<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_1434255</id>
	<title>Falcon 9 Prepares For High Stakes Launch</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266938100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://shanghaiist.com/2010/02/23/post\_23.php" rel="nofollow">happylunarnewyear</a> writes <i>"The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since 2002 <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100223/NEWS02/2230321/1006/news01/Falcon+9+prepares+to+soar">is assembled and upright on Launch Complex 40</a>. Falcon 9 will undergo fueling testing and live firing tests before the launch occurs as soon as next month. The stakes couldn't be higher, either. The much politicized proposal for a change in direction for NASA, which includes scrapping the Constellation program <em>in toto</em> in favor of privatization and a new heavy lift vehicle, veritably rides on this rocket. If the launch goes well, the plan for <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020110-layer8-nasa-commercial-space-contracts.html?hpg1=bn">increased reliance on privatized cargo missions</a> and eventually privatized manned missions will soar with it. However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon\_9">Falcon 9</a>. Given the stakes, this launch is one of the most important in recent history. From the article, 'President Obama's proposal to shift transport of US astronauts to the space station from government launchers to privatized ones could suffer politically if there's a high-profile problem with the first mission of the Falcon 9, by far the most talked-about newcomer vying for the opportunity.'"</i>
Reader FleaPlus contributes related news about NASA's proposed funding for <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100219/full/news.2010.83.html">scientific payloads on commercial space flights</a>, which would be a huge boon to researchers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>happylunarnewyear writes " The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since 2002 is assembled and upright on Launch Complex 40 .
Falcon 9 will undergo fueling testing and live firing tests before the launch occurs as soon as next month .
The stakes could n't be higher , either .
The much politicized proposal for a change in direction for NASA , which includes scrapping the Constellation program in toto in favor of privatization and a new heavy lift vehicle , veritably rides on this rocket .
If the launch goes well , the plan for increased reliance on privatized cargo missions and eventually privatized manned missions will soar with it .
However if something goes wrong , those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9 .
Given the stakes , this launch is one of the most important in recent history .
From the article , 'President Obama 's proposal to shift transport of US astronauts to the space station from government launchers to privatized ones could suffer politically if there 's a high-profile problem with the first mission of the Falcon 9 , by far the most talked-about newcomer vying for the opportunity .
' " Reader FleaPlus contributes related news about NASA 's proposed funding for scientific payloads on commercial space flights , which would be a huge boon to researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>happylunarnewyear writes "The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since 2002 is assembled and upright on Launch Complex 40.
Falcon 9 will undergo fueling testing and live firing tests before the launch occurs as soon as next month.
The stakes couldn't be higher, either.
The much politicized proposal for a change in direction for NASA, which includes scrapping the Constellation program in toto in favor of privatization and a new heavy lift vehicle, veritably rides on this rocket.
If the launch goes well, the plan for increased reliance on privatized cargo missions and eventually privatized manned missions will soar with it.
However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.
Given the stakes, this launch is one of the most important in recent history.
From the article, 'President Obama's proposal to shift transport of US astronauts to the space station from government launchers to privatized ones could suffer politically if there's a high-profile problem with the first mission of the Falcon 9, by far the most talked-about newcomer vying for the opportunity.
'"
Reader FleaPlus contributes related news about NASA's proposed funding for scientific payloads on commercial space flights, which would be a huge boon to researchers.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245558</id>
	<title>Re:How is this more private than before?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more the nature of the contract.</p><p>Delta and Atlas were developed using cost plus methods with a high degree of government involvement and oversight in the creation of the vehicle requirements. The EELV's (Delta and Atlas) were government projects in the same way as a new fighter aircraft, or ship is procured.</p><p>COTS (the contract SpaceX is operating under) is completely milestone based, you successfully complete X, we pay you Y. If you fail you get nada, zero. SpaceX is more like how the goverment buys tickets for employees on commercial airliners. Falcon X is not a goverment project</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more the nature of the contract.Delta and Atlas were developed using cost plus methods with a high degree of government involvement and oversight in the creation of the vehicle requirements .
The EELV 's ( Delta and Atlas ) were government projects in the same way as a new fighter aircraft , or ship is procured.COTS ( the contract SpaceX is operating under ) is completely milestone based , you successfully complete X , we pay you Y. If you fail you get nada , zero .
SpaceX is more like how the goverment buys tickets for employees on commercial airliners .
Falcon X is not a goverment project</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more the nature of the contract.Delta and Atlas were developed using cost plus methods with a high degree of government involvement and oversight in the creation of the vehicle requirements.
The EELV's (Delta and Atlas) were government projects in the same way as a new fighter aircraft, or ship is procured.COTS (the contract SpaceX is operating under) is completely milestone based, you successfully complete X, we pay you Y. If you fail you get nada, zero.
SpaceX is more like how the goverment buys tickets for employees on commercial airliners.
Falcon X is not a goverment project</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245184</id>
	<title>Re:dilemma</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1266944400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The alleged dilemma would only arise if there was a decision that makes a failure more likely now and less likely later. In practice I expect they do their damndest to avoid it both now and later, but somewhere there'll be a flaw sooner or later. As for what is best, a baseline that works is clearly better. Yes shit can happen because of a bad tweak or poor QA or external damage but having a design you know it basically working is a helluva lot easier than one that is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alleged dilemma would only arise if there was a decision that makes a failure more likely now and less likely later .
In practice I expect they do their damndest to avoid it both now and later , but somewhere there 'll be a flaw sooner or later .
As for what is best , a baseline that works is clearly better .
Yes shit can happen because of a bad tweak or poor QA or external damage but having a design you know it basically working is a helluva lot easier than one that is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alleged dilemma would only arise if there was a decision that makes a failure more likely now and less likely later.
In practice I expect they do their damndest to avoid it both now and later, but somewhere there'll be a flaw sooner or later.
As for what is best, a baseline that works is clearly better.
Yes shit can happen because of a bad tweak or poor QA or external damage but having a design you know it basically working is a helluva lot easier than one that is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31249078</id>
	<title>Re:False Hopes.</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1266958080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of Dilbert. "We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".</p></div><p>
I work in the rocket launch industry. I have supported launch operations. A launch slip occurs when a company says, "We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX," and then later they say, "There was a problem with that date, now we are going to launch on date, YY/YY/YYYY."
<br> <br>
SpaceX has not claimed the former. Never have they said, publicly, "We intend to launch in March of 2010." They have said, "NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010. We should launch sometime within that period."
<br> <br>
That is a completely different matter altogether. The point of my posting was not to make excuses for Spacex, but to inform people that, currently, they have a launch window, NOT a launch date.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That's pretty Orwellian</p></div><p>
To that I respond, with all do respect, "WTF?" You know, Orwellian isn't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation. It actually has a very specific meaning that, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty Orwellian , or like something out of Dilbert .
" We 're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April , but if plans change and launch date slips it wo n't really be a slip because we 'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule " .
I work in the rocket launch industry .
I have supported launch operations .
A launch slip occurs when a company says , " We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX , " and then later they say , " There was a problem with that date , now we are going to launch on date , YY/YY/YYYY .
" SpaceX has not claimed the former .
Never have they said , publicly , " We intend to launch in March of 2010 .
" They have said , " NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010 .
We should launch sometime within that period .
" That is a completely different matter altogether .
The point of my posting was not to make excuses for Spacex , but to inform people that , currently , they have a launch window , NOT a launch date.That 's pretty Orwellian To that I respond , with all do respect , " WTF ?
" You know , Orwellian is n't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation .
It actually has a very specific meaning that , so far as I can tell , has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of Dilbert.
"We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".
I work in the rocket launch industry.
I have supported launch operations.
A launch slip occurs when a company says, "We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX," and then later they say, "There was a problem with that date, now we are going to launch on date, YY/YY/YYYY.
"
 
SpaceX has not claimed the former.
Never have they said, publicly, "We intend to launch in March of 2010.
" They have said, "NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010.
We should launch sometime within that period.
"
 
That is a completely different matter altogether.
The point of my posting was not to make excuses for Spacex, but to inform people that, currently, they have a launch window, NOT a launch date.That's pretty Orwellian
To that I respond, with all do respect, "WTF?
" You know, Orwellian isn't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation.
It actually has a very specific meaning that, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31247468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246034</id>
	<title>Re:So if I understand this...</title>
	<author>Last\_Available\_Usern</author>
	<datestamp>1266947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Losing funding for launches doesn't mean you lose funding for everything. Also, they have facilities and expertise that make them valuable to whoever may assume launch functions. If I own an arena, I might stand to make more money just leasing out the venue and providing concessions instead of trying to create the entertainment value as well</htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing funding for launches does n't mean you lose funding for everything .
Also , they have facilities and expertise that make them valuable to whoever may assume launch functions .
If I own an arena , I might stand to make more money just leasing out the venue and providing concessions instead of trying to create the entertainment value as well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Losing funding for launches doesn't mean you lose funding for everything.
Also, they have facilities and expertise that make them valuable to whoever may assume launch functions.
If I own an arena, I might stand to make more money just leasing out the venue and providing concessions instead of trying to create the entertainment value as well</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245864</id>
	<title>Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid. This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin. "Completely" would have sufficed.</p></div><p>Just FYI, "in toto" does mean "completely" when used in legal documents, but in general writing it retains the original latin meaning "as a whole" as in: NASA scientists are a bright bunch in toto, although Chuck is an idiot and Sue just got the job because her brother is a celebrity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of " in toto " is in toto-ly stupid .
This is not a legal paper , so do n't use Latin .
" Completely " would have sufficed.Just FYI , " in toto " does mean " completely " when used in legal documents , but in general writing it retains the original latin meaning " as a whole " as in : NASA scientists are a bright bunch in toto , although Chuck is an idiot and Sue just got the job because her brother is a celebrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid.
This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin.
"Completely" would have sufficed.Just FYI, "in toto" does mean "completely" when used in legal documents, but in general writing it retains the original latin meaning "as a whole" as in: NASA scientists are a bright bunch in toto, although Chuck is an idiot and Sue just got the job because her brother is a celebrity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245460</id>
	<title>Re:crashing down?</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1266945780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad orbits are typically unstable and do come crashing down.  It's generally considered a successful launch if the spacecraft can boost itself to a stable orbit and get some work done.  The launch people just get dinged some money since that ends up shortening the life of the spacecraft due to using extra fuel to get to a usable orbit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad orbits are typically unstable and do come crashing down .
It 's generally considered a successful launch if the spacecraft can boost itself to a stable orbit and get some work done .
The launch people just get dinged some money since that ends up shortening the life of the spacecraft due to using extra fuel to get to a usable orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad orbits are typically unstable and do come crashing down.
It's generally considered a successful launch if the spacecraft can boost itself to a stable orbit and get some work done.
The launch people just get dinged some money since that ends up shortening the life of the spacecraft due to using extra fuel to get to a usable orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252462</id>
	<title>Re:Falcon Punch</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266927900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Falcon rocket is actually named in honour of the Millennium Falcon. The space craft getting launched with it is called Dragon. Named after Puff the Magic Dragon because all his friends told him he must have been reaaaally high when he decided he was going to make a space company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Falcon rocket is actually named in honour of the Millennium Falcon .
The space craft getting launched with it is called Dragon .
Named after Puff the Magic Dragon because all his friends told him he must have been reaaaally high when he decided he was going to make a space company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Falcon rocket is actually named in honour of the Millennium Falcon.
The space craft getting launched with it is called Dragon.
Named after Puff the Magic Dragon because all his friends told him he must have been reaaaally high when he decided he was going to make a space company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248894</id>
	<title>Re:So if I understand this...</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1266957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket. If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding.</p></div><p>Incorrect, NASA's actually getting a funding increase under the new plans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...NASA 's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket .
If it works well , NASA stands to lose funding.Incorrect , NASA 's actually getting a funding increase under the new plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket.
If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding.Incorrect, NASA's actually getting a funding increase under the new plans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245508</id>
	<title>Re:dilemma</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1266945960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep in mind that SpaceX can learn from launch successes too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that SpaceX can learn from launch successes too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that SpaceX can learn from launch successes too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245782</id>
	<title>Re:The first new rocket...</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1266947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ares 1-X was an SRB with a payload and a few minor mods. IOW, not a new rocket. Falcon 9 is the first truly new rocket that America has had in quite some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ares 1-X was an SRB with a payload and a few minor mods .
IOW , not a new rocket .
Falcon 9 is the first truly new rocket that America has had in quite some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ares 1-X was an SRB with a payload and a few minor mods.
IOW, not a new rocket.
Falcon 9 is the first truly new rocket that America has had in quite some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31247468</id>
	<title>Re:False Hopes.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1266952800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If that indeed does prove to be the case, it would not be a slip or a launch date failure, it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of <i>Dilbert</i>.  "We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:</p><blockquote><div><p>However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.</p></div></blockquote><p>...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site.</p></div></blockquote><p>A bit sensationalist for the overall program, less so for SpaceX and the Falcon 9.  SpaceX doesn't have unlimited funding or unqualified political support.  A failure could indeed have significant repercussions, a string of failures (as the Falcon I had) could spell the end of SpaceX's NASA contract of not of SpaceX itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that indeed does prove to be the case , it would not be a slip or a launch date failure , it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan.That 's pretty Orwellian , or like something out of Dilbert .
" We 're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April , but if plans change and launch date slips it wo n't really be a slip because we 'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule " .
  Furthermore , I do feel it necessary to point out that this : However if something goes wrong , those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9....is a friggin ' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting , either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site.A bit sensationalist for the overall program , less so for SpaceX and the Falcon 9 .
SpaceX does n't have unlimited funding or unqualified political support .
A failure could indeed have significant repercussions , a string of failures ( as the Falcon I had ) could spell the end of SpaceX 's NASA contract of not of SpaceX itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that indeed does prove to be the case, it would not be a slip or a launch date failure, it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan.That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of Dilbert.
"We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".
  Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9....is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site.A bit sensationalist for the overall program, less so for SpaceX and the Falcon 9.
SpaceX doesn't have unlimited funding or unqualified political support.
A failure could indeed have significant repercussions, a string of failures (as the Falcon I had) could spell the end of SpaceX's NASA contract of not of SpaceX itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31251464</id>
	<title>Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266923460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid. This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin. "Completely" would have sufficed.</p></div><p> <i>Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur!</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of " in toto " is in toto-ly stupid .
This is not a legal paper , so do n't use Latin .
" Completely " would have sufficed .
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid.
This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin.
"Completely" would have sufficed.
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245536</id>
	<title>Re:How is this more private than before?</title>
	<author>OctaviusIII</author>
	<datestamp>1266946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe Delta and Atlas were made to government order.  Falcon, however, was not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Delta and Atlas were made to government order .
Falcon , however , was not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Delta and Atlas were made to government order.
Falcon, however, was not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246944</id>
	<title>Re:dilemma</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1266950940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most new rocket systems fail on their first launch (e.g. Delta III, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5) it is rare that they do not fail on the first launch. SpaceX is doing a lot of testing, but things can still go wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most new rocket systems fail on their first launch ( e.g .
Delta III , Delta IV Heavy , Ariane 5 ) it is rare that they do not fail on the first launch .
SpaceX is doing a lot of testing , but things can still go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most new rocket systems fail on their first launch (e.g.
Delta III, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5) it is rare that they do not fail on the first launch.
SpaceX is doing a lot of testing, but things can still go wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248380</id>
	<title>Re:Falcon Punch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266956100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Faaallcccooooooonnnnnnn HANDSHAKE!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Faaallcccooooooonnnnnnn HANDSHAKE !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Faaallcccooooooonnnnnnn HANDSHAKE!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245418</id>
	<title>Why, Superman's of course!</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1266945600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you think those rockets fly, anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think those rockets fly , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you think those rockets fly, anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246826</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1266950580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Following a string of failed and canceled NASA projects, there is no Shuttle replacement after its retired. Ariane is not a US rocket, and it cannot presently transport crew. Neither can the Japanese H-IIA rocket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Following a string of failed and canceled NASA projects , there is no Shuttle replacement after its retired .
Ariane is not a US rocket , and it can not presently transport crew .
Neither can the Japanese H-IIA rocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following a string of failed and canceled NASA projects, there is no Shuttle replacement after its retired.
Ariane is not a US rocket, and it cannot presently transport crew.
Neither can the Japanese H-IIA rocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246030</id>
	<title>One last thing</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1266947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Falcon 9 was developed with Human Ratings. The others were not.  In fact, Falcon 9 may actually be the first LV designed with human launch being the biggest part of it in nearly 40 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Falcon 9 was developed with Human Ratings .
The others were not .
In fact , Falcon 9 may actually be the first LV designed with human launch being the biggest part of it in nearly 40 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Falcon 9 was developed with Human Ratings.
The others were not.
In fact, Falcon 9 may actually be the first LV designed with human launch being the biggest part of it in nearly 40 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248328</id>
	<title>Re:False Hopes.</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1266955920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>


Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:<p><div class="quote"><p>However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site. Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future. Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket. The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market. If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program. So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.</p></div><p>I would like to add an addendum to that.  If the Falcon 9 blows up it will not slow the company down at all. These are launches that are paid for. The company is not risking it's own money. This is part of the Demo contract, and several launches have already been paid for and planned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , I do feel it necessary to point out that this : However if something goes wrong , those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9 .
...is a friggin ' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting , either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site .
Should the first Falcon 9 fail , they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future .
Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket .
The EELV program ( Atlas and Delta ) are still pushing strong in the commercial market .
If the first Falcon 9 flight fails , it will not be the end all be all of either Obama 's current NASA vision , nor America 's role in the space program .
So please , keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.I would like to add an addendum to that .
If the Falcon 9 blows up it will not slow the company down at all .
These are launches that are paid for .
The company is not risking it 's own money .
This is part of the Demo contract , and several launches have already been paid for and planned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>


Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.
...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site.
Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future.
Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket.
The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market.
If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program.
So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.I would like to add an addendum to that.
If the Falcon 9 blows up it will not slow the company down at all.
These are launches that are paid for.
The company is not risking it's own money.
This is part of the Demo contract, and several launches have already been paid for and planned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245592</id>
	<title>He's not in there.</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1266946440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Falcon's not in the vehicle! It's all a publicity stunt!</p><p>Oh, was TFA on a different Falcon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Falcon 's not in the vehicle !
It 's all a publicity stunt ! Oh , was TFA on a different Falcon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Falcon's not in the vehicle!
It's all a publicity stunt!Oh, was TFA on a different Falcon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245136</id>
	<title>crashing down?</title>
	<author>markov\_chain</author>
	<datestamp>1266944160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.</p></div></blockquote><p>What if the rocket gets into the wrong orbit due to some sort of thruster malfunction? Huh? Huh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However if something goes wrong , those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.What if the rocket gets into the wrong orbit due to some sort of thruster malfunction ?
Huh ? Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.What if the rocket gets into the wrong orbit due to some sort of thruster malfunction?
Huh? Huh?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176</id>
	<title>So if I understand this...</title>
	<author>FlyByPC</author>
	<datestamp>1266944340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket. If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding. If it doesn't (especially if it fails catastrophically), NASA comes out ahead?<br>
<br>
I'm glad I'm not anywhere near the Cape right about now, y'know? Just saying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...NASA 's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket .
If it works well , NASA stands to lose funding .
If it does n't ( especially if it fails catastrophically ) , NASA comes out ahead ?
I 'm glad I 'm not anywhere near the Cape right about now , y'know ?
Just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket.
If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding.
If it doesn't (especially if it fails catastrophically), NASA comes out ahead?
I'm glad I'm not anywhere near the Cape right about now, y'know?
Just saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252712</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap, Reliable, Right Now: Pick Any Two</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266928980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like how cars had to pick between cheap, fast and reliable since their inception? Oh wait, they got cheaper, faster and more reliable.<br> <br>Who is to say the same won't happen in space travel? Really if you look at it space travel is way way more expensive than it could be. And reliability increases with experience. In fact one of the falcon 9's main feature for reliability is using the same Merlin rocket a bunch of times. Guess what, that will reduce cost as well, win win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like how cars had to pick between cheap , fast and reliable since their inception ?
Oh wait , they got cheaper , faster and more reliable .
Who is to say the same wo n't happen in space travel ?
Really if you look at it space travel is way way more expensive than it could be .
And reliability increases with experience .
In fact one of the falcon 9 's main feature for reliability is using the same Merlin rocket a bunch of times .
Guess what , that will reduce cost as well , win win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like how cars had to pick between cheap, fast and reliable since their inception?
Oh wait, they got cheaper, faster and more reliable.
Who is to say the same won't happen in space travel?
Really if you look at it space travel is way way more expensive than it could be.
And reliability increases with experience.
In fact one of the falcon 9's main feature for reliability is using the same Merlin rocket a bunch of times.
Guess what, that will reduce cost as well, win win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244778</id>
	<title>Cape. Which Cape?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266942180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought was Cape Town in South Africa ("the Cape") and that set me off thinking "how splendid! space exploration from below the equator". If you've read The Outward Urge recently, it would be on your mind too. Uh. Anyway, it's that other ordinary Cape. So nothing to see here, move along, eds please delete etc. etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was Cape Town in South Africa ( " the Cape " ) and that set me off thinking " how splendid !
space exploration from below the equator " .
If you 've read The Outward Urge recently , it would be on your mind too .
Uh. Anyway , it 's that other ordinary Cape .
So nothing to see here , move along , eds please delete etc .
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was Cape Town in South Africa ("the Cape") and that set me off thinking "how splendid!
space exploration from below the equator".
If you've read The Outward Urge recently, it would be on your mind too.
Uh. Anyway, it's that other ordinary Cape.
So nothing to see here, move along, eds please delete etc.
etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31247988</id>
	<title>To clear up confusion...</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1266954660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>

The Falcon 9 launch should be a complete success. It is built on the same tech as the Falcon 1. The Falcon 1 of course is the "staging area" to test the design and iron out kinks before the Falcon 9 launches. Well, they have done that.

Now to clear up misunderstandings. The Falcon 9 and dragon from day one has been built to exceed human ratings. Everything about it from top to bottom is rated to carry people. Only one thing left to do. Built an escape system. They have already started designing and plan to be done with it in 2 years. Oh and... get a couple of successful launches.

Should be one heck of a show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Falcon 9 launch should be a complete success .
It is built on the same tech as the Falcon 1 .
The Falcon 1 of course is the " staging area " to test the design and iron out kinks before the Falcon 9 launches .
Well , they have done that .
Now to clear up misunderstandings .
The Falcon 9 and dragon from day one has been built to exceed human ratings .
Everything about it from top to bottom is rated to carry people .
Only one thing left to do .
Built an escape system .
They have already started designing and plan to be done with it in 2 years .
Oh and... get a couple of successful launches .
Should be one heck of a show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

The Falcon 9 launch should be a complete success.
It is built on the same tech as the Falcon 1.
The Falcon 1 of course is the "staging area" to test the design and iron out kinks before the Falcon 9 launches.
Well, they have done that.
Now to clear up misunderstandings.
The Falcon 9 and dragon from day one has been built to exceed human ratings.
Everything about it from top to bottom is rated to carry people.
Only one thing left to do.
Built an escape system.
They have already started designing and plan to be done with it in 2 years.
Oh and... get a couple of successful launches.
Should be one heck of a show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245028</id>
	<title>Re:Falcon Punch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?</p></div><p>Not exactly; the Falcon-9 was actually being <i>funded</i> by the old program.  The idea was to fund multiple developments, not just one-- the COTS (Space-X and Orbital) to develop new cargo launch vehicles to station, and the Ares to develop exploration vehicles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ? Not exactly ; the Falcon-9 was actually being funded by the old program .
The idea was to fund multiple developments , not just one-- the COTS ( Space-X and Orbital ) to develop new cargo launch vehicles to station , and the Ares to develop exploration vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?Not exactly; the Falcon-9 was actually being funded by the old program.
The idea was to fund multiple developments, not just one-- the COTS (Space-X and Orbital) to develop new cargo launch vehicles to station, and the Ares to develop exploration vehicles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266942660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SpaceX along with Orbital got contracts for delivering cargo to the ISS way before Constellation got canceled and there are plenty of alternatives to send cargo to begin with (Arianne is the first to pop in my mind)</p><p>The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult. It's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket, but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SpaceX along with Orbital got contracts for delivering cargo to the ISS way before Constellation got canceled and there are plenty of alternatives to send cargo to begin with ( Arianne is the first to pop in my mind ) The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult .
It 's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket , but other than that this is a storm in a teacup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SpaceX along with Orbital got contracts for delivering cargo to the ISS way before Constellation got canceled and there are plenty of alternatives to send cargo to begin with (Arianne is the first to pop in my mind)The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult.
It's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket, but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226</id>
	<title>False Hopes.</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1266948540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be clear, while the summary does say that Falcon 9 could launch as early as next month (March 22 to be exact) neither SpaceX, nor NASA have that date reserved as a planned launch date. <a href="http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/100220rollout/" title="spaceflightnow.com">This Spaceflightnow article</a> [spaceflightnow.com] summarizes both Elon Musk's and the chief launch supervisor's remarks regarding expectations of an early launch date. They discuss the fact that it is very likely that Falcon 9 will not be prepped for launch until April or May this year. If that indeed does prove to be the case, it would not be a slip or a launch date failure, it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan. Quite frankly, it takes a LOT of groundwork and very precise timing to launch something the size of the Falcon 9 successfully. That said, SpaceX's launch crews want to get in all the practice they can to get the rhythm and motions of a successful launch op down.
<br> <br>
To finalize this primary point with a quote from the spaceflightnow article:<p><div class="quote"><p>"People should not think that the rocket is going to launch on whatever the first countdown day is," Musk said in an interview last month. "They shouldn't think of any day that we have planned as launch day, but it is simply an aspiration for the first day that we will try to do a countdown."</p></div><p>
That said, this is, indeed, a very exciting launch for the space industry. The spaceflightnow article has some good techie info on the connections made between the rocket and the transport vehicle, as well as some info regarding the anchoring mechanisms for the rocket when it is hoisted.
<br> <br>
Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site. Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future. Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket. The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market. If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program. So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be clear , while the summary does say that Falcon 9 could launch as early as next month ( March 22 to be exact ) neither SpaceX , nor NASA have that date reserved as a planned launch date .
This Spaceflightnow article [ spaceflightnow.com ] summarizes both Elon Musk 's and the chief launch supervisor 's remarks regarding expectations of an early launch date .
They discuss the fact that it is very likely that Falcon 9 will not be prepped for launch until April or May this year .
If that indeed does prove to be the case , it would not be a slip or a launch date failure , it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan .
Quite frankly , it takes a LOT of groundwork and very precise timing to launch something the size of the Falcon 9 successfully .
That said , SpaceX 's launch crews want to get in all the practice they can to get the rhythm and motions of a successful launch op down .
To finalize this primary point with a quote from the spaceflightnow article : " People should not think that the rocket is going to launch on whatever the first countdown day is , " Musk said in an interview last month .
" They should n't think of any day that we have planned as launch day , but it is simply an aspiration for the first day that we will try to do a countdown .
" That said , this is , indeed , a very exciting launch for the space industry .
The spaceflightnow article has some good techie info on the connections made between the rocket and the transport vehicle , as well as some info regarding the anchoring mechanisms for the rocket when it is hoisted .
Furthermore , I do feel it necessary to point out that this : However if something goes wrong , those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9 .
...is a friggin ' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting , either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site .
Should the first Falcon 9 fail , they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future .
Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket .
The EELV program ( Atlas and Delta ) are still pushing strong in the commercial market .
If the first Falcon 9 flight fails , it will not be the end all be all of either Obama 's current NASA vision , nor America 's role in the space program .
So please , keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be clear, while the summary does say that Falcon 9 could launch as early as next month (March 22 to be exact) neither SpaceX, nor NASA have that date reserved as a planned launch date.
This Spaceflightnow article [spaceflightnow.com] summarizes both Elon Musk's and the chief launch supervisor's remarks regarding expectations of an early launch date.
They discuss the fact that it is very likely that Falcon 9 will not be prepped for launch until April or May this year.
If that indeed does prove to be the case, it would not be a slip or a launch date failure, it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan.
Quite frankly, it takes a LOT of groundwork and very precise timing to launch something the size of the Falcon 9 successfully.
That said, SpaceX's launch crews want to get in all the practice they can to get the rhythm and motions of a successful launch op down.
To finalize this primary point with a quote from the spaceflightnow article:"People should not think that the rocket is going to launch on whatever the first countdown day is," Musk said in an interview last month.
"They shouldn't think of any day that we have planned as launch day, but it is simply an aspiration for the first day that we will try to do a countdown.
"
That said, this is, indeed, a very exciting launch for the space industry.
The spaceflightnow article has some good techie info on the connections made between the rocket and the transport vehicle, as well as some info regarding the anchoring mechanisms for the rocket when it is hoisted.
Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.
...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site.
Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future.
Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket.
The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market.
If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program.
So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252832</id>
	<title>Re:Cape. Which Cape?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1266929520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Europe has recently built a space port in Guyana. Which is only a few degrees north of the equator. Mind you, scientifically speaking the equator is the best place to launch spacecraft from.<br> <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers\_Europe\_s\_Spaceport/index.html" title="esa.int">http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers\_Europe\_s\_Spaceport/index.html</a> [esa.int] <br> <br>SpaceX has a launch pad on Omlek Island which is near the equator as well:<br>http://maps.google.com/maps?q=9.048167,167.743083&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;ll=9.102097,168.046875&amp;spn=128.203692,316.054688&amp;z=2</htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe has recently built a space port in Guyana .
Which is only a few degrees north of the equator .
Mind you , scientifically speaking the equator is the best place to launch spacecraft from .
http : //www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers \ _Europe \ _s \ _Spaceport/index.html [ esa.int ] SpaceX has a launch pad on Omlek Island which is near the equator as well : http : //maps.google.com/maps ? q = 9.048167,167.743083&amp;ie = UTF8&amp;ll = 9.102097,168.046875&amp;spn = 128.203692,316.054688&amp;z = 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe has recently built a space port in Guyana.
Which is only a few degrees north of the equator.
Mind you, scientifically speaking the equator is the best place to launch spacecraft from.
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers\_Europe\_s\_Spaceport/index.html [esa.int]  SpaceX has a launch pad on Omlek Island which is near the equator as well:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=9.048167,167.743083&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;ll=9.102097,168.046875&amp;spn=128.203692,316.054688&amp;z=2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246886</id>
	<title>What's really at stake</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Federal government makes a strategic decision based on the outcome of one rocket launch, the only thing it demonstrates is that the Federal government should be cancelled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Federal government makes a strategic decision based on the outcome of one rocket launch , the only thing it demonstrates is that the Federal government should be cancelled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Federal government makes a strategic decision based on the outcome of one rocket launch, the only thing it demonstrates is that the Federal government should be cancelled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245590</id>
	<title>Re:dilemma</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1266946440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For SpaceX I would wager that launch #2 is the best one for them to have a catastrophic failure on with the Falcon 9. If they can get this first launch to its target safely and successfully, then everyone will turn towards Orbital to watch their maiden launch in 2011. That will give SpaceX the breathing room it needs to blow something up, collect data, and rehash the design.
<br> <br>
Then again, SpaceX really does have a team of badass, top of the line engineers. If any company can pull off a HLV launch record without some sort of catastrophic cluster, its these guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For SpaceX I would wager that launch # 2 is the best one for them to have a catastrophic failure on with the Falcon 9 .
If they can get this first launch to its target safely and successfully , then everyone will turn towards Orbital to watch their maiden launch in 2011 .
That will give SpaceX the breathing room it needs to blow something up , collect data , and rehash the design .
Then again , SpaceX really does have a team of badass , top of the line engineers .
If any company can pull off a HLV launch record without some sort of catastrophic cluster , its these guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For SpaceX I would wager that launch #2 is the best one for them to have a catastrophic failure on with the Falcon 9.
If they can get this first launch to its target safely and successfully, then everyone will turn towards Orbital to watch their maiden launch in 2011.
That will give SpaceX the breathing room it needs to blow something up, collect data, and rehash the design.
Then again, SpaceX really does have a team of badass, top of the line engineers.
If any company can pull off a HLV launch record without some sort of catastrophic cluster, its these guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244960</id>
	<title>Yaaawwwwn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sending corporate junk into orbit makes me sleepy. Wake me up when they start doing interesting stuff again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sending corporate junk into orbit makes me sleepy .
Wake me up when they start doing interesting stuff again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sending corporate junk into orbit makes me sleepy.
Wake me up when they start doing interesting stuff again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246452</id>
	<title>Re:So if I understand this...</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1266949440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm...  It's an Air Force facility located <i>adjacent</i> to the NASA facility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... It 's an Air Force facility located adjacent to the NASA facility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...  It's an Air Force facility located adjacent to the NASA facility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248252</id>
	<title>Re:False Hopes.</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1266955680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site. Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future. Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket. The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market. If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program. So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.</p></div><p>I totally agree. I'm a huge fan of SpaceX and have a lot of hope for them, but even if they suddenly disappeared into the ubiquitous ether the new NASA plan would still be going strong. As you mentioned, there's quite a few other companies getting fixed-price milestone-based funding from NASA to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft for crew. A quick summary:</p><p>Launch vehicles:<br>* SpaceX Falcon 9 (vehicle mentioned in summary): medium development risk, low-cost<br>* Lockheed/ULA Atlas V: low-risk (development risk, that is), high cost, but still drastically lower cost than Space Shuttle or Constellation (has been operating for a number of years now, with all 20 launches so far successful)<br>* Boeing/ULA Delta IV Heavy: low-risk, high cost (could potentially lift Orion spacecraft)<br>* Orbital Taurus II: medium-risk, medium-cost, although probably better suited for cargo than crew</p><p>Spacecraft (potentially launched on a variety of different launch vehicles):<br>* <a href="http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php" title="spacex.com">SpaceX Dragon</a> [spacex.com]: capsule is pretty much ready, with a number of test articles, but the development "long pole" is a to-be-developed launch escape system<br>* <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/pictures-boeingbigelow-aerospa.html" title="flightglobal.com">Boeing/Bigelow capsule</a> [flightglobal.com]: sometimes termed the "Orion Lite", Bigelow's also interested in this as a way to get to his private space station modules<br>* <a href="http://www.newspacejournal.com/2010/02/18/blue-origin-proposes-orbital-vehicle/" title="newspacejournal.com">Blue Origin</a> [newspacejournal.com]:  composite capsule, also designing a novel push-based (instead of the traditional tractor-based) escape system adaptable to other capsules<br>* <a href="http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060623\_dreamchaser\_cots.html" title="space.com">Sierra Nevada/SpaceDev Dream Chaser</a> [space.com]: more novel design, using a lifting-body based on the well-tested <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HL-20.html" title="nasa.gov">HL-20</a> [nasa.gov]; this sort of design provides a gentler reentry from LEO (and potentially upgrades well to lunar/Lagrangian return); the company has already spent at least $10M of its own funds developing the design and building test articles<br>* <a href="http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Cygnus\_fact.pdf" title="orbital.com">Orbital Cygnus</a> [orbital.com]: optimized for cargo deliveries to ISS, but can potentially be extended to crew</p><p>It's also worth noting that Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are all being funded on <a href="http://www.spacenews.com/venture\_space/100201-biggest-ccdev-award-goes-sierra-nevada.html" title="spacenews.com">CCDev contracts</a> [spacenews.com] (in addition to a certain amount of private funding, which they're all required to have). With these contracts, they only get the full payment if they meet all of their pre-determined milestones (building test articles, performing tests, etc.) by September of 2010. IMHO, this September is when we'll get a better idea of which companies will be competing for crew/cargo delivery in the future, and</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is a friggin ' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting , either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site .
Should the first Falcon 9 fail , they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future .
Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket .
The EELV program ( Atlas and Delta ) are still pushing strong in the commercial market .
If the first Falcon 9 flight fails , it will not be the end all be all of either Obama 's current NASA vision , nor America 's role in the space program .
So please , keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.I totally agree .
I 'm a huge fan of SpaceX and have a lot of hope for them , but even if they suddenly disappeared into the ubiquitous ether the new NASA plan would still be going strong .
As you mentioned , there 's quite a few other companies getting fixed-price milestone-based funding from NASA to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft for crew .
A quick summary : Launch vehicles : * SpaceX Falcon 9 ( vehicle mentioned in summary ) : medium development risk , low-cost * Lockheed/ULA Atlas V : low-risk ( development risk , that is ) , high cost , but still drastically lower cost than Space Shuttle or Constellation ( has been operating for a number of years now , with all 20 launches so far successful ) * Boeing/ULA Delta IV Heavy : low-risk , high cost ( could potentially lift Orion spacecraft ) * Orbital Taurus II : medium-risk , medium-cost , although probably better suited for cargo than crewSpacecraft ( potentially launched on a variety of different launch vehicles ) : * SpaceX Dragon [ spacex.com ] : capsule is pretty much ready , with a number of test articles , but the development " long pole " is a to-be-developed launch escape system * Boeing/Bigelow capsule [ flightglobal.com ] : sometimes termed the " Orion Lite " , Bigelow 's also interested in this as a way to get to his private space station modules * Blue Origin [ newspacejournal.com ] : composite capsule , also designing a novel push-based ( instead of the traditional tractor-based ) escape system adaptable to other capsules * Sierra Nevada/SpaceDev Dream Chaser [ space.com ] : more novel design , using a lifting-body based on the well-tested HL-20 [ nasa.gov ] ; this sort of design provides a gentler reentry from LEO ( and potentially upgrades well to lunar/Lagrangian return ) ; the company has already spent at least $ 10M of its own funds developing the design and building test articles * Orbital Cygnus [ orbital.com ] : optimized for cargo deliveries to ISS , but can potentially be extended to crewIt 's also worth noting that Blue Origin , ULA , Boeing , and Sierra Nevada are all being funded on CCDev contracts [ spacenews.com ] ( in addition to a certain amount of private funding , which they 're all required to have ) .
With these contracts , they only get the full payment if they meet all of their pre-determined milestones ( building test articles , performing tests , etc .
) by September of 2010 .
IMHO , this September is when we 'll get a better idea of which companies will be competing for crew/cargo delivery in the future , and</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site.
Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future.
Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket.
The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market.
If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program.
So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.I totally agree.
I'm a huge fan of SpaceX and have a lot of hope for them, but even if they suddenly disappeared into the ubiquitous ether the new NASA plan would still be going strong.
As you mentioned, there's quite a few other companies getting fixed-price milestone-based funding from NASA to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft for crew.
A quick summary:Launch vehicles:* SpaceX Falcon 9 (vehicle mentioned in summary): medium development risk, low-cost* Lockheed/ULA Atlas V: low-risk (development risk, that is), high cost, but still drastically lower cost than Space Shuttle or Constellation (has been operating for a number of years now, with all 20 launches so far successful)* Boeing/ULA Delta IV Heavy: low-risk, high cost (could potentially lift Orion spacecraft)* Orbital Taurus II: medium-risk, medium-cost, although probably better suited for cargo than crewSpacecraft (potentially launched on a variety of different launch vehicles):* SpaceX Dragon [spacex.com]: capsule is pretty much ready, with a number of test articles, but the development "long pole" is a to-be-developed launch escape system* Boeing/Bigelow capsule [flightglobal.com]: sometimes termed the "Orion Lite", Bigelow's also interested in this as a way to get to his private space station modules* Blue Origin [newspacejournal.com]:  composite capsule, also designing a novel push-based (instead of the traditional tractor-based) escape system adaptable to other capsules* Sierra Nevada/SpaceDev Dream Chaser [space.com]: more novel design, using a lifting-body based on the well-tested HL-20 [nasa.gov]; this sort of design provides a gentler reentry from LEO (and potentially upgrades well to lunar/Lagrangian return); the company has already spent at least $10M of its own funds developing the design and building test articles* Orbital Cygnus [orbital.com]: optimized for cargo deliveries to ISS, but can potentially be extended to crewIt's also worth noting that Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are all being funded on CCDev contracts [spacenews.com] (in addition to a certain amount of private funding, which they're all required to have).
With these contracts, they only get the full payment if they meet all of their pre-determined milestones (building test articles, performing tests, etc.
) by September of 2010.
IMHO, this September is when we'll get a better idea of which companies will be competing for crew/cargo delivery in the future, and
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245752</id>
	<title>If Henry Spencer's still out there...</title>
	<author>ArtFart</author>
	<datestamp>1266947040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...he may be able to start using his old signature:

"There is only one spacefaring nation today, Comrade."</htmltext>
<tokenext>...he may be able to start using his old signature : " There is only one spacefaring nation today , Comrade .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...he may be able to start using his old signature:

"There is only one spacefaring nation today, Comrade.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245368</id>
	<title>Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1266945360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh is that what that meant?</p><p>I thought the summary was saying that the Constellation program had been canceled in Dorothy's little dog.  Which makes sense to me; I never saw how a heavy-lift rocket could possibly fit inside a little terrier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh is that what that meant ? I thought the summary was saying that the Constellation program had been canceled in Dorothy 's little dog .
Which makes sense to me ; I never saw how a heavy-lift rocket could possibly fit inside a little terrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh is that what that meant?I thought the summary was saying that the Constellation program had been canceled in Dorothy's little dog.
Which makes sense to me; I never saw how a heavy-lift rocket could possibly fit inside a little terrier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076</id>
	<title>Latin phrases don't make you sound smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid. This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin. "Completely" would have sufficed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of " in toto " is in toto-ly stupid .
This is not a legal paper , so do n't use Latin .
" Completely " would have sufficed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid.
This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin.
"Completely" would have sufficed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245148</id>
	<title>Re:dilemma</title>
	<author>ZankerH</author>
	<datestamp>1266944220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>SpaceX has already had their share of "catastrophic launch faliures" with the Falcon 1, which had quite some faliures before they managed to get it right. Falcon 1 now uses the same engines, avionics suite and design philosophy as the Falcon 9. It was basically a test for the bigger rockets, and I'd say they have all the experience and data they need to pull this one off.<br> <br>

Godspeed, SpaceX. They earned this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SpaceX has already had their share of " catastrophic launch faliures " with the Falcon 1 , which had quite some faliures before they managed to get it right .
Falcon 1 now uses the same engines , avionics suite and design philosophy as the Falcon 9 .
It was basically a test for the bigger rockets , and I 'd say they have all the experience and data they need to pull this one off .
Godspeed , SpaceX .
They earned this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SpaceX has already had their share of "catastrophic launch faliures" with the Falcon 1, which had quite some faliures before they managed to get it right.
Falcon 1 now uses the same engines, avionics suite and design philosophy as the Falcon 9.
It was basically a test for the bigger rockets, and I'd say they have all the experience and data they need to pull this one off.
Godspeed, SpaceX.
They earned this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248378</id>
	<title>Re:Falcon Punch</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1266956100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago. They could have called it the Millennium Falcon.</p></div><p>I think he's alluded in past interviews that the Millennium Falcon was one of the reasons he chose the name. He's also stated future plans for developing a "BFR" (Big F'ing Rocket) and "BFE" (Big F'ing Engine), a pretty obvious reference to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFG\_9000" title="wikipedia.org">BFG</a> [wikipedia.org]. This seems to provide some pretty obvious proof that Elon Musk is a huge dork.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago .
They could have called it the Millennium Falcon.I think he 's alluded in past interviews that the Millennium Falcon was one of the reasons he chose the name .
He 's also stated future plans for developing a " BFR " ( Big F'ing Rocket ) and " BFE " ( Big F'ing Engine ) , a pretty obvious reference to the BFG [ wikipedia.org ] .
This seems to provide some pretty obvious proof that Elon Musk is a huge dork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago.
They could have called it the Millennium Falcon.I think he's alluded in past interviews that the Millennium Falcon was one of the reasons he chose the name.
He's also stated future plans for developing a "BFR" (Big F'ing Rocket) and "BFE" (Big F'ing Engine), a pretty obvious reference to the BFG [wikipedia.org].
This seems to provide some pretty obvious proof that Elon Musk is a huge dork.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</id>
	<title>How is this more private than before?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract (that previously included helping with development costs) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract ( that previously included helping with development costs ) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract (that previously included helping with development costs) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245454</id>
	<title>Re:How is this more private than before?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1266945720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The valid comparison is Falcon 9 to the Shuttle, Ariane 5, and Soyuz. All three are government owned rockets (though Soyuz and Ariane 5 have been commercialized and Ariane 5 might have a private stake). And the idea of putting astronauts up on a commercial launch vehicle is revolutionary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The valid comparison is Falcon 9 to the Shuttle , Ariane 5 , and Soyuz .
All three are government owned rockets ( though Soyuz and Ariane 5 have been commercialized and Ariane 5 might have a private stake ) .
And the idea of putting astronauts up on a commercial launch vehicle is revolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The valid comparison is Falcon 9 to the Shuttle, Ariane 5, and Soyuz.
All three are government owned rockets (though Soyuz and Ariane 5 have been commercialized and Ariane 5 might have a private stake).
And the idea of putting astronauts up on a commercial launch vehicle is revolutionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248484</id>
	<title>mmod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266956460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NIGGER ASSOCIATION First organization all; In order to go</htmltext>
<tokenext>NIGGER ASSOCIATION First organization all ; In order to go</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIGGER ASSOCIATION First organization all; In order to go</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245098</id>
	<title>Re:How is this more private than before?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266943980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract (that previously included helping with development costs) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract?</p></div><p>Here's my interpretation.  In the old days, private/public referred to whom owned the company.  Now a days its reversed, and public means they own a part of the govt, and private means they're going it alone without owning a part of the govt.</p><p>Delta/Atlas is owned by Boeing/Lockheed which are big enough businesses to own a senator or two, maybe a couple reps, so its sort of public.</p><p>SpaceX is small enough that I doubt even the local alderman returns their calls, so they're private.  In fact its surprising the govt is allowing them to succeed, at least so far, since they aren't getting their "cut".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract ( that previously included helping with development costs ) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract ? Here 's my interpretation .
In the old days , private/public referred to whom owned the company .
Now a days its reversed , and public means they own a part of the govt , and private means they 're going it alone without owning a part of the govt.Delta/Atlas is owned by Boeing/Lockheed which are big enough businesses to own a senator or two , maybe a couple reps , so its sort of public.SpaceX is small enough that I doubt even the local alderman returns their calls , so they 're private .
In fact its surprising the govt is allowing them to succeed , at least so far , since they are n't getting their " cut " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract (that previously included helping with development costs) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract?Here's my interpretation.
In the old days, private/public referred to whom owned the company.
Now a days its reversed, and public means they own a part of the govt, and private means they're going it alone without owning a part of the govt.Delta/Atlas is owned by Boeing/Lockheed which are big enough businesses to own a senator or two, maybe a couple reps, so its sort of public.SpaceX is small enough that I doubt even the local alderman returns their calls, so they're private.
In fact its surprising the govt is allowing them to succeed, at least so far, since they aren't getting their "cut".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936</id>
	<title>dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that most rocket systems have a catastrophic launch failure some time during their history, and given that engineers learn from those mistakes to make every subsequent one safer, Falcon has a dilemma.  If they are going to suffer a launch failure, is it better to have one on this first launch or a later one?  Engineering wise, you want to fail early so you can fix early.  But politically and economically, it could be a disaster.</p><p>Just a thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that most rocket systems have a catastrophic launch failure some time during their history , and given that engineers learn from those mistakes to make every subsequent one safer , Falcon has a dilemma .
If they are going to suffer a launch failure , is it better to have one on this first launch or a later one ?
Engineering wise , you want to fail early so you can fix early .
But politically and economically , it could be a disaster.Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that most rocket systems have a catastrophic launch failure some time during their history, and given that engineers learn from those mistakes to make every subsequent one safer, Falcon has a dilemma.
If they are going to suffer a launch failure, is it better to have one on this first launch or a later one?
Engineering wise, you want to fail early so you can fix early.
But politically and economically, it could be a disaster.Just a thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245186</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1266944400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult. It's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket, but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.</p></div><p>This "storm in a teacup" is about access to space. Falcon 9 has the possibility of greatly reducing the cost of doing anything in space, including activities beyond Earth orbit. Earth to orbit is an ante that everyone has to pay. It drives the overall costs of a mission since typically the launch costs are planned to consumed 10-20\% of the total mission no matter what the cost per kg is supposed to be.<br> <br>

For example, supposed missions are planned with 10\% of total spending going to launch costs. If launch costs were suddenly halved, it wouldn't do much for missions already being constructed. They would just see a 5\% drop in overall mission cost. New missions though could plan on those lower costs. How would they exploit it? By increasing the mass of the craft while reducing its cost per kg. In other words, they don't work as hard to reduce the mass of the spacecraft, saving money in the process. There's other effects. More activities become viable, being justifiable at a lower cost. The launch vehicles will operate more often, allowing both a further substantial reduction in price and better reliability of the launch vehicle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult .
It 's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket , but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.This " storm in a teacup " is about access to space .
Falcon 9 has the possibility of greatly reducing the cost of doing anything in space , including activities beyond Earth orbit .
Earth to orbit is an ante that everyone has to pay .
It drives the overall costs of a mission since typically the launch costs are planned to consumed 10-20 \ % of the total mission no matter what the cost per kg is supposed to be .
For example , supposed missions are planned with 10 \ % of total spending going to launch costs .
If launch costs were suddenly halved , it would n't do much for missions already being constructed .
They would just see a 5 \ % drop in overall mission cost .
New missions though could plan on those lower costs .
How would they exploit it ?
By increasing the mass of the craft while reducing its cost per kg .
In other words , they do n't work as hard to reduce the mass of the spacecraft , saving money in the process .
There 's other effects .
More activities become viable , being justifiable at a lower cost .
The launch vehicles will operate more often , allowing both a further substantial reduction in price and better reliability of the launch vehicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult.
It's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket, but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.This "storm in a teacup" is about access to space.
Falcon 9 has the possibility of greatly reducing the cost of doing anything in space, including activities beyond Earth orbit.
Earth to orbit is an ante that everyone has to pay.
It drives the overall costs of a mission since typically the launch costs are planned to consumed 10-20\% of the total mission no matter what the cost per kg is supposed to be.
For example, supposed missions are planned with 10\% of total spending going to launch costs.
If launch costs were suddenly halved, it wouldn't do much for missions already being constructed.
They would just see a 5\% drop in overall mission cost.
New missions though could plan on those lower costs.
How would they exploit it?
By increasing the mass of the craft while reducing its cost per kg.
In other words, they don't work as hard to reduce the mass of the spacecraft, saving money in the process.
There's other effects.
More activities become viable, being justifiable at a lower cost.
The launch vehicles will operate more often, allowing both a further substantial reduction in price and better reliability of the launch vehicle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244814</id>
	<title>Falcon Punch</title>
	<author>psergiu</author>
	<datestamp>1266942360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?</p><p>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245134</id>
	<title>Re:Falcon Punch</title>
	<author>Whalou</author>
	<datestamp>1266944160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago.  They could have called it the Millennium Falcon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago .
They could have called it the Millennium Falcon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago.
They could have called it the Millennium Falcon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244910</id>
	<title>Ha ha!</title>
	<author>Mr Z</author>
	<datestamp>1266942900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about <a href="http://spatula-city.org/~im14u2c/images/phil\_ken\_sebben.jpg" title="spatula-city.org">Falcon 7</a> [spatula-city.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Falcon 7 [ spatula-city.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Falcon 7 [spatula-city.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246498</id>
	<title>Theme music</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1266949560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
We will be fine <i>(we will be fine)</i> <br>
Falcon 9* <i>(Falcon 9)</i> <br>
Even though NASA say<br>
"Way out of line" <i>(out of line)</i> <br>
We will be fine <i>(we will be fine)</i> <br>
Falcon 9 <i>(Falcon 9)</i> <br>
Even though NASA say<br>
"Way out of line" <i>(out of line)</i> <br>
<br>
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3130681292715811054&amp;hl=en#" title="google.com">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3130681292715811054&amp;hl=en#</a> [google.com] <br>
<br>
You're welcome, NASA TV!<br>
<br> <br>
*post would make way more sense if <tt>del</tt> tags were allowed. Harumph!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We will be fine ( we will be fine ) Falcon 9 * ( Falcon 9 ) Even though NASA say " Way out of line " ( out of line ) We will be fine ( we will be fine ) Falcon 9 ( Falcon 9 ) Even though NASA say " Way out of line " ( out of line ) http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = 3130681292715811054&amp;hl = en # [ google.com ] You 're welcome , NASA TV !
* post would make way more sense if del tags were allowed .
Harumph !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We will be fine (we will be fine) 
Falcon 9* (Falcon 9) 
Even though NASA say
"Way out of line" (out of line) 
We will be fine (we will be fine) 
Falcon 9 (Falcon 9) 
Even though NASA say
"Way out of line" (out of line) 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3130681292715811054&amp;hl=en# [google.com] 

You're welcome, NASA TV!
*post would make way more sense if del tags were allowed.
Harumph!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245636</id>
	<title>Re:How is this more private than before?</title>
	<author>Somegeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266946620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the obvious differences that others have mentioned is cost, but the reason is more important.  The others were developed under government contract and on huge government budgets.  This results in rockets that cost over 100 million USD to launch.  SpaceX is a private company developing their own technology primarily using their own money, allowing them to develop vehicles that cost significantly less to launch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the obvious differences that others have mentioned is cost , but the reason is more important .
The others were developed under government contract and on huge government budgets .
This results in rockets that cost over 100 million USD to launch .
SpaceX is a private company developing their own technology primarily using their own money , allowing them to develop vehicles that cost significantly less to launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the obvious differences that others have mentioned is cost, but the reason is more important.
The others were developed under government contract and on huge government budgets.
This results in rockets that cost over 100 million USD to launch.
SpaceX is a private company developing their own technology primarily using their own money, allowing them to develop vehicles that cost significantly less to launch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246808</id>
	<title>Cheap, Reliable, Right Now: Pick Any Two</title>
	<author>cmholm</author>
	<datestamp>1266950460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Delta and Atlas are reliable because the time/money have been put into anal retentive engineering. The 1950's/60's customer was in enough of a hurry that they were willing to push the schedule with money and man hours. They also realized that pushing the schedule on developing flaming tubes of fuel was a recipe for <b>BOOM!</b>, and gritted their teeth through the mistakes.</p><p>Hopefully, SpaceX has learned enough from Falcon 1 that they can minimize the boom factor on Falcon 9, but given the size of their engineering staff (CAD/CAM or no), I wouldn't count on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Delta and Atlas are reliable because the time/money have been put into anal retentive engineering .
The 1950 's/60 's customer was in enough of a hurry that they were willing to push the schedule with money and man hours .
They also realized that pushing the schedule on developing flaming tubes of fuel was a recipe for BOOM ! , and gritted their teeth through the mistakes.Hopefully , SpaceX has learned enough from Falcon 1 that they can minimize the boom factor on Falcon 9 , but given the size of their engineering staff ( CAD/CAM or no ) , I would n't count on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Delta and Atlas are reliable because the time/money have been put into anal retentive engineering.
The 1950's/60's customer was in enough of a hurry that they were willing to push the schedule with money and man hours.
They also realized that pushing the schedule on developing flaming tubes of fuel was a recipe for BOOM!, and gritted their teeth through the mistakes.Hopefully, SpaceX has learned enough from Falcon 1 that they can minimize the boom factor on Falcon 9, but given the size of their engineering staff (CAD/CAM or no), I wouldn't count on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244774</id>
	<title>Frosty piss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266942120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what this article is about but it sounds kind of boring and this comment sections looks too nice to pass out on.</p><p>Hello, world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what this article is about but it sounds kind of boring and this comment sections looks too nice to pass out on.Hello , world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what this article is about but it sounds kind of boring and this comment sections looks too nice to pass out on.Hello, world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245462</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>bjaustin</author>
	<datestamp>1266945780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, getting cargo to the ISS isn't a big jump in capability given that the Russians have been doing this for years and last year the Airane launched the ATV which docked with the ISS.  It would be beneficial (as well as cheaper) to have the ability to do so domestically for not only keeping tax dollars within the U.S. economy but also from the standpoint of maintaining the U.S. rocket industrial base.

However, if this launch goes poorly - and there's a decent chance it will considering the challenges and newness of the vehicle - there will be a good number of politicians from Alabama, Florida, and Texas pointing to the failure as indicative of the challenge being above commercial space companies' capabilities, even though the Atlas and Delta have been flying for decades but had initial setbacks too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , getting cargo to the ISS is n't a big jump in capability given that the Russians have been doing this for years and last year the Airane launched the ATV which docked with the ISS .
It would be beneficial ( as well as cheaper ) to have the ability to do so domestically for not only keeping tax dollars within the U.S. economy but also from the standpoint of maintaining the U.S. rocket industrial base .
However , if this launch goes poorly - and there 's a decent chance it will considering the challenges and newness of the vehicle - there will be a good number of politicians from Alabama , Florida , and Texas pointing to the failure as indicative of the challenge being above commercial space companies ' capabilities , even though the Atlas and Delta have been flying for decades but had initial setbacks too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, getting cargo to the ISS isn't a big jump in capability given that the Russians have been doing this for years and last year the Airane launched the ATV which docked with the ISS.
It would be beneficial (as well as cheaper) to have the ability to do so domestically for not only keeping tax dollars within the U.S. economy but also from the standpoint of maintaining the U.S. rocket industrial base.
However, if this launch goes poorly - and there's a decent chance it will considering the challenges and newness of the vehicle - there will be a good number of politicians from Alabama, Florida, and Texas pointing to the failure as indicative of the challenge being above commercial space companies' capabilities, even though the Atlas and Delta have been flying for decades but had initial setbacks too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245100</id>
	<title>The first new rocket...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266943980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since <b>last years Ares 1-X</b>.
There, fixed that for you</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since last years Ares 1-X .
There , fixed that for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since last years Ares 1-X.
There, fixed that for you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248226</id>
	<title>Re:How is this more private than before?</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1266955560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Elon Musk has stated the goal is 500 dollars a kg, and is achievable.
At that price, slashdot could put something in space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Elon Musk has stated the goal is 500 dollars a kg , and is achievable .
At that price , slashdot could put something in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elon Musk has stated the goal is 500 dollars a kg, and is achievable.
At that price, slashdot could put something in space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31249078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31247468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31251464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_1434255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31247468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31249078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31251464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31248226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31246808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_1434255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31244778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31252832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_1434255.31245418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
