that NASA has now backed themselves into a corner.
They won't have an option other than to buy from the commercial market, once Ares I and Orion are shut down.
NASA will be forced to pay "market rates" for these launch services.
If NASA doesn't fund the launcher development, and only buys 1 or 2 flights per year from each vendor, the per-flight market rate is going to be about a billion bucks.
Don't like the price?
We'll give you a discount, if you buy 30 flights per year so we can achieve economies of scale.
The other potential up-side is that private launch firms probably have some market opportunity to sell to other countries which would like to have improved access to the ISS, or other crewed access to space, but which have a reluctance to fund their own system development.
Japan (HOPE-X [wikipedia.org], and ESA (Hermes [wikipedia.org]) are obvious candidates, having previously tried to build a crewed spacecraft, but potentially other nations such as India, which might elect to direct their R&amp;D budgets toward in-space activities, rather than reproducing the ability to get there).
It also appears that NASA may be transferring the technology from Orion to a private company.
This idea was apparently floated under the name Orion Lite [space.com], with the idea being a quicker access to the ISS by reducing the capsule's life support requirements to a few days (down from a few weeks).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014012</id>
	<title>Re:LEO</title>
	<author>dancingmilk</author>
	<datestamp>1264971300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a geek site its much more likely to have to do with space than law enforcement...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a geek site its much more likely to have to do with space than law enforcement.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a geek site its much more likely to have to do with space than law enforcement...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015126</id>
	<title>New Technologies -- Over Promised?</title>
	<author>4181</author>
	<datestamp>1264933920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Toward the end of Administrator Bolden's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YvIESqDUk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">presentation at the National Press Club</a> [youtube.com] (0:48:40) he mentioned that "game changing technology enables us to go to Mars in days, not months".  Is this grounded in any reasonable expectation of propulsion development over even the next several decades?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Toward the end of Administrator Bolden 's presentation at the National Press Club [ youtube.com ] ( 0 : 48 : 40 ) he mentioned that " game changing technology enables us to go to Mars in days , not months " .
Is this grounded in any reasonable expectation of propulsion development over even the next several decades ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toward the end of Administrator Bolden's presentation at the National Press Club [youtube.com] (0:48:40) he mentioned that "game changing technology enables us to go to Mars in days, not months".
Is this grounded in any reasonable expectation of propulsion development over even the next several decades?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014924</id>
	<title>Re:LEO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, are you telling me the North American Saxophone Alliance is working onLow Earth Orbit tech??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , are you telling me the North American Saxophone Alliance is working onLow Earth Orbit tech ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, are you telling me the North American Saxophone Alliance is working onLow Earth Orbit tech?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016246</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1264938540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Redundancy, not being tied to any single entity, plus practicality, as each does a different job.  And I'd note, there are three crew delivery systems listed, Orion Lite, Dragon, and DreamChaser.  The advantages to each are dependent on what you do with them.  Dragon is a stipped down capsule, quick n dirty.  Orion Lite, even with the beyond LEO functions removed, is a beefier entity with the ability for longer-term functionality as well as more cargo capability.  DreamChaser is a miniature space station on it's own, more PR-friendly as well with it's neo-Shuttle appearance.</p><p>While there is a lot of overlap, having this capability means if one should not pull through, we are not risking the whole program on this.  The problem with previous programs is that each one became an all-for-one, like the shuttle did.</p><p>And also a bigger target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Redundancy , not being tied to any single entity , plus practicality , as each does a different job .
And I 'd note , there are three crew delivery systems listed , Orion Lite , Dragon , and DreamChaser .
The advantages to each are dependent on what you do with them .
Dragon is a stipped down capsule , quick n dirty .
Orion Lite , even with the beyond LEO functions removed , is a beefier entity with the ability for longer-term functionality as well as more cargo capability .
DreamChaser is a miniature space station on it 's own , more PR-friendly as well with it 's neo-Shuttle appearance.While there is a lot of overlap , having this capability means if one should not pull through , we are not risking the whole program on this .
The problem with previous programs is that each one became an all-for-one , like the shuttle did.And also a bigger target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Redundancy, not being tied to any single entity, plus practicality, as each does a different job.
And I'd note, there are three crew delivery systems listed, Orion Lite, Dragon, and DreamChaser.
The advantages to each are dependent on what you do with them.
Dragon is a stipped down capsule, quick n dirty.
Orion Lite, even with the beyond LEO functions removed, is a beefier entity with the ability for longer-term functionality as well as more cargo capability.
DreamChaser is a miniature space station on it's own, more PR-friendly as well with it's neo-Shuttle appearance.While there is a lot of overlap, having this capability means if one should not pull through, we are not risking the whole program on this.
The problem with previous programs is that each one became an all-for-one, like the shuttle did.And also a bigger target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016122</id>
	<title>Some thoughts on each of the companies</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264938180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some thoughts after watching the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YvIESqDUk" title="youtube.com">press conference</a> [youtube.com] which announced the winners and reading up about the companies:</p><p><b>Sierra Nevada ($20 million):</b> Their in-progress Dream Chaser reusable lifting-body spacecraft is really interesting, derived from NASA's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL-20\_Personnel\_Launch\_System" title="wikipedia.org">HL-20 personnel launch system</a> [wikipedia.org] tested in the early 90s. It's a pretty well-understood design, with nice features like reusability, being able to land, low operations costs, and the capability to launch on a medium-lift rocket.</p><p><b>Boeing ($18 million):</b> For developing a capsule with Bigelow Aerospace to launch on a variety of existing rockets. During the press conference they mentioned that they're not only interested in delivering crew to both the ISS, but also the forthcoming market of Bigelow Aerospace's private space stations. The design will probably benefit from some of the work Boeing did 5 years ago for their Constellation/Orion proposal.</p><p><b>United Launch Alliance ($6.7 million):</b> for an emergency detection system (needed for human-rating their existing rockets). Many of the proposals are planning on using the ULA's Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, so this is an important step towards man-rating them. The Atlas V is already designed with these sorts of emergency detection systems in mind, although it might be trickier for the Delta IV.</p><p><b>Blue Origin ($3.7 million):</b> for developing a novel 'pusher' launch escape system and testing a crew module made of composite materials. The launch escape system is particularly interesting, as that's the main component which still needs to be developed for most of the other proposals. If Blue Origin makes a pusher-style system which can be sold to the manufacturers of other capsules, that could help bring those spacecraft online faster, and also give Blue Origin experience for making their own designs better. A SpaceX Dragon with a launch escape system built by Blue Origin would be pretty awesome.</p><p><b>Paragon Space Systems ($1.4 million):</b> to build and demonstrate a turn-key air vitalization system. By turn-key, they mean a life support air vitalization system which could work on just about any spacecraft, an obvious boon.</p><p>Also, SpaceX and Orbital are still being funded for the (currently larger) contracts to deliver cargo to the ISS, which may be expanded to include crew transportation. They also stated during the  press conference that other companies than these seven will likely be recipients in the future. Future contracts will be competitively awarded based on how well the companies perform (rather than which congressional district they're in, which is the status quo) and NASA's goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost-effective access to orbit.</p><p>For the curious, I wrote up a summary of the press conference <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1534070&amp;cid=31000808" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some thoughts after watching the press conference [ youtube.com ] which announced the winners and reading up about the companies : Sierra Nevada ( $ 20 million ) : Their in-progress Dream Chaser reusable lifting-body spacecraft is really interesting , derived from NASA 's HL-20 personnel launch system [ wikipedia.org ] tested in the early 90s .
It 's a pretty well-understood design , with nice features like reusability , being able to land , low operations costs , and the capability to launch on a medium-lift rocket.Boeing ( $ 18 million ) : For developing a capsule with Bigelow Aerospace to launch on a variety of existing rockets .
During the press conference they mentioned that they 're not only interested in delivering crew to both the ISS , but also the forthcoming market of Bigelow Aerospace 's private space stations .
The design will probably benefit from some of the work Boeing did 5 years ago for their Constellation/Orion proposal.United Launch Alliance ( $ 6.7 million ) : for an emergency detection system ( needed for human-rating their existing rockets ) .
Many of the proposals are planning on using the ULA 's Atlas V and Delta IV rockets , so this is an important step towards man-rating them .
The Atlas V is already designed with these sorts of emergency detection systems in mind , although it might be trickier for the Delta IV.Blue Origin ( $ 3.7 million ) : for developing a novel 'pusher ' launch escape system and testing a crew module made of composite materials .
The launch escape system is particularly interesting , as that 's the main component which still needs to be developed for most of the other proposals .
If Blue Origin makes a pusher-style system which can be sold to the manufacturers of other capsules , that could help bring those spacecraft online faster , and also give Blue Origin experience for making their own designs better .
A SpaceX Dragon with a launch escape system built by Blue Origin would be pretty awesome.Paragon Space Systems ( $ 1.4 million ) : to build and demonstrate a turn-key air vitalization system .
By turn-key , they mean a life support air vitalization system which could work on just about any spacecraft , an obvious boon.Also , SpaceX and Orbital are still being funded for the ( currently larger ) contracts to deliver cargo to the ISS , which may be expanded to include crew transportation .
They also stated during the press conference that other companies than these seven will likely be recipients in the future .
Future contracts will be competitively awarded based on how well the companies perform ( rather than which congressional district they 're in , which is the status quo ) and NASA 's goal of achieving safe , reliable , and cost-effective access to orbit.For the curious , I wrote up a summary of the press conference here [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some thoughts after watching the press conference [youtube.com] which announced the winners and reading up about the companies:Sierra Nevada ($20 million): Their in-progress Dream Chaser reusable lifting-body spacecraft is really interesting, derived from NASA's HL-20 personnel launch system [wikipedia.org] tested in the early 90s.
It's a pretty well-understood design, with nice features like reusability, being able to land, low operations costs, and the capability to launch on a medium-lift rocket.Boeing ($18 million): For developing a capsule with Bigelow Aerospace to launch on a variety of existing rockets.
During the press conference they mentioned that they're not only interested in delivering crew to both the ISS, but also the forthcoming market of Bigelow Aerospace's private space stations.
The design will probably benefit from some of the work Boeing did 5 years ago for their Constellation/Orion proposal.United Launch Alliance ($6.7 million): for an emergency detection system (needed for human-rating their existing rockets).
Many of the proposals are planning on using the ULA's Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, so this is an important step towards man-rating them.
The Atlas V is already designed with these sorts of emergency detection systems in mind, although it might be trickier for the Delta IV.Blue Origin ($3.7 million): for developing a novel 'pusher' launch escape system and testing a crew module made of composite materials.
The launch escape system is particularly interesting, as that's the main component which still needs to be developed for most of the other proposals.
If Blue Origin makes a pusher-style system which can be sold to the manufacturers of other capsules, that could help bring those spacecraft online faster, and also give Blue Origin experience for making their own designs better.
A SpaceX Dragon with a launch escape system built by Blue Origin would be pretty awesome.Paragon Space Systems ($1.4 million): to build and demonstrate a turn-key air vitalization system.
By turn-key, they mean a life support air vitalization system which could work on just about any spacecraft, an obvious boon.Also, SpaceX and Orbital are still being funded for the (currently larger) contracts to deliver cargo to the ISS, which may be expanded to include crew transportation.
They also stated during the  press conference that other companies than these seven will likely be recipients in the future.
Future contracts will be competitively awarded based on how well the companies perform (rather than which congressional district they're in, which is the status quo) and NASA's goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost-effective access to orbit.For the curious, I wrote up a summary of the press conference here [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</id>
	<title>A new capsule...</title>
	<author>Cochonou</author>
	<datestamp>1264928700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are parts of this plan that really sound fishy to me. But of course, we do not have yet the full information about it.<br>
Charles Boden says they are taking the "flexible path" drafted in the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf" title="nasa.gov">Augustine Report</a> [nasa.gov] and not by any stretch bailing out of human spaceflight. Yet, they are cancelling the whole Constellation Project, consisting in the launchers (Ares I and V) and the capsule (Orion), while the Augustine panel had specifically kept the Orion capsule in all the flexible path options. Actually, they thought any redesign of the capsule would cause an unwanted setback of more than a year.<br>
So now, we are redesigning again a capsule from scratch. I do not see how this implementation of the "flexible path" approach is going to give us any time (or money) benefits regarding the capsule. Are we supposed to put the astronauts directly on the top of the rockets ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are parts of this plan that really sound fishy to me .
But of course , we do not have yet the full information about it .
Charles Boden says they are taking the " flexible path " drafted in the Augustine Report [ nasa.gov ] and not by any stretch bailing out of human spaceflight .
Yet , they are cancelling the whole Constellation Project , consisting in the launchers ( Ares I and V ) and the capsule ( Orion ) , while the Augustine panel had specifically kept the Orion capsule in all the flexible path options .
Actually , they thought any redesign of the capsule would cause an unwanted setback of more than a year .
So now , we are redesigning again a capsule from scratch .
I do not see how this implementation of the " flexible path " approach is going to give us any time ( or money ) benefits regarding the capsule .
Are we supposed to put the astronauts directly on the top of the rockets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are parts of this plan that really sound fishy to me.
But of course, we do not have yet the full information about it.
Charles Boden says they are taking the "flexible path" drafted in the Augustine Report [nasa.gov] and not by any stretch bailing out of human spaceflight.
Yet, they are cancelling the whole Constellation Project, consisting in the launchers (Ares I and V) and the capsule (Orion), while the Augustine panel had specifically kept the Orion capsule in all the flexible path options.
Actually, they thought any redesign of the capsule would cause an unwanted setback of more than a year.
So now, we are redesigning again a capsule from scratch.
I do not see how this implementation of the "flexible path" approach is going to give us any time (or money) benefits regarding the capsule.
Are we supposed to put the astronauts directly on the top of the rockets ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014344</id>
	<title>Stupid approach, typical of bloated government</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1264929900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Study this, investigate that, make sure there is a contractor in every important Congressional district. Sick.

</p><p>They ought to just pay for performance: We need X tons put into orbit no later than date Y, and we'll pay you this much to do it. Pick a payment that is half of what they are going to spend the "big government" way, and the contractors will still make a whopping profit.

</p><p>Of course, that wouldn't put pork in the right pockets...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Study this , investigate that , make sure there is a contractor in every important Congressional district .
Sick . They ought to just pay for performance : We need X tons put into orbit no later than date Y , and we 'll pay you this much to do it .
Pick a payment that is half of what they are going to spend the " big government " way , and the contractors will still make a whopping profit .
Of course , that would n't put pork in the right pockets.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Study this, investigate that, make sure there is a contractor in every important Congressional district.
Sick.

They ought to just pay for performance: We need X tons put into orbit no later than date Y, and we'll pay you this much to do it.
Pick a payment that is half of what they are going to spend the "big government" way, and the contractors will still make a whopping profit.
Of course, that wouldn't put pork in the right pockets...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014428</id>
	<title>Yarrrr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason I misread "private" as "pirate".  Which got me thinking.. How long do we have until there are Space Pirates?</p><p>It may sound far-fetched, but once the value of payload(s) exceeds the cost of launch by some degree, I believe it's inevitable that we'll see criminal involvement.  Treaties against the weaponization of space, slow response times, and the ability to drop off both crew and payloads virtually anywhere in the world all make space piracy a potentially lucrative enterprise.  It's debatable whether any existing laws would even provide for the prosecution of such activity.  Maybe John Carmack is really the next Blackbeard!</p><p>Whoever the first organization is, and I'm not condoning or trivializing the potential for wanton death and destruction caused by Space Piracy, but I sincerely hope they talk like pirates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason I misread " private " as " pirate " .
Which got me thinking.. How long do we have until there are Space Pirates ? It may sound far-fetched , but once the value of payload ( s ) exceeds the cost of launch by some degree , I believe it 's inevitable that we 'll see criminal involvement .
Treaties against the weaponization of space , slow response times , and the ability to drop off both crew and payloads virtually anywhere in the world all make space piracy a potentially lucrative enterprise .
It 's debatable whether any existing laws would even provide for the prosecution of such activity .
Maybe John Carmack is really the next Blackbeard ! Whoever the first organization is , and I 'm not condoning or trivializing the potential for wanton death and destruction caused by Space Piracy , but I sincerely hope they talk like pirates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason I misread "private" as "pirate".
Which got me thinking.. How long do we have until there are Space Pirates?It may sound far-fetched, but once the value of payload(s) exceeds the cost of launch by some degree, I believe it's inevitable that we'll see criminal involvement.
Treaties against the weaponization of space, slow response times, and the ability to drop off both crew and payloads virtually anywhere in the world all make space piracy a potentially lucrative enterprise.
It's debatable whether any existing laws would even provide for the prosecution of such activity.
Maybe John Carmack is really the next Blackbeard!Whoever the first organization is, and I'm not condoning or trivializing the potential for wanton death and destruction caused by Space Piracy, but I sincerely hope they talk like pirates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014772</id>
	<title>Peter Pan. I'm captain of the Dream Catcher.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>- Peter Pan. I'm captain of the Dream Catcher. Grumpy Bear here tells me you're lookin' for passage to the Aslan system?<br>
- Yes indeed, if it's a fast ship.<br>
- Fast ship? You've never heard of the Dream Catcher?<br>
- Should I have?<br>
- It's the ship that made the Emerald City Run in less than twelve cowznofskis. I've outrun Middle Kingdom dragons. Not the local luckdragons mind you, I'm talking about the big Morgoth-bred firedrakes now. She's fast enough for you old wizard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Peter Pan .
I 'm captain of the Dream Catcher .
Grumpy Bear here tells me you 're lookin ' for passage to the Aslan system ?
- Yes indeed , if it 's a fast ship .
- Fast ship ?
You 've never heard of the Dream Catcher ?
- Should I have ?
- It 's the ship that made the Emerald City Run in less than twelve cowznofskis .
I 've outrun Middle Kingdom dragons .
Not the local luckdragons mind you , I 'm talking about the big Morgoth-bred firedrakes now .
She 's fast enough for you old wizard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Peter Pan.
I'm captain of the Dream Catcher.
Grumpy Bear here tells me you're lookin' for passage to the Aslan system?
- Yes indeed, if it's a fast ship.
- Fast ship?
You've never heard of the Dream Catcher?
- Should I have?
- It's the ship that made the Emerald City Run in less than twelve cowznofskis.
I've outrun Middle Kingdom dragons.
Not the local luckdragons mind you, I'm talking about the big Morgoth-bred firedrakes now.
She's fast enough for you old wizard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018286</id>
	<title>More bailouts???</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1264952580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the US government becomes reliant on these (or other) companies for access to space will they become "to big to fail"? If they go broke can I expect another bailout?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the US government becomes reliant on these ( or other ) companies for access to space will they become " to big to fail " ?
If they go broke can I expect another bailout ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the US government becomes reliant on these (or other) companies for access to space will they become "to big to fail"?
If they go broke can I expect another bailout?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31017598</id>
	<title>What? No Northrup Grumman?</title>
	<author>re\_organeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1264946820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For cryin out loud, how did they not get in the game? They seems to be in every other corner of the government market! Don't take this as a whine as to why NG isn't in the game, I for one am glad that they aren't. I would much rather see more smaller companies in there working for "the greater good" as it were, than the big boys. But, the big boys have some good technology that they bring to the table, but they also bring a hefty price tag and probably some nasty rules too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For cryin out loud , how did they not get in the game ?
They seems to be in every other corner of the government market !
Do n't take this as a whine as to why NG is n't in the game , I for one am glad that they are n't .
I would much rather see more smaller companies in there working for " the greater good " as it were , than the big boys .
But , the big boys have some good technology that they bring to the table , but they also bring a hefty price tag and probably some nasty rules too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For cryin out loud, how did they not get in the game?
They seems to be in every other corner of the government market!
Don't take this as a whine as to why NG isn't in the game, I for one am glad that they aren't.
I would much rather see more smaller companies in there working for "the greater good" as it were, than the big boys.
But, the big boys have some good technology that they bring to the table, but they also bring a hefty price tag and probably some nasty rules too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015340</id>
	<title>Blue Origin?</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1264935000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blue Origin:  A normally secretive team established by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos...</p></div><p>How much does NASA have to send into orbit before they get free shipping?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blue Origin : A normally secretive team established by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos...How much does NASA have to send into orbit before they get free shipping ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blue Origin:  A normally secretive team established by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos...How much does NASA have to send into orbit before they get free shipping?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014330</id>
	<title>Re:LEO</title>
	<author>An ominous Cow art</author>
	<datestamp>1264929840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talking about space could also mean Astrology.  As a Gemini, I find that this Leo favoritism to be very distasteful.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talking about space could also mean Astrology .
As a Gemini , I find that this Leo favoritism to be very distasteful .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talking about space could also mean Astrology.
As a Gemini, I find that this Leo favoritism to be very distasteful.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018940</id>
	<title>Re:New Technologies -- Over Promised?</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264959660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VASIMR. This was originally started by NASA, but the republican congress prohibited NASA from working on it, so they spun it off. VASIMR will require lots of electricity, so, this will require a nuke. But, vasimr is not only feasible, but will probably be the main way that we get around the solar system for some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>VASIMR .
This was originally started by NASA , but the republican congress prohibited NASA from working on it , so they spun it off .
VASIMR will require lots of electricity , so , this will require a nuke .
But , vasimr is not only feasible , but will probably be the main way that we get around the solar system for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VASIMR.
This was originally started by NASA, but the republican congress prohibited NASA from working on it, so they spun it off.
VASIMR will require lots of electricity, so, this will require a nuke.
But, vasimr is not only feasible, but will probably be the main way that we get around the solar system for some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016090</id>
	<title>economics of "Yarrrr!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cost of the payloads already exceed the launch cost, by rather a lot.  That's why people are willing to pay $10,000 to get a pound of stuff into orbit.  The real trick is getting the cost of a pound to orbit down, and down substantially.  That way Space Pirates can afford to get there, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of the payloads already exceed the launch cost , by rather a lot .
That 's why people are willing to pay $ 10,000 to get a pound of stuff into orbit .
The real trick is getting the cost of a pound to orbit down , and down substantially .
That way Space Pirates can afford to get there , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of the payloads already exceed the launch cost, by rather a lot.
That's why people are willing to pay $10,000 to get a pound of stuff into orbit.
The real trick is getting the cost of a pound to orbit down, and down substantially.
That way Space Pirates can afford to get there, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015764</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1264936620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ares-1 was a clusterf**k.  But we need Ares-V.  Nobody has a Saturn V class launcher anymore, including the Russians.</p><p>Also, what is the US going to do for manned launches until Dragon and Dream Chaser are ready?  Or are we going to have to beg for rides from the Russians and Chinese (and maybe India, too)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ares-1 was a clusterf * * k. But we need Ares-V. Nobody has a Saturn V class launcher anymore , including the Russians.Also , what is the US going to do for manned launches until Dragon and Dream Chaser are ready ?
Or are we going to have to beg for rides from the Russians and Chinese ( and maybe India , too ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ares-1 was a clusterf**k.  But we need Ares-V.  Nobody has a Saturn V class launcher anymore, including the Russians.Also, what is the US going to do for manned launches until Dragon and Dream Chaser are ready?
Or are we going to have to beg for rides from the Russians and Chinese (and maybe India, too)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</id>
	<title>Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we'll be back to $2billion launches in no time...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we 'll be back to $ 2billion launches in no time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we'll be back to $2billion launches in no time...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018074</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264950840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need a heavy-lift vehicle (HLV,) not Ares V.  Ares V at this point is a paper rocket, not much more than a concept study, and one that made more sense when it could leverage technology from Ares I. What this budget includes is $3B over 5 years to support technology development related to heavy lift, something thats been neglected for decades.  In 5 years, if the commercial infrastructure is in place and if this research leads to significant improvements, the design space will be considerably different -- a clean break would be preferable anyway.</p><p>As far as what we'll do for manned flight -- what we were going to do anyway, pay Russia $50M per astronaut.  Ares 1+Orion were at about the same point in design as Falcon 9+Dragon, and the SpaceX offering is much simpler, meaning it's likely to be completed sooner than the program of record anyway.  The flight gap was always going to be a problem.  By creating a competitive, robust market for LEO transport we can hopefully avoid this in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a heavy-lift vehicle ( HLV , ) not Ares V. Ares V at this point is a paper rocket , not much more than a concept study , and one that made more sense when it could leverage technology from Ares I. What this budget includes is $ 3B over 5 years to support technology development related to heavy lift , something thats been neglected for decades .
In 5 years , if the commercial infrastructure is in place and if this research leads to significant improvements , the design space will be considerably different -- a clean break would be preferable anyway.As far as what we 'll do for manned flight -- what we were going to do anyway , pay Russia $ 50M per astronaut .
Ares 1 + Orion were at about the same point in design as Falcon 9 + Dragon , and the SpaceX offering is much simpler , meaning it 's likely to be completed sooner than the program of record anyway .
The flight gap was always going to be a problem .
By creating a competitive , robust market for LEO transport we can hopefully avoid this in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a heavy-lift vehicle (HLV,) not Ares V.  Ares V at this point is a paper rocket, not much more than a concept study, and one that made more sense when it could leverage technology from Ares I. What this budget includes is $3B over 5 years to support technology development related to heavy lift, something thats been neglected for decades.
In 5 years, if the commercial infrastructure is in place and if this research leads to significant improvements, the design space will be considerably different -- a clean break would be preferable anyway.As far as what we'll do for manned flight -- what we were going to do anyway, pay Russia $50M per astronaut.
Ares 1+Orion were at about the same point in design as Falcon 9+Dragon, and the SpaceX offering is much simpler, meaning it's likely to be completed sooner than the program of record anyway.
The flight gap was always going to be a problem.
By creating a competitive, robust market for LEO transport we can hopefully avoid this in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014528</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1264930860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think they're scrapping the Orion capsule entirely.  Bigelow is working on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion\_Lite" title="wikipedia.org">Orion Lite</a> [wikipedia.org], a lighter version of the Orion that strips all the features not needed for LEO operations.  Of course, since it's designed for flights up to the ISS or other potential space stations, not deeper space missions.
<br> <br>
My question is, since the Dream Chaser seems to be designed for that same niche, are they supporting both so they can have their pick of crew vehicles in case one doesn't pan out, or is there another reason?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they 're scrapping the Orion capsule entirely .
Bigelow is working on the Orion Lite [ wikipedia.org ] , a lighter version of the Orion that strips all the features not needed for LEO operations .
Of course , since it 's designed for flights up to the ISS or other potential space stations , not deeper space missions .
My question is , since the Dream Chaser seems to be designed for that same niche , are they supporting both so they can have their pick of crew vehicles in case one does n't pan out , or is there another reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they're scrapping the Orion capsule entirely.
Bigelow is working on the Orion Lite [wikipedia.org], a lighter version of the Orion that strips all the features not needed for LEO operations.
Of course, since it's designed for flights up to the ISS or other potential space stations, not deeper space missions.
My question is, since the Dream Chaser seems to be designed for that same niche, are they supporting both so they can have their pick of crew vehicles in case one doesn't pan out, or is there another reason?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015798</id>
	<title>Only $50M this year b/c of Congress</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264936740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth noting that NASA is only able to award $50 million this year due to interference by Congress. They had initially wanted $150M in commercial seed funding, but most of this was <a href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/07/03/shelby-wins-battle-on-stimulus-funding/" title="spacepolitics.com">diverted by Congress</a> [spacepolitics.com] -- in particularly Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Al) -- towards the soon-to-be-cancelled Constellation project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that NASA is only able to award $ 50 million this year due to interference by Congress .
They had initially wanted $ 150M in commercial seed funding , but most of this was diverted by Congress [ spacepolitics.com ] -- in particularly Sen. Richard Shelby ( R-Al ) -- towards the soon-to-be-cancelled Constellation project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that NASA is only able to award $50 million this year due to interference by Congress.
They had initially wanted $150M in commercial seed funding, but most of this was diverted by Congress [spacepolitics.com] -- in particularly Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Al) -- towards the soon-to-be-cancelled Constellation project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014920</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm...I don't think I would want to be the first to ride into orbit on the low bid solution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm...I do n't think I would want to be the first to ride into orbit on the low bid solution : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm...I don't think I would want to be the first to ride into orbit on the low bid solution :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013982</id>
	<title>Re:LEO</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1264971180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you're talking about space, where it is usually associated with Low Earth Orbit.</p><p>If there were only some contextual clue as to which acronym expansion was appropriate.  If only...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're talking about space , where it is usually associated with Low Earth Orbit.If there were only some contextual clue as to which acronym expansion was appropriate .
If only.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're talking about space, where it is usually associated with Low Earth Orbit.If there were only some contextual clue as to which acronym expansion was appropriate.
If only...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019942</id>
	<title>Re:Peter Pan. I'm captain of the Dream Catcher.</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1265276220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you are the captain of a traditional Native American object <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are the captain of a traditional Native American object http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are the captain of a traditional Native American object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019106</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264961520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>W had killed the shuttle and bought rides on Air Russia several years ago. Basically, whether we go up with China, or on an extended Shuttle, we will still pay Russia for our seats. OTH, in about 2-3 years, we will have MULTIPLE private launch companies that are doing cargo AND humans, and we will never have this problem again. Sadly, we did this once before. Nixon killed the Apollo systems and then underfunded the Shuttle. We lost skylab because of that foul up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>W had killed the shuttle and bought rides on Air Russia several years ago .
Basically , whether we go up with China , or on an extended Shuttle , we will still pay Russia for our seats .
OTH , in about 2-3 years , we will have MULTIPLE private launch companies that are doing cargo AND humans , and we will never have this problem again .
Sadly , we did this once before .
Nixon killed the Apollo systems and then underfunded the Shuttle .
We lost skylab because of that foul up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>W had killed the shuttle and bought rides on Air Russia several years ago.
Basically, whether we go up with China, or on an extended Shuttle, we will still pay Russia for our seats.
OTH, in about 2-3 years, we will have MULTIPLE private launch companies that are doing cargo AND humans, and we will never have this problem again.
Sadly, we did this once before.
Nixon killed the Apollo systems and then underfunded the Shuttle.
We lost skylab because of that foul up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926</id>
	<title>LEO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear editors, LEO is usually associated with Law Enforcement Organization</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear editors , LEO is usually associated with Law Enforcement Organization</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear editors, LEO is usually associated with Law Enforcement Organization</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31020322</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265281980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But with a bottom-up design instead of a top-down. Safety and innovation will be the winners there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But with a bottom-up design instead of a top-down .
Safety and innovation will be the winners there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But with a bottom-up design instead of a top-down.
Safety and innovation will be the winners there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014410</id>
	<title>I think NASA needs to get</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nasty.</p><p>Serious. Just because you have an industry doesn't mean you'll have competition. Especially because it's going to be a small one with few players. You say to all these companies that you have to make all the items conform to what NASA considers a standard spec. Then NASA can interchange parts (and thus the suppliers) as budget calls for. Then you will have a competition, then you can build and industry.</p><p>As it stands now, you give one a guy a carte blache cheque, then your stuck with them for life because you are stuck with their shit.</p><p>Look at China and how they are doing their high speed rails, they had all competitors build prototypes and made sure that all of their stuff was integrated. In the future, they can just kick out the current provider and get someone cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nasty.Serious .
Just because you have an industry does n't mean you 'll have competition .
Especially because it 's going to be a small one with few players .
You say to all these companies that you have to make all the items conform to what NASA considers a standard spec .
Then NASA can interchange parts ( and thus the suppliers ) as budget calls for .
Then you will have a competition , then you can build and industry.As it stands now , you give one a guy a carte blache cheque , then your stuck with them for life because you are stuck with their shit.Look at China and how they are doing their high speed rails , they had all competitors build prototypes and made sure that all of their stuff was integrated .
In the future , they can just kick out the current provider and get someone cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nasty.Serious.
Just because you have an industry doesn't mean you'll have competition.
Especially because it's going to be a small one with few players.
You say to all these companies that you have to make all the items conform to what NASA considers a standard spec.
Then NASA can interchange parts (and thus the suppliers) as budget calls for.
Then you will have a competition, then you can build and industry.As it stands now, you give one a guy a carte blache cheque, then your stuck with them for life because you are stuck with their shit.Look at China and how they are doing their high speed rails, they had all competitors build prototypes and made sure that all of their stuff was integrated.
In the future, they can just kick out the current provider and get someone cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015240</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid approach, typical of bloated government</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1264934460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>X tons into orbit on date Y is already available via commercial launch companies.  The amount of competition in this market, and it's entanglement with government and politics are not in any sense beyond critique, but basically, if you want to put some mass in a particular orbit, you can get a price for that.<br><br>The question here is human space flight.  We could say "We need X people put into Low Earth Orbit no later than date Y..."  but the problem is that we don't.   If we're paying for performance, we should pay for getting a particular job done, and let competitive companies figure out the most cost effective way to do it.  But then none of them will use astronauts, because that's a stupid way to get stuff done in LEO.<br><br>In addition to subcontractors in key congressional districts, this (rather big) chunk of the NASA budget must be spent using humans in space to do something.  It doesn't matter what.  That doesn't really make sense, and sensible ways of paying for it don't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>X tons into orbit on date Y is already available via commercial launch companies .
The amount of competition in this market , and it 's entanglement with government and politics are not in any sense beyond critique , but basically , if you want to put some mass in a particular orbit , you can get a price for that.The question here is human space flight .
We could say " We need X people put into Low Earth Orbit no later than date Y... " but the problem is that we do n't .
If we 're paying for performance , we should pay for getting a particular job done , and let competitive companies figure out the most cost effective way to do it .
But then none of them will use astronauts , because that 's a stupid way to get stuff done in LEO.In addition to subcontractors in key congressional districts , this ( rather big ) chunk of the NASA budget must be spent using humans in space to do something .
It does n't matter what .
That does n't really make sense , and sensible ways of paying for it do n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X tons into orbit on date Y is already available via commercial launch companies.
The amount of competition in this market, and it's entanglement with government and politics are not in any sense beyond critique, but basically, if you want to put some mass in a particular orbit, you can get a price for that.The question here is human space flight.
We could say "We need X people put into Low Earth Orbit no later than date Y..."  but the problem is that we don't.
If we're paying for performance, we should pay for getting a particular job done, and let competitive companies figure out the most cost effective way to do it.
But then none of them will use astronauts, because that's a stupid way to get stuff done in LEO.In addition to subcontractors in key congressional districts, this (rather big) chunk of the NASA budget must be spent using humans in space to do something.
It doesn't matter what.
That doesn't really make sense, and sensible ways of paying for it don't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014154</id>
	<title>Re:LEO</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1264928760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear AC, LEO is usually understood to mean Law Enforcement Officer when used in a law enforcement context. Not so much when talking about launch operations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear AC , LEO is usually understood to mean Law Enforcement Officer when used in a law enforcement context .
Not so much when talking about launch operations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear AC, LEO is usually understood to mean Law Enforcement Officer when used in a law enforcement context.
Not so much when talking about launch operations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014384</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264930140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something to keep in mind here is that Lockheed Martin has been run ragged with a unending dribble of substantial changes to the Orion capsule driven by the Ares I and its limitations. Further, the Orion was originally designed just out of reach of the Delta IV Heavy (probably by intent). Given the ugly skeletons in Orion's past, I'm not surprised that the Obama administration thought a redo would be better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something to keep in mind here is that Lockheed Martin has been run ragged with a unending dribble of substantial changes to the Orion capsule driven by the Ares I and its limitations .
Further , the Orion was originally designed just out of reach of the Delta IV Heavy ( probably by intent ) .
Given the ugly skeletons in Orion 's past , I 'm not surprised that the Obama administration thought a redo would be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something to keep in mind here is that Lockheed Martin has been run ragged with a unending dribble of substantial changes to the Orion capsule driven by the Ares I and its limitations.
Further, the Orion was originally designed just out of reach of the Delta IV Heavy (probably by intent).
Given the ugly skeletons in Orion's past, I'm not surprised that the Obama administration thought a redo would be better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016528</id>
	<title>do they ask</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1264940220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's this 'competition' you speak of?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's this 'competition ' you speak of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's this 'competition' you speak of?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014942</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>FlightTest</author>
	<datestamp>1264933020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of those small companies (Blue Origin and Space/X off the top of my head) are already owned by billionaires.  What can Boeing offer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of those small companies ( Blue Origin and Space/X off the top of my head ) are already owned by billionaires .
What can Boeing offer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of those small companies (Blue Origin and Space/X off the top of my head) are already owned by billionaires.
What can Boeing offer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015550</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1264935720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think anybody's going to be buying up Boeing and Lockheed Martin anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anybody 's going to be buying up Boeing and Lockheed Martin anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anybody's going to be buying up Boeing and Lockheed Martin anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015636</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264936140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we'll be back to $2billion launches in no time...</p></div><p>I think that's the first time I've ever heard somebody describe Boeing as a "small entity." Their Delta IV rocket can lift more payload to orbit than the Space Shuttle (and has been doing so for several years), at a price an order of magnitude lower than the Shuttle's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we 'll be back to $ 2billion launches in no time...I think that 's the first time I 've ever heard somebody describe Boeing as a " small entity .
" Their Delta IV rocket can lift more payload to orbit than the Space Shuttle ( and has been doing so for several years ) , at a price an order of magnitude lower than the Shuttle 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we'll be back to $2billion launches in no time...I think that's the first time I've ever heard somebody describe Boeing as a "small entity.
" Their Delta IV rocket can lift more payload to orbit than the Space Shuttle (and has been doing so for several years), at a price an order of magnitude lower than the Shuttle's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014712</id>
	<title>Soon...</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1264931760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We'll need LEOs to police LEO!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll need LEOs to police LEO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll need LEOs to police LEO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014274</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264929540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we'll be back to $2billion launches in no time...</p></div><p>And the people that created a new launch business are amply rewarded. Existence of an exit strategy, even if it's just getting bought out by a big player trying to maintain an oligopoly, is a necessary precondition for venture capital funding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we 'll be back to $ 2billion launches in no time...And the people that created a new launch business are amply rewarded .
Existence of an exit strategy , even if it 's just getting bought out by a big player trying to maintain an oligopoly , is a necessary precondition for venture capital funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billion dollar companies will buy up these small entities and we'll be back to $2billion launches in no time...And the people that created a new launch business are amply rewarded.
Existence of an exit strategy, even if it's just getting bought out by a big player trying to maintain an oligopoly, is a necessary precondition for venture capital funding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014698</id>
	<title>Re:A new capsule...</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1264931640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government sponsored = fishy.  I don't see the problem here unless you want to consider, my money being confiscated to do something I don't want to finance.  Oh wait,  my grandchildren will finance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government sponsored = fishy .
I do n't see the problem here unless you want to consider , my money being confiscated to do something I do n't want to finance .
Oh wait , my grandchildren will finance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government sponsored = fishy.
I don't see the problem here unless you want to consider, my money being confiscated to do something I don't want to finance.
Oh wait,  my grandchildren will finance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31017116</id>
	<title>"Flexible Path"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264943580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that these new contracts have been awarded so quickly shows that these decisions were made before the Augustine report was finalized.  The new plan bears no relationship to any of the 'options' presented by Augustine, regardless of how Bolden chooses to label it.  The only contribution of the Augustine Report was to codify the mantra that the 'program of record' would cost more than some arbitrarily selected historical estimate.  The new plan was invented within the administration to distribute the new contracts to the new political favorites of the new administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that these new contracts have been awarded so quickly shows that these decisions were made before the Augustine report was finalized .
The new plan bears no relationship to any of the 'options ' presented by Augustine , regardless of how Bolden chooses to label it .
The only contribution of the Augustine Report was to codify the mantra that the 'program of record ' would cost more than some arbitrarily selected historical estimate .
The new plan was invented within the administration to distribute the new contracts to the new political favorites of the new administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that these new contracts have been awarded so quickly shows that these decisions were made before the Augustine report was finalized.
The new plan bears no relationship to any of the 'options' presented by Augustine, regardless of how Bolden chooses to label it.
The only contribution of the Augustine Report was to codify the mantra that the 'program of record' would cost more than some arbitrarily selected historical estimate.
The new plan was invented within the administration to distribute the new contracts to the new political favorites of the new administration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019034</id>
	<title>You are not reading things correctly</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264960680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It said that the CONSTELLATION PROJECT is dead. That is all. It said that NASA was not going to fund building of the orion DIRECTLY. And as to either Ares, NONE OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED WOULD WANT TO DO THOSE. Heck, even ATK COULD fund it themselves and build it, and capture human contracts RIGHT AWAY. Yet, they will not. The reason? Because it is cheaper to fly spaceX, even Russian, then Ares.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It said that the CONSTELLATION PROJECT is dead .
That is all .
It said that NASA was not going to fund building of the orion DIRECTLY .
And as to either Ares , NONE OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED WOULD WANT TO DO THOSE .
Heck , even ATK COULD fund it themselves and build it , and capture human contracts RIGHT AWAY .
Yet , they will not .
The reason ?
Because it is cheaper to fly spaceX , even Russian , then Ares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It said that the CONSTELLATION PROJECT is dead.
That is all.
It said that NASA was not going to fund building of the orion DIRECTLY.
And as to either Ares, NONE OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED WOULD WANT TO DO THOSE.
Heck, even ATK COULD fund it themselves and build it, and capture human contracts RIGHT AWAY.
Yet, they will not.
The reason?
Because it is cheaper to fly spaceX, even Russian, then Ares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014038</id>
	<title>Re:Same wolf different clothing</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1264971420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course. Buying all these small companies causes a lot of debt that needs to be recouped, and adds many more stockholders and executives that need to be paid... and then we bankrupt anyway from over-leveraging and need a bail-out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
Buying all these small companies causes a lot of debt that needs to be recouped , and adds many more stockholders and executives that need to be paid... and then we bankrupt anyway from over-leveraging and need a bail-out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
Buying all these small companies causes a lot of debt that needs to be recouped, and adds many more stockholders and executives that need to be paid... and then we bankrupt anyway from over-leveraging and need a bail-out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31020322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31017116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1857200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31017116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31013858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31020322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31018590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31019942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31015798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31014428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1857200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1857200.31016122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
