<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_25_1424218</id>
	<title>Senators Blast NASA For Lacking Vision</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1267113180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"A Senate science subcommittee clashed with NASA's chief on Wednesday, saying <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100225/senators-blast-nasa-lacking-vision.htm">the agency and the White House lacked a clear vision and goal for the program</a>. Skeptical senators told the space agency that it should not just talk about plans, but set out to do something specific. Lawmakers expressed a bipartisan opposition to the agency's plans and the initiatives of the Obama White House."</i> <strong>Updated 23:13 GMT by timothy: </strong>  Reader Trent Waddington contributes this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY&amp;feature=channel">video link to the hearing</a>, if you want to come to your own conclusions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " A Senate science subcommittee clashed with NASA 's chief on Wednesday , saying the agency and the White House lacked a clear vision and goal for the program .
Skeptical senators told the space agency that it should not just talk about plans , but set out to do something specific .
Lawmakers expressed a bipartisan opposition to the agency 's plans and the initiatives of the Obama White House .
" Updated 23 : 13 GMT by timothy : Reader Trent Waddington contributes this video link to the hearing , if you want to come to your own conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "A Senate science subcommittee clashed with NASA's chief on Wednesday, saying the agency and the White House lacked a clear vision and goal for the program.
Skeptical senators told the space agency that it should not just talk about plans, but set out to do something specific.
Lawmakers expressed a bipartisan opposition to the agency's plans and the initiatives of the Obama White House.
" Updated 23:13 GMT by timothy:   Reader Trent Waddington contributes this video link to the hearing, if you want to come to your own conclusions.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273022</id>
	<title>NASA si long term, senate is six years</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1267118340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that a NASA project is long term, while a Senator only sees mid term.  The space shuttle development ran from the late 60's to the first launch in 1981.  Even Apollo was a seven year program, one year longer than the term of a senator.  This means that most are looking for the pork they can send home this year and in the next few years, while NASA needs to be funded long term.  The problem with Constellation is that it was funded in 2005, and years after Columbia disintegrated.  If it would have funded fully in 2004, with a deadline of 2013, maybe we could have done it.  Or else had some vision that STS was ending, and funded it in 2000 with the installation of the conservative government that apparently is so dedicated to space exploration.
<p>
Then, of course, there is the pork.  Representative Olsen, not of the senate, has voting against the economic stimulus package, which consensus seems to indicate that it has stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs, and now he is complaining that a few thousand government employees are going to lose their jobs.  What is it Pete?  Do we want to balance the budget or keep support a federal jobs program where the average salary is over 70K a year?  Sure the NASA jobs are great, but the budget is the budget.  These jobs and ancillary costs could save over a billion a year.  I know that Clear Lake is the probably the most federally subsidized place in America, but we really need real jobs based on capitalism, not socialism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that a NASA project is long term , while a Senator only sees mid term .
The space shuttle development ran from the late 60 's to the first launch in 1981 .
Even Apollo was a seven year program , one year longer than the term of a senator .
This means that most are looking for the pork they can send home this year and in the next few years , while NASA needs to be funded long term .
The problem with Constellation is that it was funded in 2005 , and years after Columbia disintegrated .
If it would have funded fully in 2004 , with a deadline of 2013 , maybe we could have done it .
Or else had some vision that STS was ending , and funded it in 2000 with the installation of the conservative government that apparently is so dedicated to space exploration .
Then , of course , there is the pork .
Representative Olsen , not of the senate , has voting against the economic stimulus package , which consensus seems to indicate that it has stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs , and now he is complaining that a few thousand government employees are going to lose their jobs .
What is it Pete ?
Do we want to balance the budget or keep support a federal jobs program where the average salary is over 70K a year ?
Sure the NASA jobs are great , but the budget is the budget .
These jobs and ancillary costs could save over a billion a year .
I know that Clear Lake is the probably the most federally subsidized place in America , but we really need real jobs based on capitalism , not socialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that a NASA project is long term, while a Senator only sees mid term.
The space shuttle development ran from the late 60's to the first launch in 1981.
Even Apollo was a seven year program, one year longer than the term of a senator.
This means that most are looking for the pork they can send home this year and in the next few years, while NASA needs to be funded long term.
The problem with Constellation is that it was funded in 2005, and years after Columbia disintegrated.
If it would have funded fully in 2004, with a deadline of 2013, maybe we could have done it.
Or else had some vision that STS was ending, and funded it in 2000 with the installation of the conservative government that apparently is so dedicated to space exploration.
Then, of course, there is the pork.
Representative Olsen, not of the senate, has voting against the economic stimulus package, which consensus seems to indicate that it has stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs, and now he is complaining that a few thousand government employees are going to lose their jobs.
What is it Pete?
Do we want to balance the budget or keep support a federal jobs program where the average salary is over 70K a year?
Sure the NASA jobs are great, but the budget is the budget.
These jobs and ancillary costs could save over a billion a year.
I know that Clear Lake is the probably the most federally subsidized place in America, but we really need real jobs based on capitalism, not socialism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274844</id>
	<title>Re:Technology first</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267124520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politicians have no clue about space technology, and are terrible managers to boot. Yet here they are, discussing merits of space technology and managing projects. What a country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians have no clue about space technology , and are terrible managers to boot .
Yet here they are , discussing merits of space technology and managing projects .
What a country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians have no clue about space technology, and are terrible managers to boot.
Yet here they are, discussing merits of space technology and managing projects.
What a country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31279322</id>
	<title>Fiscal Reality</title>
	<author>Wardish</author>
	<datestamp>1267099740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the morally repugnant legislators are correct as far as it goes.  Nasa indeed needs gee wizz flashy programs to achieve funding as this article shows.  Nasa has to impress the powers that be, President, advisors, legislators, defense contractors, and even lobbyists, to get decent upper management and funding.  They have to be even more impressive to maintain the needed funding over multiple years and administrations.</p><p>Because...</p><p>Most ventures having to do with space require a lot of time as well as consistent funding.  Congress, who holds the purse strings, is motivated by short term goals and is easily swayed by other vested interests (see above).</p><p>The only way I can see to fix this would require a law or constitutional amendment, if necessary, to enable congress to assign budgetary funds, ideally multi-year, that are paid in advance and very difficult to change.  At least a 2/3 or even a 3/4 vote should be necessary to remove or repeal.  This sort of protection will have to include the top management at Nasa as well.</p><p>Not a lot else you can do unless you can make all three branches of government reasonable, honorable, and able to think and plan on a long range basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the morally repugnant legislators are correct as far as it goes .
Nasa indeed needs gee wizz flashy programs to achieve funding as this article shows .
Nasa has to impress the powers that be , President , advisors , legislators , defense contractors , and even lobbyists , to get decent upper management and funding .
They have to be even more impressive to maintain the needed funding over multiple years and administrations.Because...Most ventures having to do with space require a lot of time as well as consistent funding .
Congress , who holds the purse strings , is motivated by short term goals and is easily swayed by other vested interests ( see above ) .The only way I can see to fix this would require a law or constitutional amendment , if necessary , to enable congress to assign budgetary funds , ideally multi-year , that are paid in advance and very difficult to change .
At least a 2/3 or even a 3/4 vote should be necessary to remove or repeal .
This sort of protection will have to include the top management at Nasa as well.Not a lot else you can do unless you can make all three branches of government reasonable , honorable , and able to think and plan on a long range basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the morally repugnant legislators are correct as far as it goes.
Nasa indeed needs gee wizz flashy programs to achieve funding as this article shows.
Nasa has to impress the powers that be, President, advisors, legislators, defense contractors, and even lobbyists, to get decent upper management and funding.
They have to be even more impressive to maintain the needed funding over multiple years and administrations.Because...Most ventures having to do with space require a lot of time as well as consistent funding.
Congress, who holds the purse strings, is motivated by short term goals and is easily swayed by other vested interests (see above).The only way I can see to fix this would require a law or constitutional amendment, if necessary, to enable congress to assign budgetary funds, ideally multi-year, that are paid in advance and very difficult to change.
At least a 2/3 or even a 3/4 vote should be necessary to remove or repeal.
This sort of protection will have to include the top management at Nasa as well.Not a lot else you can do unless you can make all three branches of government reasonable, honorable, and able to think and plan on a long range basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274956</id>
	<title>Modern US government</title>
	<author>Grelfod</author>
	<datestamp>1267124940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic</p><p>Do YOU know the pledge of Allegiance?</p><p>interesting history that you may like - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge\_of\_Allegiance" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge\_of\_Allegiance</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>but in all versions we are (supposed to be) a republic</p><p>
&nbsp; WHY?</p><p>It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.</p><p>These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.</p><p>A Democracy</p><p>The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.</p><p>A Republic</p><p>A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.</p><p>Read the full article at:  <a href="http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html" title="lexrex.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html</a> [lexrex.com]</p><p>much more GOOD reading to understand the 'founding fathers' intent can be gained by investigating further: <a href="http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html" title="lexrex.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html</a> [lexrex.com]</p><p>and a quote from another that seems to be appropriate to show what forgetting 'REPUBLIC' has gotten us</p><p>You never were taught early democratic history have you? The Greeks were the first ones to identify the weaknesses inherent in democracy.</p><p>And the biggest weakness is, indeed, it all starts falling apart when the regular folk realize that they can vote themselves raises and are swayed by skillful politicians who promise to fulfill those desires.</p><p>The other major weakness, is of course, a fully democratic nation is easily directed by mass hysteria.. that is a country will typically go huge, rather temporary, swings in political opinion that has more to do with emotion then reason. For example: 9/11 or the stock market crash. Then again, skillful politicians can leverage this temporary lack of reason to rush through laws and garner more power in a short time.</p><p>That's why the USA (with the longest lasting democracy so far) was originally designed with a very weak and ineffectual central government. The designers wanted to have a way to counter the negative effects of democracy and prop up the positive effects. The way it's designed with a 3 branch system is designed to slow things down and make it hard for people to rush through legislation and pass laws.</p><p>After 200 years or so those limitations have, unfortunately, been largely forgotten and in the past 30 years people have been happy to give huge amounts of power to the central government for all sorts of lets-get-boogyman-now-before-they-get-us reasons. (economic paranoia, terrorism, war on drugs, environmentalism scare tactics, religious wackiness, its-for-the-children, etc etc)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An Important Distinction : Democracy versus RepublicDo YOU know the pledge of Allegiance ? interesting history that you may like - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge \ _of \ _Allegiance [ wikipedia.org ] but in all versions we are ( supposed to be ) a republic   WHY ? It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic , as dissimilar forms of government .
Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved .
It should be noted , in passing , that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is , featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing , as here , the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government : a Democracy versus a Republic .
This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general , as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion , or writing , regarding this subject , for the sake of sound understanding.These two forms of government : Democracy and Republic , are not only dissimilar but antithetical , reflecting the sharp contrast between ( a ) The Majority Unlimited , in a Democracy , lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority , and ( b ) The Majority Limited , in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority ; as we shall now see.A DemocracyThe chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is : Rule by Omnipotent Majority .
In a Democracy , The Individual , and any group of Individuals composing any Minority , have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority .
It is a case of Majority-over-Man.A RepublicA Republic , on the other hand , has a very different purpose and an entirely different form , or system , of government .
Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly , as well as all others among the people , primarily to protect The Individual 's God-given , unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority , of all minorities , and the liberties of people in general .
The definition of a Republic is : a constitutionally limited government of the representative type , created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable ( from its original meaning ) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches : Executive , Legislative and Judicial .
Here the term " the people " means , of course , the electorate.Read the full article at : http : //www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html [ lexrex.com ] much more GOOD reading to understand the 'founding fathers ' intent can be gained by investigating further : http : //www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html [ lexrex.com ] and a quote from another that seems to be appropriate to show what forgetting 'REPUBLIC ' has gotten usYou never were taught early democratic history have you ?
The Greeks were the first ones to identify the weaknesses inherent in democracy.And the biggest weakness is , indeed , it all starts falling apart when the regular folk realize that they can vote themselves raises and are swayed by skillful politicians who promise to fulfill those desires.The other major weakness , is of course , a fully democratic nation is easily directed by mass hysteria.. that is a country will typically go huge , rather temporary , swings in political opinion that has more to do with emotion then reason .
For example : 9/11 or the stock market crash .
Then again , skillful politicians can leverage this temporary lack of reason to rush through laws and garner more power in a short time.That 's why the USA ( with the longest lasting democracy so far ) was originally designed with a very weak and ineffectual central government .
The designers wanted to have a way to counter the negative effects of democracy and prop up the positive effects .
The way it 's designed with a 3 branch system is designed to slow things down and make it hard for people to rush through legislation and pass laws.After 200 years or so those limitations have , unfortunately , been largely forgotten and in the past 30 years people have been happy to give huge amounts of power to the central government for all sorts of lets-get-boogyman-now-before-they-get-us reasons .
( economic paranoia , terrorism , war on drugs , environmentalism scare tactics , religious wackiness , its-for-the-children , etc etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Important Distinction: Democracy versus RepublicDo YOU know the pledge of Allegiance?interesting history that you may like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge\_of\_Allegiance [wikipedia.org]but in all versions we are (supposed to be) a republic
  WHY?It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government.
Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.
It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic.
This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.A DemocracyThe chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority.
In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority.
It is a case of Majority-over-Man.A RepublicA Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government.
Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.
The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.Read the full article at:  http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html [lexrex.com]much more GOOD reading to understand the 'founding fathers' intent can be gained by investigating further: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html [lexrex.com]and a quote from another that seems to be appropriate to show what forgetting 'REPUBLIC' has gotten usYou never were taught early democratic history have you?
The Greeks were the first ones to identify the weaknesses inherent in democracy.And the biggest weakness is, indeed, it all starts falling apart when the regular folk realize that they can vote themselves raises and are swayed by skillful politicians who promise to fulfill those desires.The other major weakness, is of course, a fully democratic nation is easily directed by mass hysteria.. that is a country will typically go huge, rather temporary, swings in political opinion that has more to do with emotion then reason.
For example: 9/11 or the stock market crash.
Then again, skillful politicians can leverage this temporary lack of reason to rush through laws and garner more power in a short time.That's why the USA (with the longest lasting democracy so far) was originally designed with a very weak and ineffectual central government.
The designers wanted to have a way to counter the negative effects of democracy and prop up the positive effects.
The way it's designed with a 3 branch system is designed to slow things down and make it hard for people to rush through legislation and pass laws.After 200 years or so those limitations have, unfortunately, been largely forgotten and in the past 30 years people have been happy to give huge amounts of power to the central government for all sorts of lets-get-boogyman-now-before-they-get-us reasons.
(economic paranoia, terrorism, war on drugs, environmentalism scare tactics, religious wackiness, its-for-the-children, etc etc)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273060</id>
	<title>Its Less Jobs, Not Vision</title>
	<author>MrTripps</author>
	<datestamp>1267118460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many of these politicos could care less about "vision." What they are really upset about is losing high paying jobs and projects in their districts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of these politicos could care less about " vision .
" What they are really upset about is losing high paying jobs and projects in their districts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of these politicos could care less about "vision.
" What they are really upset about is losing high paying jobs and projects in their districts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274700</id>
	<title>And the parenting of the year award goes to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267124040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA: <em>"Hey, look what we can do!"</em>
</p><p>Senate: <em>"F*@$!  Look how much money that costs!  Stop that!"</em>
</p><p>NASA: <em>"Um, well, we can do this too..."</em>
</p><p>Congress: <em>"That's too &amp;\%$*!#@ dangerous!  Shut it down!  Shut it down!"</em>
</p><p>NASA: <em>"Well, maybe we could try this...  it doesn't cost quite so much, and it's safer.  Is that okay?"
</em></p><p><em>Senate: <em>"I guess so.  And take your sister with you."
</em></em></p><p><em><em>NASA: <em>"All right.  Here goes..."</em>
</em></em></p><p><em><em>Congress: <em>"That's TOO LOUD!  Knock it off, and go to your room!"</em>
</em></em></p><p><em><em>NASA: <em>*SULK*</em>
</em></em></p><p><em><em>Senate: <em>"Why doesn't NASA DO anything?  They have no ambition, and lack vision.  Where did they go wrong?"</em></em></em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA : " Hey , look what we can do !
" Senate : " F * @ $ !
Look how much money that costs !
Stop that !
" NASA : " Um , well , we can do this too... " Congress : " That 's too &amp; \ % $ * ! # @ dangerous !
Shut it down !
Shut it down !
" NASA : " Well , maybe we could try this... it does n't cost quite so much , and it 's safer .
Is that okay ?
" Senate : " I guess so .
And take your sister with you .
" NASA : " All right .
Here goes... " Congress : " That 's TOO LOUD !
Knock it off , and go to your room !
" NASA : * SULK * Senate : " Why does n't NASA DO anything ?
They have no ambition , and lack vision .
Where did they go wrong ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA: "Hey, look what we can do!
"
Senate: "F*@$!
Look how much money that costs!
Stop that!
"
NASA: "Um, well, we can do this too..."
Congress: "That's too &amp;\%$*!#@ dangerous!
Shut it down!
Shut it down!
"
NASA: "Well, maybe we could try this...  it doesn't cost quite so much, and it's safer.
Is that okay?
"
Senate: "I guess so.
And take your sister with you.
"
NASA: "All right.
Here goes..."
Congress: "That's TOO LOUD!
Knock it off, and go to your room!
"
NASA: *SULK*
Senate: "Why doesn't NASA DO anything?
They have no ambition, and lack vision.
Where did they go wrong?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</id>
	<title>Typical US government</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1267117860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays. From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot), to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls. I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto), and now NASA.</p><p>Oh we took away all your funding and tied you up in red tape, but now we will complain that you lack vision and have not made any progress! It's NASA's fault for literally not delivering the moon, on a budget that would be barely noticed by an average defense contractor. Because it's ok to pour $65 billion into F-22's, the 140+ million dollar planes that always seem to be in the shop (68\% readiness you know if I paid $140 million I want the damned thing to work), but no additional funding is required to move forwards in space exploration (the NASA budget has been fairly constant at all time lows since 1993).</p><p>It's the politicians in the US that need fixing. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus. There's a pattern here. "Voting" isn't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago, victim to the two party system set up by special interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays .
From berating car company executives for flying in their jets ( no , they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot ) , to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil ( yeah , US manufacturers NEVER had recalls .
I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto ) , and now NASA.Oh we took away all your funding and tied you up in red tape , but now we will complain that you lack vision and have not made any progress !
It 's NASA 's fault for literally not delivering the moon , on a budget that would be barely noticed by an average defense contractor .
Because it 's ok to pour $ 65 billion into F-22 's , the 140 + million dollar planes that always seem to be in the shop ( 68 \ % readiness you know if I paid $ 140 million I want the damned thing to work ) , but no additional funding is required to move forwards in space exploration ( the NASA budget has been fairly constant at all time lows since 1993 ) .It 's the politicians in the US that need fixing .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to more war .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the bailouts .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the stimulus .
There 's a pattern here .
" Voting " is n't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago , victim to the two party system set up by special interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays.
From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot), to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls.
I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto), and now NASA.Oh we took away all your funding and tied you up in red tape, but now we will complain that you lack vision and have not made any progress!
It's NASA's fault for literally not delivering the moon, on a budget that would be barely noticed by an average defense contractor.
Because it's ok to pour $65 billion into F-22's, the 140+ million dollar planes that always seem to be in the shop (68\% readiness you know if I paid $140 million I want the damned thing to work), but no additional funding is required to move forwards in space exploration (the NASA budget has been fairly constant at all time lows since 1993).It's the politicians in the US that need fixing.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus.
There's a pattern here.
"Voting" isn't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago, victim to the two party system set up by special interests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274922</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1267124760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to start somewhere. It's not my first choice, but it's more than the jackasses in Congress are willing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to start somewhere .
It 's not my first choice , but it 's more than the jackasses in Congress are willing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to start somewhere.
It's not my first choice, but it's more than the jackasses in Congress are willing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876</id>
	<title>The President has to lead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267117680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the President of the United States doesn't care about space exploration, as is apparently the case today, then NASA will be unable to fulfill its mission.  Obama has had little interest in space from day one; his campaign plan even had a proposal to gut NASA's budget to pay for a nationalized day care system.  Later this proposal was deleted, but Obama has really done nothing with the U.S. space program but cut its budget.<br> <br>

Shutting down the only manned space project on the horizon, Obama proposed to offload low orbital manned flights to the private sector.  While the libertarian and free marketer in me loves the idea of a competitive market for space travel, I'm not convinced it's time yet for NASA to leave that arena.<br> <br>

Every manned launch is a huge, critical path project requiring hundreds of technicians and engineers to monitor every aspect of the situation.  Is it really appropriate to dump all of these people and hope that several privately held companies (one hopes American ones) can step up to the plate and recreate all of that expertise and best practices almost from scratch?  Even if they hired all of these soon-to-be-unemployed aerospace experts, they would still need to put in a few years to build up the kind of institutional memory and procedures, not to mention physical infrastructure, that are required for a complex project like this.<br> <br>

NASA was building the next generation Orion manned spacecraft and Obama announced that he may not fund it.  Congress, ESPECIALLY one that gets a few more Republican members in the 2012 election cycle, can override him and restore funding, but realistically the President has the power and means to kill a program if he doesn't like it.  He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director, for example, and he can argue that the money for NASA would be better spent on school lunch for poor kids, or building shelters for the homeless, or any number of similar but meaningless populist mouthings that make great TV sound bites.<br> <br>

We probably will have to wait for a change of government before we can get back to having a NASA with vision AND the backing to make it a reality.  Sitting around, waiting for the "right technology" to be developed, and then saying we can finally think about realistically exploring Mars--that's not a bold vision, that's a cop-out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the President of the United States does n't care about space exploration , as is apparently the case today , then NASA will be unable to fulfill its mission .
Obama has had little interest in space from day one ; his campaign plan even had a proposal to gut NASA 's budget to pay for a nationalized day care system .
Later this proposal was deleted , but Obama has really done nothing with the U.S. space program but cut its budget .
Shutting down the only manned space project on the horizon , Obama proposed to offload low orbital manned flights to the private sector .
While the libertarian and free marketer in me loves the idea of a competitive market for space travel , I 'm not convinced it 's time yet for NASA to leave that arena .
Every manned launch is a huge , critical path project requiring hundreds of technicians and engineers to monitor every aspect of the situation .
Is it really appropriate to dump all of these people and hope that several privately held companies ( one hopes American ones ) can step up to the plate and recreate all of that expertise and best practices almost from scratch ?
Even if they hired all of these soon-to-be-unemployed aerospace experts , they would still need to put in a few years to build up the kind of institutional memory and procedures , not to mention physical infrastructure , that are required for a complex project like this .
NASA was building the next generation Orion manned spacecraft and Obama announced that he may not fund it .
Congress , ESPECIALLY one that gets a few more Republican members in the 2012 election cycle , can override him and restore funding , but realistically the President has the power and means to kill a program if he does n't like it .
He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director , for example , and he can argue that the money for NASA would be better spent on school lunch for poor kids , or building shelters for the homeless , or any number of similar but meaningless populist mouthings that make great TV sound bites .
We probably will have to wait for a change of government before we can get back to having a NASA with vision AND the backing to make it a reality .
Sitting around , waiting for the " right technology " to be developed , and then saying we can finally think about realistically exploring Mars--that 's not a bold vision , that 's a cop-out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the President of the United States doesn't care about space exploration, as is apparently the case today, then NASA will be unable to fulfill its mission.
Obama has had little interest in space from day one; his campaign plan even had a proposal to gut NASA's budget to pay for a nationalized day care system.
Later this proposal was deleted, but Obama has really done nothing with the U.S. space program but cut its budget.
Shutting down the only manned space project on the horizon, Obama proposed to offload low orbital manned flights to the private sector.
While the libertarian and free marketer in me loves the idea of a competitive market for space travel, I'm not convinced it's time yet for NASA to leave that arena.
Every manned launch is a huge, critical path project requiring hundreds of technicians and engineers to monitor every aspect of the situation.
Is it really appropriate to dump all of these people and hope that several privately held companies (one hopes American ones) can step up to the plate and recreate all of that expertise and best practices almost from scratch?
Even if they hired all of these soon-to-be-unemployed aerospace experts, they would still need to put in a few years to build up the kind of institutional memory and procedures, not to mention physical infrastructure, that are required for a complex project like this.
NASA was building the next generation Orion manned spacecraft and Obama announced that he may not fund it.
Congress, ESPECIALLY one that gets a few more Republican members in the 2012 election cycle, can override him and restore funding, but realistically the President has the power and means to kill a program if he doesn't like it.
He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director, for example, and he can argue that the money for NASA would be better spent on school lunch for poor kids, or building shelters for the homeless, or any number of similar but meaningless populist mouthings that make great TV sound bites.
We probably will have to wait for a change of government before we can get back to having a NASA with vision AND the backing to make it a reality.
Sitting around, waiting for the "right technology" to be developed, and then saying we can finally think about realistically exploring Mars--that's not a bold vision, that's a cop-out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275470</id>
	<title>Re:People are idiots</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1267126980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting.  Nice, noble goal.  Unfortunately not exactly compatible with today's world.</p><p>Today if you had a launch vehicle, you couldn't do anything with it.  Why is there (almost) no private launch capability in the US?  Simple, really.  First you need a license from the FAA - if it goes up in the air, they have to license it.  It would be really a shame if you hit a Airbus with your nice shiny rocket.  The actual chances of that happening are probably about 1 in a million.  Still, they want you to have a license.  And meet all of their regulations.  Have your radios been properly certified?  What alternate fields can you land on?  Stuff like that.  And a lot of siller stuff that utterly has no impact on any sort of space launch.</p><p>Next, we have the EPA.  Oooh, you're going to use highly dangerous and toxic rocket fuel?  Well, you need to fill out an application for a license and we will get back to you in five years.  After the community response meeting and the environmental impact study.  Is it going to make noise?  Well then, better put that on your application because we wouldn't want to disturb the birds and lizards or the old hermit that lives 100 miles away.</p><p>At the present time any sort of "private launch" capability is pretty much a pipedream.  What someone needs to do is pay off the Mexican government - closer to the equator anyway - and set up shop there.  I am sure it would be cheaper and more effective than trying to navigate your way through the maze of regulations, licensing and nonsense that the US is going to put you through.</p><p>US based operations are pretty much doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
Nice , noble goal .
Unfortunately not exactly compatible with today 's world.Today if you had a launch vehicle , you could n't do anything with it .
Why is there ( almost ) no private launch capability in the US ?
Simple , really .
First you need a license from the FAA - if it goes up in the air , they have to license it .
It would be really a shame if you hit a Airbus with your nice shiny rocket .
The actual chances of that happening are probably about 1 in a million .
Still , they want you to have a license .
And meet all of their regulations .
Have your radios been properly certified ?
What alternate fields can you land on ?
Stuff like that .
And a lot of siller stuff that utterly has no impact on any sort of space launch.Next , we have the EPA .
Oooh , you 're going to use highly dangerous and toxic rocket fuel ?
Well , you need to fill out an application for a license and we will get back to you in five years .
After the community response meeting and the environmental impact study .
Is it going to make noise ?
Well then , better put that on your application because we would n't want to disturb the birds and lizards or the old hermit that lives 100 miles away.At the present time any sort of " private launch " capability is pretty much a pipedream .
What someone needs to do is pay off the Mexican government - closer to the equator anyway - and set up shop there .
I am sure it would be cheaper and more effective than trying to navigate your way through the maze of regulations , licensing and nonsense that the US is going to put you through.US based operations are pretty much doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
Nice, noble goal.
Unfortunately not exactly compatible with today's world.Today if you had a launch vehicle, you couldn't do anything with it.
Why is there (almost) no private launch capability in the US?
Simple, really.
First you need a license from the FAA - if it goes up in the air, they have to license it.
It would be really a shame if you hit a Airbus with your nice shiny rocket.
The actual chances of that happening are probably about 1 in a million.
Still, they want you to have a license.
And meet all of their regulations.
Have your radios been properly certified?
What alternate fields can you land on?
Stuff like that.
And a lot of siller stuff that utterly has no impact on any sort of space launch.Next, we have the EPA.
Oooh, you're going to use highly dangerous and toxic rocket fuel?
Well, you need to fill out an application for a license and we will get back to you in five years.
After the community response meeting and the environmental impact study.
Is it going to make noise?
Well then, better put that on your application because we wouldn't want to disturb the birds and lizards or the old hermit that lives 100 miles away.At the present time any sort of "private launch" capability is pretty much a pipedream.
What someone needs to do is pay off the Mexican government - closer to the equator anyway - and set up shop there.
I am sure it would be cheaper and more effective than trying to navigate your way through the maze of regulations, licensing and nonsense that the US is going to put you through.US based operations are pretty much doomed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275670</id>
	<title>My brain hurts from this...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1267127640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I read into the Ares program problems, I am left with the same impression; the Ares proponents desperately want to get it close enough to production that it can't be stopped.  At that point, they will get the funding to fix the problems, since there is no turning back.  Does this sound familiar to any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers?  Many a bogus IT project is run like this.</p><p>Instead, there is a contrary group that wants to use some 'existing' technology and build Jupiter vehicles, faster and with less risk.  Another familiar sceneario, I bet, since this is nearly the equivalent of a COTS-based project.</p><p>NASA's greatest values to the U.S. are the spin-off technologies and pure research.  Certainly one of NASA's past contributions to the U.S. was spin-off in ICBMs and various other launch vehicles, including even cruise missles I bet.  Having an active and robust missle industry sure makes it easier for the military to design and build what they want.  As the need for ICBMs is waning, NASA is losing some covert support.  Even the ISS is not enough to keep them in front of Congress and get enough funding to at least 'do something'.</p><p>Another Moon landing seems pointless to many, but even just leaving science on the Moon has potential.  A Hubble replacement out there could be interesting - modular construction, stable platform, you could build Hubble x5 and really see something.  Yes, it is a long trip to fix, but not insurmountable.  And much easer to service when you get there. Something to be said for being able to stand up and fit a panel back in place, instead of an EVA ballet.</p><p>And a trip to Mars will teach us a lot about contained environments, ecology, new power sources, and even communications.  It is the logical step to getting to Europa or Enceladus, and you know you want to go there.</p><p>The spin-offs could be incredible, and are unknown now.  We owe a lot to the Apollo program, and any future manned exploration program will deliver as much or more.</p><p>Now, mind you, if NASA has to give up on manned exploration, they could always get the Mars rover teams to build a new set and turn them loose on Enceladus, for instance.  Bigger solar panels or a nuclear power source, maybe different wheels, etc, but the design concepts and decisions should be largely the same.  Not outrageously  expensive, and hopefully they would hit another home run. Worth a try.  But manned exploration is simply the highest goal, and worthy.  And getting a relatively safe, functional vehicle running is critical.</p><p>Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the manned exploration question was answered in the late 60s.  The Shuttle is not a manned exploration program, and never was.  It's an ISS support program, with some near-Earth orbit delivery and repair functions possible.  We always needed a heavy lift vehicle, and the Shuttle soaked up that money for 30-40 years.  Kinda sad.</p><p>I don't see any commercial/private programs capable of replacing Ares.  ESA might be able to do it, but they have their own priorities.</p><p>So let's light this candle, ok?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I read into the Ares program problems , I am left with the same impression ; the Ares proponents desperately want to get it close enough to production that it ca n't be stopped .
At that point , they will get the funding to fix the problems , since there is no turning back .
Does this sound familiar to any /.ers ?
Many a bogus IT project is run like this.Instead , there is a contrary group that wants to use some 'existing ' technology and build Jupiter vehicles , faster and with less risk .
Another familiar sceneario , I bet , since this is nearly the equivalent of a COTS-based project.NASA 's greatest values to the U.S. are the spin-off technologies and pure research .
Certainly one of NASA 's past contributions to the U.S. was spin-off in ICBMs and various other launch vehicles , including even cruise missles I bet .
Having an active and robust missle industry sure makes it easier for the military to design and build what they want .
As the need for ICBMs is waning , NASA is losing some covert support .
Even the ISS is not enough to keep them in front of Congress and get enough funding to at least 'do something'.Another Moon landing seems pointless to many , but even just leaving science on the Moon has potential .
A Hubble replacement out there could be interesting - modular construction , stable platform , you could build Hubble x5 and really see something .
Yes , it is a long trip to fix , but not insurmountable .
And much easer to service when you get there .
Something to be said for being able to stand up and fit a panel back in place , instead of an EVA ballet.And a trip to Mars will teach us a lot about contained environments , ecology , new power sources , and even communications .
It is the logical step to getting to Europa or Enceladus , and you know you want to go there.The spin-offs could be incredible , and are unknown now .
We owe a lot to the Apollo program , and any future manned exploration program will deliver as much or more.Now , mind you , if NASA has to give up on manned exploration , they could always get the Mars rover teams to build a new set and turn them loose on Enceladus , for instance .
Bigger solar panels or a nuclear power source , maybe different wheels , etc , but the design concepts and decisions should be largely the same .
Not outrageously expensive , and hopefully they would hit another home run .
Worth a try .
But manned exploration is simply the highest goal , and worthy .
And getting a relatively safe , functional vehicle running is critical.Unfortunately , I 'm afraid that the manned exploration question was answered in the late 60s .
The Shuttle is not a manned exploration program , and never was .
It 's an ISS support program , with some near-Earth orbit delivery and repair functions possible .
We always needed a heavy lift vehicle , and the Shuttle soaked up that money for 30-40 years .
Kinda sad.I do n't see any commercial/private programs capable of replacing Ares .
ESA might be able to do it , but they have their own priorities.So let 's light this candle , ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I read into the Ares program problems, I am left with the same impression; the Ares proponents desperately want to get it close enough to production that it can't be stopped.
At that point, they will get the funding to fix the problems, since there is no turning back.
Does this sound familiar to any /.ers?
Many a bogus IT project is run like this.Instead, there is a contrary group that wants to use some 'existing' technology and build Jupiter vehicles, faster and with less risk.
Another familiar sceneario, I bet, since this is nearly the equivalent of a COTS-based project.NASA's greatest values to the U.S. are the spin-off technologies and pure research.
Certainly one of NASA's past contributions to the U.S. was spin-off in ICBMs and various other launch vehicles, including even cruise missles I bet.
Having an active and robust missle industry sure makes it easier for the military to design and build what they want.
As the need for ICBMs is waning, NASA is losing some covert support.
Even the ISS is not enough to keep them in front of Congress and get enough funding to at least 'do something'.Another Moon landing seems pointless to many, but even just leaving science on the Moon has potential.
A Hubble replacement out there could be interesting - modular construction, stable platform, you could build Hubble x5 and really see something.
Yes, it is a long trip to fix, but not insurmountable.
And much easer to service when you get there.
Something to be said for being able to stand up and fit a panel back in place, instead of an EVA ballet.And a trip to Mars will teach us a lot about contained environments, ecology, new power sources, and even communications.
It is the logical step to getting to Europa or Enceladus, and you know you want to go there.The spin-offs could be incredible, and are unknown now.
We owe a lot to the Apollo program, and any future manned exploration program will deliver as much or more.Now, mind you, if NASA has to give up on manned exploration, they could always get the Mars rover teams to build a new set and turn them loose on Enceladus, for instance.
Bigger solar panels or a nuclear power source, maybe different wheels, etc, but the design concepts and decisions should be largely the same.
Not outrageously  expensive, and hopefully they would hit another home run.
Worth a try.
But manned exploration is simply the highest goal, and worthy.
And getting a relatively safe, functional vehicle running is critical.Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the manned exploration question was answered in the late 60s.
The Shuttle is not a manned exploration program, and never was.
It's an ISS support program, with some near-Earth orbit delivery and repair functions possible.
We always needed a heavy lift vehicle, and the Shuttle soaked up that money for 30-40 years.
Kinda sad.I don't see any commercial/private programs capable of replacing Ares.
ESA might be able to do it, but they have their own priorities.So let's light this candle, ok?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272768</id>
	<title>Commercialisation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267117260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Encouraging commercial space exploration is one way of getting the job done. The other is to simply get rid of NASA all together. It's just a shell of it's former self - a great big lumbering cash eating monster that has no vision. All the best work came from an era when NASA had next to nothing. Now NASA has too much and just sits there, bloated, simpering. If someone had had the balls to put it out of it's misery a couple of decades ago then space propulsion and near Earth exploration would be a long way further ahead compared to now. FFS - the shuttle was obsolete before it took it's first flight! I seriously resent this NASA money sponge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Encouraging commercial space exploration is one way of getting the job done .
The other is to simply get rid of NASA all together .
It 's just a shell of it 's former self - a great big lumbering cash eating monster that has no vision .
All the best work came from an era when NASA had next to nothing .
Now NASA has too much and just sits there , bloated , simpering .
If someone had had the balls to put it out of it 's misery a couple of decades ago then space propulsion and near Earth exploration would be a long way further ahead compared to now .
FFS - the shuttle was obsolete before it took it 's first flight !
I seriously resent this NASA money sponge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encouraging commercial space exploration is one way of getting the job done.
The other is to simply get rid of NASA all together.
It's just a shell of it's former self - a great big lumbering cash eating monster that has no vision.
All the best work came from an era when NASA had next to nothing.
Now NASA has too much and just sits there, bloated, simpering.
If someone had had the balls to put it out of it's misery a couple of decades ago then space propulsion and near Earth exploration would be a long way further ahead compared to now.
FFS - the shuttle was obsolete before it took it's first flight!
I seriously resent this NASA money sponge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272978</id>
	<title>Oh, They have a vision.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1267118160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The vision, though, is likely massive budget cuts and the end of the program.  So, it's understandable that they haven't announced it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vision , though , is likely massive budget cuts and the end of the program .
So , it 's understandable that they have n't announced it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vision, though, is likely massive budget cuts and the end of the program.
So, it's understandable that they haven't announced it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273020</id>
	<title>MOAR WITH LESS!</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1267118340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put the senators in the airlock until we decide what to do with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put the senators in the airlock until we decide what to do with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put the senators in the airlock until we decide what to do with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276804</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267088940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should really like to live in your reality, where 'cut its budget' means 'increase funding by $6 billion'.</p><p>Lack of vision I grant, but the president does seem to be listening to his advisors on the budget question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should really like to live in your reality , where 'cut its budget ' means 'increase funding by $ 6 billion'.Lack of vision I grant , but the president does seem to be listening to his advisors on the budget question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should really like to live in your reality, where 'cut its budget' means 'increase funding by $6 billion'.Lack of vision I grant, but the president does seem to be listening to his advisors on the budget question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274024</id>
	<title>Re:Commercialisation</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1267122000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apollo\_program#Cost\_of\_Apollo" title="wikipedia.org">$94 billion and $119 billion in 2008 dollars</a> [wikipedia.org] when I did the same calculation (using Steve Garber's estimate of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_program#Program\_costs\_and\_cancellation" title="wikipedia.org">$20-25.4 billion in 1969 dollars</a> [wikipedia.org]). I can't find a direct reference to this Steve Garber, but if it is the source I think it is, then he probably included Mercury, Gemini, and the unmanned lunar probes (Ranger, Lunar Lander, and Surveyor programs) in the total Apollo cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got between $ 94 billion and $ 119 billion in 2008 dollars [ wikipedia.org ] when I did the same calculation ( using Steve Garber 's estimate of $ 20-25.4 billion in 1969 dollars [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
I ca n't find a direct reference to this Steve Garber , but if it is the source I think it is , then he probably included Mercury , Gemini , and the unmanned lunar probes ( Ranger , Lunar Lander , and Surveyor programs ) in the total Apollo cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got between $94 billion and $119 billion in 2008 dollars [wikipedia.org] when I did the same calculation (using Steve Garber's estimate of $20-25.4 billion in 1969 dollars [wikipedia.org]).
I can't find a direct reference to this Steve Garber, but if it is the source I think it is, then he probably included Mercury, Gemini, and the unmanned lunar probes (Ranger, Lunar Lander, and Surveyor programs) in the total Apollo cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273992</id>
	<title>Great article... NOT</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1267121940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, why should I read past the first paragraph of the article, when it's clearly written and edited by folks with no clue or interest in actual news.</p><p>NASA IS NOT A "FIRM", IT IS AN AGENCY OF THE US GOVERNMENT. Government IS NOT A BUSINESS.</p><p>Second, NASA's management structure should be flattened, preferably with a sledge hammer. Get rid of everyone there who does *not* have a scientific or engineering degree (I know, from someone who worked at KSC for 17 years, that there are some fairly high-up managers who have *neither*).</p><p>Third, fill *all* the tech slots - many are empty, and many of the experienced folks are retiring, or have left in disgust. We've had two Republican presidents who claimed to want to move on..., and supplied neither funding nor direction. Expect NASA to provide that? Really? How many of you reading this provide direction for your company?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark, still waiting for his ticket on PanAm to the Wheel....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , why should I read past the first paragraph of the article , when it 's clearly written and edited by folks with no clue or interest in actual news.NASA IS NOT A " FIRM " , IT IS AN AGENCY OF THE US GOVERNMENT .
Government IS NOT A BUSINESS.Second , NASA 's management structure should be flattened , preferably with a sledge hammer .
Get rid of everyone there who does * not * have a scientific or engineering degree ( I know , from someone who worked at KSC for 17 years , that there are some fairly high-up managers who have * neither * ) .Third , fill * all * the tech slots - many are empty , and many of the experienced folks are retiring , or have left in disgust .
We 've had two Republican presidents who claimed to want to move on... , and supplied neither funding nor direction .
Expect NASA to provide that ?
Really ? How many of you reading this provide direction for your company ?
          mark , still waiting for his ticket on PanAm to the Wheel... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, why should I read past the first paragraph of the article, when it's clearly written and edited by folks with no clue or interest in actual news.NASA IS NOT A "FIRM", IT IS AN AGENCY OF THE US GOVERNMENT.
Government IS NOT A BUSINESS.Second, NASA's management structure should be flattened, preferably with a sledge hammer.
Get rid of everyone there who does *not* have a scientific or engineering degree (I know, from someone who worked at KSC for 17 years, that there are some fairly high-up managers who have *neither*).Third, fill *all* the tech slots - many are empty, and many of the experienced folks are retiring, or have left in disgust.
We've had two Republican presidents who claimed to want to move on..., and supplied neither funding nor direction.
Expect NASA to provide that?
Really? How many of you reading this provide direction for your company?
          mark, still waiting for his ticket on PanAm to the Wheel....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273082</id>
	<title>What about the budget?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you make long term plans when you have no guarantee on the budget? NASA just had their budget cut without warning and there hasn't been any interest in fully funding anything really big for decades. If NASA can reasonably expect projects to die half way in, because Congress has done that to them before, it's just common sense to not plan for anything too big.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you make long term plans when you have no guarantee on the budget ?
NASA just had their budget cut without warning and there has n't been any interest in fully funding anything really big for decades .
If NASA can reasonably expect projects to die half way in , because Congress has done that to them before , it 's just common sense to not plan for anything too big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you make long term plans when you have no guarantee on the budget?
NASA just had their budget cut without warning and there hasn't been any interest in fully funding anything really big for decades.
If NASA can reasonably expect projects to die half way in, because Congress has done that to them before, it's just common sense to not plan for anything too big.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274214</id>
	<title>Re:Plans but no strategy</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1267122540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of this sounds like a grand design, but here's the issue with the "milestones/goals" part of it: what we are doing in space today, what we are planning to do in the near term, has all been accessible since roughly the 80's.  We go up, launch a sat, occasionally visit a space station.  IANARS (IANA Rocket Scientist) but it seems that we are just refining techniques - the diminishing returns of the current state of the art, if you will.</p><p>For there to be a next wave, we have to make some fundamental scientific progress.  E.g. a space elevator is not merely a matter of improved engineering, we need some real breakthroughs in material sciences.  I'm not trying to say "oh it's all hopeless" - not at all. Engineering can take you far, but the world's most advanced steam-engine train is still going to lose to the Shinkansen.</p><p>If you really believe in "let's all get together, sing kumbaya, and oh, build some stuff together", I think we'd be better off investing all that money into fundamental research.  Can you imagine what (to use your number) $60B/year invested in the world's best minds would do in a decade?  The only tiny wrinkle is that fundamental research doesn't exactly go with 'milestones' and 'deliverables'.</p><p>So, to some extent, I can see the critics' point.  They're complete political whores, no doubt, but seriously, what ARE we doing up there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this sounds like a grand design , but here 's the issue with the " milestones/goals " part of it : what we are doing in space today , what we are planning to do in the near term , has all been accessible since roughly the 80 's .
We go up , launch a sat , occasionally visit a space station .
IANARS ( IANA Rocket Scientist ) but it seems that we are just refining techniques - the diminishing returns of the current state of the art , if you will.For there to be a next wave , we have to make some fundamental scientific progress .
E.g. a space elevator is not merely a matter of improved engineering , we need some real breakthroughs in material sciences .
I 'm not trying to say " oh it 's all hopeless " - not at all .
Engineering can take you far , but the world 's most advanced steam-engine train is still going to lose to the Shinkansen.If you really believe in " let 's all get together , sing kumbaya , and oh , build some stuff together " , I think we 'd be better off investing all that money into fundamental research .
Can you imagine what ( to use your number ) $ 60B/year invested in the world 's best minds would do in a decade ?
The only tiny wrinkle is that fundamental research does n't exactly go with 'milestones ' and 'deliverables'.So , to some extent , I can see the critics ' point .
They 're complete political whores , no doubt , but seriously , what ARE we doing up there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this sounds like a grand design, but here's the issue with the "milestones/goals" part of it: what we are doing in space today, what we are planning to do in the near term, has all been accessible since roughly the 80's.
We go up, launch a sat, occasionally visit a space station.
IANARS (IANA Rocket Scientist) but it seems that we are just refining techniques - the diminishing returns of the current state of the art, if you will.For there to be a next wave, we have to make some fundamental scientific progress.
E.g. a space elevator is not merely a matter of improved engineering, we need some real breakthroughs in material sciences.
I'm not trying to say "oh it's all hopeless" - not at all.
Engineering can take you far, but the world's most advanced steam-engine train is still going to lose to the Shinkansen.If you really believe in "let's all get together, sing kumbaya, and oh, build some stuff together", I think we'd be better off investing all that money into fundamental research.
Can you imagine what (to use your number) $60B/year invested in the world's best minds would do in a decade?
The only tiny wrinkle is that fundamental research doesn't exactly go with 'milestones' and 'deliverables'.So, to some extent, I can see the critics' point.
They're complete political whores, no doubt, but seriously, what ARE we doing up there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282154</id>
	<title>Re:NASA si long term, senate is six years</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267127280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is that a NASA project is long term, while a Senator only sees mid term. The space shuttle development ran from the late 60's to the first launch in 1981. Even Apollo was a seven year program, one year longer than the term of a senator.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, from the inception of the Apollo program as a general purpose Earth orbiter (in 1960), through JFK's repurposing of the program, to the Lunar landing was *nine* years.  And it only received significant funding for four (64-67) of those years.  (Though 1967 funding was almost 40\% off the 1965 peak.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>On top of that, the lunar landing mission depended specifically on the F-1 engine which had been in development since 1956.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that a NASA project is long term , while a Senator only sees mid term .
The space shuttle development ran from the late 60 's to the first launch in 1981 .
Even Apollo was a seven year program , one year longer than the term of a senator.Actually , from the inception of the Apollo program as a general purpose Earth orbiter ( in 1960 ) , through JFK 's repurposing of the program , to the Lunar landing was * nine * years .
And it only received significant funding for four ( 64-67 ) of those years .
( Though 1967 funding was almost 40 \ % off the 1965 peak .
)   On top of that , the lunar landing mission depended specifically on the F-1 engine which had been in development since 1956 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that a NASA project is long term, while a Senator only sees mid term.
The space shuttle development ran from the late 60's to the first launch in 1981.
Even Apollo was a seven year program, one year longer than the term of a senator.Actually, from the inception of the Apollo program as a general purpose Earth orbiter (in 1960), through JFK's repurposing of the program, to the Lunar landing was *nine* years.
And it only received significant funding for four (64-67) of those years.
(Though 1967 funding was almost 40\% off the 1965 peak.
)
  On top of that, the lunar landing mission depended specifically on the F-1 engine which had been in development since 1956.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273086</id>
	<title>Technology first</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267118580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>NASA and White House officials were criticized for drafting plans that called for new propulsion systems without linking them to timelines for manned space missions.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a completely backwards way of thinking. New propulsion systems are vastly more valuable than any specific space mission. Advanced propulsion systems could take the most difficult mission we might attempt today and turn it into a routine trip.</p><p>We need a willingness to develop new technologies that might take more than a few years to pay off, and even try things that might not work at all. We should tie this work to a specific goal in order to provide focus and to justify the price, but the real prize is the technology itself. Reducing fuel mass or cost to orbit by a factor of ten would open up the solar system to us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA and White House officials were criticized for drafting plans that called for new propulsion systems without linking them to timelines for manned space missions.This is a completely backwards way of thinking .
New propulsion systems are vastly more valuable than any specific space mission .
Advanced propulsion systems could take the most difficult mission we might attempt today and turn it into a routine trip.We need a willingness to develop new technologies that might take more than a few years to pay off , and even try things that might not work at all .
We should tie this work to a specific goal in order to provide focus and to justify the price , but the real prize is the technology itself .
Reducing fuel mass or cost to orbit by a factor of ten would open up the solar system to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA and White House officials were criticized for drafting plans that called for new propulsion systems without linking them to timelines for manned space missions.This is a completely backwards way of thinking.
New propulsion systems are vastly more valuable than any specific space mission.
Advanced propulsion systems could take the most difficult mission we might attempt today and turn it into a routine trip.We need a willingness to develop new technologies that might take more than a few years to pay off, and even try things that might not work at all.
We should tie this work to a specific goal in order to provide focus and to justify the price, but the real prize is the technology itself.
Reducing fuel mass or cost to orbit by a factor of ten would open up the solar system to us.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275124</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267125540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>don't blame obama. the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame. obama might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.</p></div><p>It's not like Obama is cutting things across the board and that NASA takes up that much of the budget.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget</p><p>LBJ spent almost 5\% of the federal budget on NASA and that was during the Vietnam War and his Great Society programs.  A few billions dollars is not a great excuse.</p><p>And for a few more tangible benefits of human space flight besides pretty pictures: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/benefits/index.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't blame obama .
the incredible , astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people * we * elected is to blame .
obama might end up being a terrible president , but you ca n't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.It 's not like Obama is cutting things across the board and that NASA takes up that much of the budget .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA \ _BudgetLBJ spent almost 5 \ % of the federal budget on NASA and that was during the Vietnam War and his Great Society programs .
A few billions dollars is not a great excuse.And for a few more tangible benefits of human space flight besides pretty pictures : http : //spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/benefits/index.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't blame obama.
the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame.
obama might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.It's not like Obama is cutting things across the board and that NASA takes up that much of the budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_BudgetLBJ spent almost 5\% of the federal budget on NASA and that was during the Vietnam War and his Great Society programs.
A few billions dollars is not a great excuse.And for a few more tangible benefits of human space flight besides pretty pictures: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/benefits/index.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274208</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>suomynonAyletamitlU</author>
	<datestamp>1267122480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?</p></div><p>Maybe all the decent people are not masochistic enough to get involved in politics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing ? Maybe all the decent people are not masochistic enough to get involved in politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?Maybe all the decent people are not masochistic enough to get involved in politics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272948</id>
	<title>No clear plans</title>
	<author>rudojob</author>
	<datestamp>1267118040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh the irony... the senate browbeating NASA for not having a clear plan.   Perhaps NASA can handle the healthcare overhaul</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh the irony... the senate browbeating NASA for not having a clear plan .
Perhaps NASA can handle the healthcare overhaul</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh the irony... the senate browbeating NASA for not having a clear plan.
Perhaps NASA can handle the healthcare overhaul</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31311676</id>
	<title>10+ years after cold war and nasa still sputters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267375320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The international space station was supposed to save nasa from a post-cold war grave but hasn't.</p><p>Under Johnney Walker (George Bush) nasa was supposed to drink their way to moon and mars.</p><p>Guess that there just isn't enough Jim Bean to go 'round for all the engineers and accountants and managers.</p><p>That's the trouble with nasa, no brains, just accountants jerking-off in their cubicles on the goober-ment time and drawing salery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The international space station was supposed to save nasa from a post-cold war grave but has n't.Under Johnney Walker ( George Bush ) nasa was supposed to drink their way to moon and mars.Guess that there just is n't enough Jim Bean to go 'round for all the engineers and accountants and managers.That 's the trouble with nasa , no brains , just accountants jerking-off in their cubicles on the goober-ment time and drawing salery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The international space station was supposed to save nasa from a post-cold war grave but hasn't.Under Johnney Walker (George Bush) nasa was supposed to drink their way to moon and mars.Guess that there just isn't enough Jim Bean to go 'round for all the engineers and accountants and managers.That's the trouble with nasa, no brains, just accountants jerking-off in their cubicles on the goober-ment time and drawing salery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277286</id>
	<title>NASA blast Congress for lack of funding.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267090800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That about wraps it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That about wraps it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That about wraps it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274088</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267122180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot)</i></p><p>The REAL fault of Congress there was berating car companies for taking executive jets, but not berating the bankers for THEIR executive jets.</p><p><i>to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls.</i></p><p>The recalls weren't the problem, the problem was Toyota's foot-dragging on the issue. Congress' fault here was blasting Toyota for foot-dragging when Ford HID the Pinto problem that could have been fixed for ten bucks per car, as well as Ford's foot-dragging on the Crown Vic (which immolated police officers) and Firestone and Ford's finger pointing over the SUV rollover problems. Perhaps I would better point to GM since it's now partly government owned -- how about the "unsafe at any speed" (I've forgotten what model it was) or GM's exploding pickup trucks?</p><p><i>It's the politicians in the US that need fixing.</i></p><p>I'd say they needed replacing rather than fixing. How to go about that is the hard part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From berating car company executives for flying in their jets ( no , they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot ) The REAL fault of Congress there was berating car companies for taking executive jets , but not berating the bankers for THEIR executive jets.to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil ( yeah , US manufacturers NEVER had recalls.The recalls were n't the problem , the problem was Toyota 's foot-dragging on the issue .
Congress ' fault here was blasting Toyota for foot-dragging when Ford HID the Pinto problem that could have been fixed for ten bucks per car , as well as Ford 's foot-dragging on the Crown Vic ( which immolated police officers ) and Firestone and Ford 's finger pointing over the SUV rollover problems .
Perhaps I would better point to GM since it 's now partly government owned -- how about the " unsafe at any speed " ( I 've forgotten what model it was ) or GM 's exploding pickup trucks ? It 's the politicians in the US that need fixing.I 'd say they needed replacing rather than fixing .
How to go about that is the hard part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot)The REAL fault of Congress there was berating car companies for taking executive jets, but not berating the bankers for THEIR executive jets.to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls.The recalls weren't the problem, the problem was Toyota's foot-dragging on the issue.
Congress' fault here was blasting Toyota for foot-dragging when Ford HID the Pinto problem that could have been fixed for ten bucks per car, as well as Ford's foot-dragging on the Crown Vic (which immolated police officers) and Firestone and Ford's finger pointing over the SUV rollover problems.
Perhaps I would better point to GM since it's now partly government owned -- how about the "unsafe at any speed" (I've forgotten what model it was) or GM's exploding pickup trucks?It's the politicians in the US that need fixing.I'd say they needed replacing rather than fixing.
How to go about that is the hard part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272828</id>
	<title>NASA Blasts Senators For Lacking Funding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267117500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fixed. Dumbshits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed .
Dumbshits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed.
Dumbshits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31281874</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1267123800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto</p></div></blockquote><p>One doesn't stop and the other doesn't stop exploding. Especially steer clear of a Toyota <i>behind</i> a Pinto.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford PintoOne does n't stop and the other does n't stop exploding .
Especially steer clear of a Toyota behind a Pinto .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford PintoOne doesn't stop and the other doesn't stop exploding.
Especially steer clear of a Toyota behind a Pinto.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31283246</id>
	<title>This is nothing new</title>
	<author>rfc1394</author>
	<datestamp>1267185000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years ago NASA wanted to develop some form of on-line community similar to Second Life.  So it sent out requests for ideas. I even submitted a few, figuring that if they did this right it could provide a serious environment for education and entertainment.  NASA eventually announced a public hearing where potential developers could go.  Well, what basically happened was, NASA had no funding for this, the proponents were expected to develop this at their own expense.</p><p>

I saw the point here: you'd basically have to set up something which provided an environment for developing content, you'd have to figure out how to monetize your system to cover its costs.  Consider that, since, unlike games like World of Warcraft, you can get into the existing virtual worlds for free, and NASA wanted at least a minimum area you could enter for free, a monetization through admission (game kit sales charges, or monthly fees) were basically out. You'd either have to sell space or find some way to sell add-ons, and very likely NASA would have a veto on what content or user actions were there.  All you'd get for your trouble was the privilege of using NASA's "meatball" logo as part of your project.  As this wasn't much of an incentive - anyone who wanted to be in the Virtual World business was already there - it died on the vine. </p><p>I seriously believe a few thousand dollars could have allowed NASA to create a programmable on-line virtual-reality based system which could have started small and been built up as those who used it figured out what to do with it, sort of the way Wikipedia bloomed from its small and humble beginnings.  But they wanted an unrealistic system without a means to finance it.  And their unrealistic expectations got them exactly what could be expected.  A nothing that went nowhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago NASA wanted to develop some form of on-line community similar to Second Life .
So it sent out requests for ideas .
I even submitted a few , figuring that if they did this right it could provide a serious environment for education and entertainment .
NASA eventually announced a public hearing where potential developers could go .
Well , what basically happened was , NASA had no funding for this , the proponents were expected to develop this at their own expense .
I saw the point here : you 'd basically have to set up something which provided an environment for developing content , you 'd have to figure out how to monetize your system to cover its costs .
Consider that , since , unlike games like World of Warcraft , you can get into the existing virtual worlds for free , and NASA wanted at least a minimum area you could enter for free , a monetization through admission ( game kit sales charges , or monthly fees ) were basically out .
You 'd either have to sell space or find some way to sell add-ons , and very likely NASA would have a veto on what content or user actions were there .
All you 'd get for your trouble was the privilege of using NASA 's " meatball " logo as part of your project .
As this was n't much of an incentive - anyone who wanted to be in the Virtual World business was already there - it died on the vine .
I seriously believe a few thousand dollars could have allowed NASA to create a programmable on-line virtual-reality based system which could have started small and been built up as those who used it figured out what to do with it , sort of the way Wikipedia bloomed from its small and humble beginnings .
But they wanted an unrealistic system without a means to finance it .
And their unrealistic expectations got them exactly what could be expected .
A nothing that went nowhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago NASA wanted to develop some form of on-line community similar to Second Life.
So it sent out requests for ideas.
I even submitted a few, figuring that if they did this right it could provide a serious environment for education and entertainment.
NASA eventually announced a public hearing where potential developers could go.
Well, what basically happened was, NASA had no funding for this, the proponents were expected to develop this at their own expense.
I saw the point here: you'd basically have to set up something which provided an environment for developing content, you'd have to figure out how to monetize your system to cover its costs.
Consider that, since, unlike games like World of Warcraft, you can get into the existing virtual worlds for free, and NASA wanted at least a minimum area you could enter for free, a monetization through admission (game kit sales charges, or monthly fees) were basically out.
You'd either have to sell space or find some way to sell add-ons, and very likely NASA would have a veto on what content or user actions were there.
All you'd get for your trouble was the privilege of using NASA's "meatball" logo as part of your project.
As this wasn't much of an incentive - anyone who wanted to be in the Virtual World business was already there - it died on the vine.
I seriously believe a few thousand dollars could have allowed NASA to create a programmable on-line virtual-reality based system which could have started small and been built up as those who used it figured out what to do with it, sort of the way Wikipedia bloomed from its small and humble beginnings.
But they wanted an unrealistic system without a means to finance it.
And their unrealistic expectations got them exactly what could be expected.
A nothing that went nowhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275902</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267128360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot),</p></div></blockquote><p>Private jets have very high operating costs.  Rotting is cheaper.</p><blockquote><div><p>to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls.   I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto),</p></div></blockquote><p>You're seeing it right now.  The comparison couldn't be more apt.  Minor issue, vastly over-hyped by competitors, and then the media jumps on board.  Scandal that a car company cares about profit more than human life.  And all for a relatively minor problem from which a relatively minuscule number of people were injured.</p><blockquote><div><p>It's the politicians in the US that need fixing. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus. There's a pattern here. "Voting" isn't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago, victim to the two party system set up by special interests.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Republicans fell from power precisely because of the above.  Secondly, the US was NEVER a direct democracy...  Sometimes politicians vote against the majority, and this is necessary, as the majority is often wrong.  That's why we have a Representative Republic.  None of us is as stupid as all of us...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From berating car company executives for flying in their jets ( no , they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot ) ,Private jets have very high operating costs .
Rotting is cheaper.to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil ( yeah , US manufacturers NEVER had recalls .
I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto ) ,You 're seeing it right now .
The comparison could n't be more apt .
Minor issue , vastly over-hyped by competitors , and then the media jumps on board .
Scandal that a car company cares about profit more than human life .
And all for a relatively minor problem from which a relatively minuscule number of people were injured.It 's the politicians in the US that need fixing .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to more war .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the bailouts .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the stimulus .
There 's a pattern here .
" Voting " is n't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago , victim to the two party system set up by special interests.The Republicans fell from power precisely because of the above .
Secondly , the US was NEVER a direct democracy... Sometimes politicians vote against the majority , and this is necessary , as the majority is often wrong .
That 's why we have a Representative Republic .
None of us is as stupid as all of us.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot),Private jets have very high operating costs.
Rotting is cheaper.to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls.
I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto),You're seeing it right now.
The comparison couldn't be more apt.
Minor issue, vastly over-hyped by competitors, and then the media jumps on board.
Scandal that a car company cares about profit more than human life.
And all for a relatively minor problem from which a relatively minuscule number of people were injured.It's the politicians in the US that need fixing.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus.
There's a pattern here.
"Voting" isn't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago, victim to the two party system set up by special interests.The Republicans fell from power precisely because of the above.
Secondly, the US was NEVER a direct democracy...  Sometimes politicians vote against the majority, and this is necessary, as the majority is often wrong.
That's why we have a Representative Republic.
None of us is as stupid as all of us...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274256</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1267122660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking the same thing.  The original Space Shuttle wasn't supposed to be the kludge it became. SRBs weren't even part of the original design.  The Apollo program was killed early to focus on Near Earth Orbit projects, which was killed even as Skylab was launched.

How can they have a vision for the future if every vision they've ever had has been scaled back, butchered in mid-design, or killed mid-project.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing .
The original Space Shuttle was n't supposed to be the kludge it became .
SRBs were n't even part of the original design .
The Apollo program was killed early to focus on Near Earth Orbit projects , which was killed even as Skylab was launched .
How can they have a vision for the future if every vision they 've ever had has been scaled back , butchered in mid-design , or killed mid-project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing.
The original Space Shuttle wasn't supposed to be the kludge it became.
SRBs weren't even part of the original design.
The Apollo program was killed early to focus on Near Earth Orbit projects, which was killed even as Skylab was launched.
How can they have a vision for the future if every vision they've ever had has been scaled back, butchered in mid-design, or killed mid-project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862</id>
	<title>Plans but no strategy</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1267117620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its probably a more well thought out overall plan he had in mind. While the many successes achieved by groups like NASA are well worth celebrating, I share the dismay no doubt many people hold at recent and ongoing setbacks in the development of the future goals of space exploration. The central issuing facing Space groups, as I see it, is a lack of a single unified plan, a step by step global strategy to move mankind into space which takes account of commercial, economic, resource based and political realities, which is achievable within a reasonable timeframe. The piecemeal method of pushing progress forward is effective only insofar as there is public and governmental momentum in the area - something which has been falling off of late. In the face of such an environment, piecemeal efforts might not be as effective as otherwise.<br> <br>

What I would propose for the future, therefore, is the formulation of such a strategy, clearly laid out and with recognisable milestones, goals, estimated returns on investment, and timelines. I think that the provision of such a structure will remove the dependence space exploration has on fragmented projects and provide a key benefit that has so far been absent - direction, in cooperation with other national space agencies.<br> <br>

In addition to the points mentioned above, an official strategy group could talk to politicians and businesspeople in a language they can understand. One of the first goals after the strategy would be agreed upon would be to confirm its legitimacy at the international level, in the USA, EU, UN and other international forums. The next step would be to get an international fund set up in order to secure a set percentage of GDP of each nation (possibly only developed nations) to be put towards space exploration. Even if one thosandth of national GDP was set aside by each nation, that would come to some $60 billion annually, or several times the budget of the combined existing space agencies.<br> <br>

This would be similar to foreign aid funds, although probably of a lesser amount, and would instantly multiply the budget available to space exploration groups by a fairly serious amount. Legislation would also be needed in order to provide international tax incentives for corporations and governments to focus their efforts on areas that would be conducive to space exploration and resource realisation, even tangentially. Legislation for the open sharing of relevant information within existing intellectual property laws would also be needed to further coopeation between private and public organisations, plus and this a vital part of the effort, the standardisation of equipment and systems to make them interchangeable.<br> <br>

A few further points:<br>
Why would my nation wish to contribute to this effort?<br>
In addition to the well known issues of potentially life threatening hazards on earth, whether environmental, asteroid strikes, or contagion, and it is not a question of if but when they will recur - they have already happened many times previously - there is the question of the vast resources available in space. By contributing on an annual basis according to its means, each nation and its citizens has a legitimate claim on the unfathomable amount of raw material which can be accessed by a properly run space programme.<br> <br>

What would this Global Space Initiative involve?<br>
This group and strategy would have several purposes.<br>
1. To create a master strategy for the human colonisation of space, taking into account the many different social and economic factors that would be involved.<br> <br>

2. To identify key early technologies that would be needed to realise the strategy, provide funding to create these technologies, and pressure governments to provide legislative and taxation benefits to groups developing them. There are a wide array of scientific and engineering feats that must be overcome before the reality of space exploration is commonly available. These would include things like semi autonomous robotics in order to take advantage of</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its probably a more well thought out overall plan he had in mind .
While the many successes achieved by groups like NASA are well worth celebrating , I share the dismay no doubt many people hold at recent and ongoing setbacks in the development of the future goals of space exploration .
The central issuing facing Space groups , as I see it , is a lack of a single unified plan , a step by step global strategy to move mankind into space which takes account of commercial , economic , resource based and political realities , which is achievable within a reasonable timeframe .
The piecemeal method of pushing progress forward is effective only insofar as there is public and governmental momentum in the area - something which has been falling off of late .
In the face of such an environment , piecemeal efforts might not be as effective as otherwise .
What I would propose for the future , therefore , is the formulation of such a strategy , clearly laid out and with recognisable milestones , goals , estimated returns on investment , and timelines .
I think that the provision of such a structure will remove the dependence space exploration has on fragmented projects and provide a key benefit that has so far been absent - direction , in cooperation with other national space agencies .
In addition to the points mentioned above , an official strategy group could talk to politicians and businesspeople in a language they can understand .
One of the first goals after the strategy would be agreed upon would be to confirm its legitimacy at the international level , in the USA , EU , UN and other international forums .
The next step would be to get an international fund set up in order to secure a set percentage of GDP of each nation ( possibly only developed nations ) to be put towards space exploration .
Even if one thosandth of national GDP was set aside by each nation , that would come to some $ 60 billion annually , or several times the budget of the combined existing space agencies .
This would be similar to foreign aid funds , although probably of a lesser amount , and would instantly multiply the budget available to space exploration groups by a fairly serious amount .
Legislation would also be needed in order to provide international tax incentives for corporations and governments to focus their efforts on areas that would be conducive to space exploration and resource realisation , even tangentially .
Legislation for the open sharing of relevant information within existing intellectual property laws would also be needed to further coopeation between private and public organisations , plus and this a vital part of the effort , the standardisation of equipment and systems to make them interchangeable .
A few further points : Why would my nation wish to contribute to this effort ?
In addition to the well known issues of potentially life threatening hazards on earth , whether environmental , asteroid strikes , or contagion , and it is not a question of if but when they will recur - they have already happened many times previously - there is the question of the vast resources available in space .
By contributing on an annual basis according to its means , each nation and its citizens has a legitimate claim on the unfathomable amount of raw material which can be accessed by a properly run space programme .
What would this Global Space Initiative involve ?
This group and strategy would have several purposes .
1. To create a master strategy for the human colonisation of space , taking into account the many different social and economic factors that would be involved .
2. To identify key early technologies that would be needed to realise the strategy , provide funding to create these technologies , and pressure governments to provide legislative and taxation benefits to groups developing them .
There are a wide array of scientific and engineering feats that must be overcome before the reality of space exploration is commonly available .
These would include things like semi autonomous robotics in order to take advantage of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its probably a more well thought out overall plan he had in mind.
While the many successes achieved by groups like NASA are well worth celebrating, I share the dismay no doubt many people hold at recent and ongoing setbacks in the development of the future goals of space exploration.
The central issuing facing Space groups, as I see it, is a lack of a single unified plan, a step by step global strategy to move mankind into space which takes account of commercial, economic, resource based and political realities, which is achievable within a reasonable timeframe.
The piecemeal method of pushing progress forward is effective only insofar as there is public and governmental momentum in the area - something which has been falling off of late.
In the face of such an environment, piecemeal efforts might not be as effective as otherwise.
What I would propose for the future, therefore, is the formulation of such a strategy, clearly laid out and with recognisable milestones, goals, estimated returns on investment, and timelines.
I think that the provision of such a structure will remove the dependence space exploration has on fragmented projects and provide a key benefit that has so far been absent - direction, in cooperation with other national space agencies.
In addition to the points mentioned above, an official strategy group could talk to politicians and businesspeople in a language they can understand.
One of the first goals after the strategy would be agreed upon would be to confirm its legitimacy at the international level, in the USA, EU, UN and other international forums.
The next step would be to get an international fund set up in order to secure a set percentage of GDP of each nation (possibly only developed nations) to be put towards space exploration.
Even if one thosandth of national GDP was set aside by each nation, that would come to some $60 billion annually, or several times the budget of the combined existing space agencies.
This would be similar to foreign aid funds, although probably of a lesser amount, and would instantly multiply the budget available to space exploration groups by a fairly serious amount.
Legislation would also be needed in order to provide international tax incentives for corporations and governments to focus their efforts on areas that would be conducive to space exploration and resource realisation, even tangentially.
Legislation for the open sharing of relevant information within existing intellectual property laws would also be needed to further coopeation between private and public organisations, plus and this a vital part of the effort, the standardisation of equipment and systems to make them interchangeable.
A few further points:
Why would my nation wish to contribute to this effort?
In addition to the well known issues of potentially life threatening hazards on earth, whether environmental, asteroid strikes, or contagion, and it is not a question of if but when they will recur - they have already happened many times previously - there is the question of the vast resources available in space.
By contributing on an annual basis according to its means, each nation and its citizens has a legitimate claim on the unfathomable amount of raw material which can be accessed by a properly run space programme.
What would this Global Space Initiative involve?
This group and strategy would have several purposes.
1. To create a master strategy for the human colonisation of space, taking into account the many different social and economic factors that would be involved.
2. To identify key early technologies that would be needed to realise the strategy, provide funding to create these technologies, and pressure governments to provide legislative and taxation benefits to groups developing them.
There are a wide array of scientific and engineering feats that must be overcome before the reality of space exploration is commonly available.
These would include things like semi autonomous robotics in order to take advantage of</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31295416</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267303920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>don't blame obama. the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame. obama might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.</p><p>at least he's realistic, unlike bush jr. that made wild claims about sending a man to mars in a completely unrealistic time frame unless of course you were willing to throw money at it like the future of the human race depended upon its success. manned spaceflight is really a silly idea. it serves no scientific purpose at this point in our development and costs hundreds of times more than robotic spaceflight.</p></div><p>Yea obama can give his buddies in the bank how many trillions of dollars, but then come back and tell the space industries to go pound sand. Well we live off of the technologies that were started back from the 60&rsquo;s space programs. Well I guess we are going to become a third world nation after all.</p><p>When are we going to get some real leadership, not in this administration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't blame obama .
the incredible , astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people * we * elected is to blame .
obama might end up being a terrible president , but you ca n't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.at least he 's realistic , unlike bush jr. that made wild claims about sending a man to mars in a completely unrealistic time frame unless of course you were willing to throw money at it like the future of the human race depended upon its success .
manned spaceflight is really a silly idea .
it serves no scientific purpose at this point in our development and costs hundreds of times more than robotic spaceflight.Yea obama can give his buddies in the bank how many trillions of dollars , but then come back and tell the space industries to go pound sand .
Well we live off of the technologies that were started back from the 60    s space programs .
Well I guess we are going to become a third world nation after all.When are we going to get some real leadership , not in this administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't blame obama.
the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame.
obama might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.at least he's realistic, unlike bush jr. that made wild claims about sending a man to mars in a completely unrealistic time frame unless of course you were willing to throw money at it like the future of the human race depended upon its success.
manned spaceflight is really a silly idea.
it serves no scientific purpose at this point in our development and costs hundreds of times more than robotic spaceflight.Yea obama can give his buddies in the bank how many trillions of dollars, but then come back and tell the space industries to go pound sand.
Well we live off of the technologies that were started back from the 60’s space programs.
Well I guess we are going to become a third world nation after all.When are we going to get some real leadership, not in this administration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273090</id>
	<title>Senator Nelson is mistaken</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1267118640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We should develop the technology in pursuit of a goal, not the other way around," said senator Bill Nelson of Florida.<br> <br>
We adapted rocketry from military applications originally so the senator does not have his technology development path quite right.  Working on solar system-scale propulsion does have an implicit goal of extending exploration beyond LEO but it is not necessary to name the first asteroid target to further the work since the problem is sufficiently generic.  It is my experience that senators like to turn federal agencies into conduits of money for their states.  With NASA simply becoming a purchaser of launch capability, the states will have to become more competitive with worldwide space commerce.  Good for taxpayers but bad for pork.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We should develop the technology in pursuit of a goal , not the other way around , " said senator Bill Nelson of Florida .
We adapted rocketry from military applications originally so the senator does not have his technology development path quite right .
Working on solar system-scale propulsion does have an implicit goal of extending exploration beyond LEO but it is not necessary to name the first asteroid target to further the work since the problem is sufficiently generic .
It is my experience that senators like to turn federal agencies into conduits of money for their states .
With NASA simply becoming a purchaser of launch capability , the states will have to become more competitive with worldwide space commerce .
Good for taxpayers but bad for pork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We should develop the technology in pursuit of a goal, not the other way around," said senator Bill Nelson of Florida.
We adapted rocketry from military applications originally so the senator does not have his technology development path quite right.
Working on solar system-scale propulsion does have an implicit goal of extending exploration beyond LEO but it is not necessary to name the first asteroid target to further the work since the problem is sufficiently generic.
It is my experience that senators like to turn federal agencies into conduits of money for their states.
With NASA simply becoming a purchaser of launch capability, the states will have to become more competitive with worldwide space commerce.
Good for taxpayers but bad for pork.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273212</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1267119360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?</p></div></blockquote><p>

That's an oxymoron.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing ?
That 's an oxymoron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?
That's an oxymoron.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273080</id>
	<title>This is Congress' way of saying:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's 10 cents, kid, don't spend it all in one place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's 10 cents , kid , do n't spend it all in one place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's 10 cents, kid, don't spend it all in one place!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276838</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1267089060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, since you brought it up.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_debt\_by\_U.S.\_presidential\_terms" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_debt\_by\_U.S.\_presidential\_terms</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>under bush #1, national debt grew by ~12\% (in one term!)<br>under bush #2, national debt grew by ~12\%<br>under clinton, national debt was *reduced* by ~7\%</p><p>next time keep your mouth shut. that will do more to further your cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , since you brought it up.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National \ _debt \ _by \ _U.S. \ _presidential \ _terms [ wikipedia.org ] under bush # 1 , national debt grew by ~ 12 \ % ( in one term !
) under bush # 2 , national debt grew by ~ 12 \ % under clinton , national debt was * reduced * by ~ 7 \ % next time keep your mouth shut .
that will do more to further your cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, since you brought it up.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_debt\_by\_U.S.\_presidential\_terms [wikipedia.org]under bush #1, national debt grew by ~12\% (in one term!
)under bush #2, national debt grew by ~12\%under clinton, national debt was *reduced* by ~7\%next time keep your mouth shut.
that will do more to further your cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31278330</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's we, kemosabe?</p><p>Sorry, but not a single person I've ever voted for is in national office.  Or state, for that matter.  And I vote every year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's we , kemosabe ? Sorry , but not a single person I 've ever voted for is in national office .
Or state , for that matter .
And I vote every year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's we, kemosabe?Sorry, but not a single person I've ever voted for is in national office.
Or state, for that matter.
And I vote every year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1267120740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>don't blame obama. the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame. obama might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.</p><p>at least he's realistic, unlike bush jr. that made wild claims about sending a man to mars in a completely unrealistic time frame unless of course you were willing to throw money at it like the future of the human race depended upon its success. manned spaceflight is really a silly idea. it serves no scientific purpose at this point in our development and costs hundreds of times more than robotic spaceflight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't blame obama .
the incredible , astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people * we * elected is to blame .
obama might end up being a terrible president , but you ca n't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.at least he 's realistic , unlike bush jr. that made wild claims about sending a man to mars in a completely unrealistic time frame unless of course you were willing to throw money at it like the future of the human race depended upon its success .
manned spaceflight is really a silly idea .
it serves no scientific purpose at this point in our development and costs hundreds of times more than robotic spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't blame obama.
the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame.
obama might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.at least he's realistic, unlike bush jr. that made wild claims about sending a man to mars in a completely unrealistic time frame unless of course you were willing to throw money at it like the future of the human race depended upon its success.
manned spaceflight is really a silly idea.
it serves no scientific purpose at this point in our development and costs hundreds of times more than robotic spaceflight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273188</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>m0s3m8n</author>
	<datestamp>1267119180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a-f'ing-men brother.  Now the most far reaching plans can only be 4 years as you now the next administration will screw with what has already been decided.  At least Kennedy proposed something that we stuck to for a while.  Even then the program was cut short.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a-f'ing-men brother .
Now the most far reaching plans can only be 4 years as you now the next administration will screw with what has already been decided .
At least Kennedy proposed something that we stuck to for a while .
Even then the program was cut short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a-f'ing-men brother.
Now the most far reaching plans can only be 4 years as you now the next administration will screw with what has already been decided.
At least Kennedy proposed something that we stuck to for a while.
Even then the program was cut short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277112</id>
	<title>Asteroid mining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267090080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really think we ought to look into constructing robotic and remote controlled means of hooking an asteroid with the aim of creating von Neumann machines, or self-reproducing robots.  I think sending people to Mars is still too dangerous with regard to long term exposure to cosmic radiation, and we have done insufficient research into how to cope with it.  The ability to construct machines in space would be a great goal to have, and robots would be a way of starting that project off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think we ought to look into constructing robotic and remote controlled means of hooking an asteroid with the aim of creating von Neumann machines , or self-reproducing robots .
I think sending people to Mars is still too dangerous with regard to long term exposure to cosmic radiation , and we have done insufficient research into how to cope with it .
The ability to construct machines in space would be a great goal to have , and robots would be a way of starting that project off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think we ought to look into constructing robotic and remote controlled means of hooking an asteroid with the aim of creating von Neumann machines, or self-reproducing robots.
I think sending people to Mars is still too dangerous with regard to long term exposure to cosmic radiation, and we have done insufficient research into how to cope with it.
The ability to construct machines in space would be a great goal to have, and robots would be a way of starting that project off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272794</id>
	<title>Terrible article</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1267117380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY&amp;feature=channel" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY&amp;feature=channel</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Watch the Senate Hearing yourself, a lot more interesting stuff happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = esCGYkVhhnY&amp;feature = channel [ youtube.com ] Watch the Senate Hearing yourself , a lot more interesting stuff happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY&amp;feature=channel [youtube.com]Watch the Senate Hearing yourself, a lot more interesting stuff happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31283296</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the voters</title>
	<author>rfc1394</author>
	<datestamp>1267185600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoever started this thread misspelled "voters".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<p><div class="quote"><p>A <i>politician</i> cannot get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting (re-)elected over achieving meaningful progress...  But we put them there... if they weren't drunken whoring bastards (never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just don't look like it because they have an army of PR staff).</p></div><p>Your quote reminds me of the story of the late Charlie Wilson, who, in essence, was a "drunken whoring bastard" but figured out how to get the funds - plus matching funds from other countries - to allow the Afghans to have the means to force the Soviets out of their country,  To mis-quote from <i>Schlock Mercenary</i>, "Charlie Wilson was a drunken whoring bastard, but he was <i>our</i> drunken whoring bastard!"  And despite all his faults, he won the war, and turned Afganistan into the Russians' Vietnam.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever started this thread misspelled " voters " .
: ) A politician can not get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting ( re- ) elected over achieving meaningful progress... But we put them there... if they were n't drunken whoring bastards ( never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just do n't look like it because they have an army of PR staff ) .Your quote reminds me of the story of the late Charlie Wilson , who , in essence , was a " drunken whoring bastard " but figured out how to get the funds - plus matching funds from other countries - to allow the Afghans to have the means to force the Soviets out of their country , To mis-quote from Schlock Mercenary , " Charlie Wilson was a drunken whoring bastard , but he was our drunken whoring bastard !
" And despite all his faults , he won the war , and turned Afganistan into the Russians ' Vietnam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever started this thread misspelled "voters".
:)A politician cannot get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting (re-)elected over achieving meaningful progress...  But we put them there... if they weren't drunken whoring bastards (never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just don't look like it because they have an army of PR staff).Your quote reminds me of the story of the late Charlie Wilson, who, in essence, was a "drunken whoring bastard" but figured out how to get the funds - plus matching funds from other countries - to allow the Afghans to have the means to force the Soviets out of their country,  To mis-quote from Schlock Mercenary, "Charlie Wilson was a drunken whoring bastard, but he was our drunken whoring bastard!
"  And despite all his faults, he won the war, and turned Afganistan into the Russians' Vietnam.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272784</id>
	<title>No bucks no Buck Rogers</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1267117320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuff said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuff said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuff said</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273168</id>
	<title>Cutting pork *is* leading</title>
	<author>cduffy</author>
	<datestamp>1267119060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, it's leading to a place you happen to disagree with going to -- but going up against all the congresscritters getting jobs (and thus votes) off the Constellation program is unquestionably a gutsy move.</p><p>Moreover, I think it's the right one. Getting private investment into the business of shuttling things in and out of orbit and freeing up NASA's resources for "leaner, meaner" scientific work is exactly the right place to be going. Look at what kind of ROI we've gotten on the rovers; if NASA is going to be doing science, let them <i>do science</i> rather than being forever in the overpriced transport business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it 's leading to a place you happen to disagree with going to -- but going up against all the congresscritters getting jobs ( and thus votes ) off the Constellation program is unquestionably a gutsy move.Moreover , I think it 's the right one .
Getting private investment into the business of shuttling things in and out of orbit and freeing up NASA 's resources for " leaner , meaner " scientific work is exactly the right place to be going .
Look at what kind of ROI we 've gotten on the rovers ; if NASA is going to be doing science , let them do science rather than being forever in the overpriced transport business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it's leading to a place you happen to disagree with going to -- but going up against all the congresscritters getting jobs (and thus votes) off the Constellation program is unquestionably a gutsy move.Moreover, I think it's the right one.
Getting private investment into the business of shuttling things in and out of orbit and freeing up NASA's resources for "leaner, meaner" scientific work is exactly the right place to be going.
Look at what kind of ROI we've gotten on the rovers; if NASA is going to be doing science, let them do science rather than being forever in the overpriced transport business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273876</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267121400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director, for example</i></p><p>It didn't kill FEMA when Bush appointed "Good Job Brownie" to head it, which makes me hopeful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director , for exampleIt did n't kill FEMA when Bush appointed " Good Job Brownie " to head it , which makes me hopeful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director, for exampleIt didn't kill FEMA when Bush appointed "Good Job Brownie" to head it, which makes me hopeful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275842</id>
	<title>Exaggerate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267128120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  Blast?  Did the senate blow up a NASA building?</p><p>I hoped<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. was better than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Blast ? Did the senate blow up a NASA building ? I hoped / .
was better than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Blast?  Did the senate blow up a NASA building?I hoped /.
was better than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275200</id>
	<title>Leave space to discovery channel and the movies</title>
	<author>rhldr</author>
	<datestamp>1267125780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SciFi and documentary producers seem to have a more concrete vision for space than does NASA.  And they don't have to build reality, they only need to create the illusion for the screen.  Instead of focusing on space exploration, why not divert their \_talented\_ engineering minds to more earthbound issues such as more efficient and cleaner energy sources, solving hunger and waste disposal.... the list goes on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SciFi and documentary producers seem to have a more concrete vision for space than does NASA .
And they do n't have to build reality , they only need to create the illusion for the screen .
Instead of focusing on space exploration , why not divert their \ _talented \ _ engineering minds to more earthbound issues such as more efficient and cleaner energy sources , solving hunger and waste disposal.... the list goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SciFi and documentary producers seem to have a more concrete vision for space than does NASA.
And they don't have to build reality, they only need to create the illusion for the screen.
Instead of focusing on space exploration, why not divert their \_talented\_ engineering minds to more earthbound issues such as more efficient and cleaner energy sources, solving hunger and waste disposal.... the list goes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277582</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1267092120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>specific statute based legality is in question on what you call the spending freeze</p><p><a href="http://larouchepac.com/node/13675" title="larouchepac.com">http://larouchepac.com/node/13675</a> [larouchepac.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>specific statute based legality is in question on what you call the spending freezehttp : //larouchepac.com/node/13675 [ larouchepac.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>specific statute based legality is in question on what you call the spending freezehttp://larouchepac.com/node/13675 [larouchepac.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274746</id>
	<title>Re:Technology first</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1267124220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New propulsion systems are vastly more valuable than any specific space mission.</p></div><p>Not if the propulsion system isn't used. My view is that unmanned space exploration has already devolved into technology development. Every mission is one-off (meaning either one or two probes are constructed using that design). But NASA has peculiar blind spots when it comes to choosing what technologies to deploy for missions. For example, aerocapture is an unproven technology and hence avoided in space probe strategy. Heavy lift vehicles are also unproven technology (at least for space probes), but NASA researchers will publish papers on how to use them for sexy projects. The problem is that technologies that detract from NASA ambitions (like advanced propulsion and aerocapture detracts from the need to have HLV) are ignored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New propulsion systems are vastly more valuable than any specific space mission.Not if the propulsion system is n't used .
My view is that unmanned space exploration has already devolved into technology development .
Every mission is one-off ( meaning either one or two probes are constructed using that design ) .
But NASA has peculiar blind spots when it comes to choosing what technologies to deploy for missions .
For example , aerocapture is an unproven technology and hence avoided in space probe strategy .
Heavy lift vehicles are also unproven technology ( at least for space probes ) , but NASA researchers will publish papers on how to use them for sexy projects .
The problem is that technologies that detract from NASA ambitions ( like advanced propulsion and aerocapture detracts from the need to have HLV ) are ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New propulsion systems are vastly more valuable than any specific space mission.Not if the propulsion system isn't used.
My view is that unmanned space exploration has already devolved into technology development.
Every mission is one-off (meaning either one or two probes are constructed using that design).
But NASA has peculiar blind spots when it comes to choosing what technologies to deploy for missions.
For example, aerocapture is an unproven technology and hence avoided in space probe strategy.
Heavy lift vehicles are also unproven technology (at least for space probes), but NASA researchers will publish papers on how to use them for sexy projects.
The problem is that technologies that detract from NASA ambitions (like advanced propulsion and aerocapture detracts from the need to have HLV) are ignored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273134</id>
	<title>They should really be working on the Death Star...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You have paid the price for your lack of vision."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You have paid the price for your lack of vision .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You have paid the price for your lack of vision.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274806</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267124340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are? Cuz I see the same assholes get re-elected on a regular basis. To me, that's the ultimate vote of confidence. Unless you mean "Some citizens blast the Senate for lacking vision", in which case I have to agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are ?
Cuz I see the same assholes get re-elected on a regular basis .
To me , that 's the ultimate vote of confidence .
Unless you mean " Some citizens blast the Senate for lacking vision " , in which case I have to agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are?
Cuz I see the same assholes get re-elected on a regular basis.
To me, that's the ultimate vote of confidence.
Unless you mean "Some citizens blast the Senate for lacking vision", in which case I have to agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272918</id>
	<title>More propaganda!</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1267117860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess those congresscritters missed this recent, extremely detailed NASA announcement:</p><p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/nasa\_scientists\_plan\_to\_approach" title="theonion.com">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/nasa\_scientists\_plan\_to\_approach</a> [theonion.com]</p><p>If this isn't clear vision, I don't know what is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess those congresscritters missed this recent , extremely detailed NASA announcement : http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/nasa \ _scientists \ _plan \ _to \ _approach [ theonion.com ] If this is n't clear vision , I do n't know what is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess those congresscritters missed this recent, extremely detailed NASA announcement:http://www.theonion.com/content/video/nasa\_scientists\_plan\_to\_approach [theonion.com]If this isn't clear vision, I don't know what is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272990</id>
	<title>Re:Commercialisation</title>
	<author>yog</author>
	<datestamp>1267118160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Apollo program cost about $145 billion in 2008 dollars (Wikipedia), and quite a lot more if you factor in the orbital programs (Mercury, Gemini) which led up to Apollo.  That's not exactly peanuts.  They only get about $18 billion a year right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apollo program cost about $ 145 billion in 2008 dollars ( Wikipedia ) , and quite a lot more if you factor in the orbital programs ( Mercury , Gemini ) which led up to Apollo .
That 's not exactly peanuts .
They only get about $ 18 billion a year right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apollo program cost about $145 billion in 2008 dollars (Wikipedia), and quite a lot more if you factor in the orbital programs (Mercury, Gemini) which led up to Apollo.
That's not exactly peanuts.
They only get about $18 billion a year right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31311950</id>
	<title>Re:NASA si long term, senate is six years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clear Lake is a TOWN. Lots of jobs (based on capitalism) for people, Education (University of Houston), Real Estate, Service (food/shopping), Banking, Construction, Tourism, Medicine (Hospitals/Research), Fishing.  All that will go away when NASA jobs go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clear Lake is a TOWN .
Lots of jobs ( based on capitalism ) for people , Education ( University of Houston ) , Real Estate , Service ( food/shopping ) , Banking , Construction , Tourism , Medicine ( Hospitals/Research ) , Fishing .
All that will go away when NASA jobs go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clear Lake is a TOWN.
Lots of jobs (based on capitalism) for people, Education (University of Houston), Real Estate, Service (food/shopping), Banking, Construction, Tourism, Medicine (Hospitals/Research), Fishing.
All that will go away when NASA jobs go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277158</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267090260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto</p></div><p>OT, I know...but what about the Toyota truck frames that break in half in less than 100,000 miles.  This was an issue from the early '80s until the mid 2000s and they didn't do a thing about it.  It hardly got any press either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford PintoOT , I know...but what about the Toyota truck frames that break in half in less than 100,000 miles .
This was an issue from the early '80s until the mid 2000s and they did n't do a thing about it .
It hardly got any press either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford PintoOT, I know...but what about the Toyota truck frames that break in half in less than 100,000 miles.
This was an issue from the early '80s until the mid 2000s and they didn't do a thing about it.
It hardly got any press either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274160</id>
	<title>NASA had vision in 1980 (AASM)...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1267122420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"<br><a href="http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/" title="islandone.org">http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/</a> [islandone.org]<br>"""<br>What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press. What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable. Please enjoy.<br>"""</p><p>Some individuals are still working towards that vision; one example:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.openvirgle.net/" title="openvirgle.net">http://www.openvirgle.net/</a> [openvirgle.net]</p><p>Ultimately, we will ideally end up with self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and materials from the moons or asteroids of the solar system. There is enough relatively easily accessible materials to make habitats for trillions of people, probably quadrillions of people, and their associate biospheres. After we do that, then we can get back to talking about "Peak Oil" and limits to growth.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>The ultimate resource is the human imagination:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate\_Resource/" title="juliansimon.com">http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate\_Resource/</a> [juliansimon.com]</p><p>Why not shift 90\% of the US defense budget to NASA? We're just making more enemies with most of it, anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Advanced Automation for Space Missions " http : //www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ [ islandone.org ] " " " What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study , conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars .
The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system , capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and , in the long run , exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe .
Unfortunately , the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press .
What was once concievable with 1980 's technology is now even more practical today .
Even if you 're just skimming through this document , the potential of this proposed system is undeniable .
Please enjoy .
" " " Some individuals are still working towards that vision ; one example :     http : //www.openvirgle.net/ [ openvirgle.net ] Ultimately , we will ideally end up with self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and materials from the moons or asteroids of the solar system .
There is enough relatively easily accessible materials to make habitats for trillions of people , probably quadrillions of people , and their associate biospheres .
After we do that , then we can get back to talking about " Peak Oil " and limits to growth .
: - ) The ultimate resource is the human imagination :     http : //www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate \ _Resource/ [ juliansimon.com ] Why not shift 90 \ % of the US defense budget to NASA ?
We 're just making more enemies with most of it , anyway .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ [islandone.org]"""What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars.
The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe.
Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press.
What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today.
Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable.
Please enjoy.
"""Some individuals are still working towards that vision; one example:
    http://www.openvirgle.net/ [openvirgle.net]Ultimately, we will ideally end up with self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and materials from the moons or asteroids of the solar system.
There is enough relatively easily accessible materials to make habitats for trillions of people, probably quadrillions of people, and their associate biospheres.
After we do that, then we can get back to talking about "Peak Oil" and limits to growth.
:-)The ultimate resource is the human imagination:
    http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate\_Resource/ [juliansimon.com]Why not shift 90\% of the US defense budget to NASA?
We're just making more enemies with most of it, anyway.
:-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276702</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267088400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's called pandering to their audience, or less generously bread and circuses.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>It's the politicians in the US that need fixing. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus. There's a pattern here.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, and the pattern clearly demonstrates the public is demonstrably insane.  They keep electing the same people to office and then expecting a different result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays.It 's called pandering to their audience , or less generously bread and circuses .
  It 's the politicians in the US that need fixing .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to more war .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the bailouts .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the stimulus .
There 's a pattern here.Yes , and the pattern clearly demonstrates the public is demonstrably insane .
They keep electing the same people to office and then expecting a different result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays.It's called pandering to their audience, or less generously bread and circuses.
  It's the politicians in the US that need fixing.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus.
There's a pattern here.Yes, and the pattern clearly demonstrates the public is demonstrably insane.
They keep electing the same people to office and then expecting a different result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273026</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>GhettoFabulous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Citizens blast the Senate for lacking vision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citizens blast the Senate for lacking vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citizens blast the Senate for lacking vision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282034</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>damasterwc</author>
	<datestamp>1267125720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you see the world within the system of monetarism? Why cut spending? Why do you want to make the "bond market" (aka wallstreet and london) happy? F*ck them. Nationalize the fed and issue low interest rate loans for science and physical infrastructure. What retard dreamed up the idea that we have to borrow money from financial predators on wall street to monetarize bonds into "money"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you see the world within the system of monetarism ?
Why cut spending ?
Why do you want to make the " bond market " ( aka wallstreet and london ) happy ?
F * ck them .
Nationalize the fed and issue low interest rate loans for science and physical infrastructure .
What retard dreamed up the idea that we have to borrow money from financial predators on wall street to monetarize bonds into " money " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you see the world within the system of monetarism?
Why cut spending?
Why do you want to make the "bond market" (aka wallstreet and london) happy?
F*ck them.
Nationalize the fed and issue low interest rate loans for science and physical infrastructure.
What retard dreamed up the idea that we have to borrow money from financial predators on wall street to monetarize bonds into "money"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273166</id>
	<title>People are idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do so many people think that if there isn't a NASA plan to put a couple NASA astronauts on a NASA rocket and launch them to a specific NASA-picked destination by a specific time that we've somehow abandoned human spaceflight? How short-sighted can people be? We already did that 40 years ago, and where did it get us? The huge expense caused the cancellation of any real followup missions and damaged human spaceflight aspirations to this day. We're still seeing the effects, since apparently no one in congress (or much of the public, apparently) can imagine anyone except NASA putting people into space.<br> <br>

It just pisses me off to no end. We need a space program that opens access to space for EVERYONE. Not just the few lucky NASA picked government employees. Do you want to go into space at some point? I certainly do, and constellation had zero chance of ever letting me do that. Maybe you think constellation would have opened access to space and expanded the possibilities for the rest of us, but I think you are wrong. So, so wrong. The current plan for NASA has the best chance of anything NASA has done since its creation of truly opening access to space. New technologies, reducing cost, encouraging multiple options for access to orbit. That's what NASA's goal should be and needs to be. Not a repeat of Apollo. Not another huge expense for flags, footprints, and some neat video that ends up getting 5 minutes on the evening news.

So there's my rant. Take it or leave it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do so many people think that if there is n't a NASA plan to put a couple NASA astronauts on a NASA rocket and launch them to a specific NASA-picked destination by a specific time that we 've somehow abandoned human spaceflight ?
How short-sighted can people be ?
We already did that 40 years ago , and where did it get us ?
The huge expense caused the cancellation of any real followup missions and damaged human spaceflight aspirations to this day .
We 're still seeing the effects , since apparently no one in congress ( or much of the public , apparently ) can imagine anyone except NASA putting people into space .
It just pisses me off to no end .
We need a space program that opens access to space for EVERYONE .
Not just the few lucky NASA picked government employees .
Do you want to go into space at some point ?
I certainly do , and constellation had zero chance of ever letting me do that .
Maybe you think constellation would have opened access to space and expanded the possibilities for the rest of us , but I think you are wrong .
So , so wrong .
The current plan for NASA has the best chance of anything NASA has done since its creation of truly opening access to space .
New technologies , reducing cost , encouraging multiple options for access to orbit .
That 's what NASA 's goal should be and needs to be .
Not a repeat of Apollo .
Not another huge expense for flags , footprints , and some neat video that ends up getting 5 minutes on the evening news .
So there 's my rant .
Take it or leave it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do so many people think that if there isn't a NASA plan to put a couple NASA astronauts on a NASA rocket and launch them to a specific NASA-picked destination by a specific time that we've somehow abandoned human spaceflight?
How short-sighted can people be?
We already did that 40 years ago, and where did it get us?
The huge expense caused the cancellation of any real followup missions and damaged human spaceflight aspirations to this day.
We're still seeing the effects, since apparently no one in congress (or much of the public, apparently) can imagine anyone except NASA putting people into space.
It just pisses me off to no end.
We need a space program that opens access to space for EVERYONE.
Not just the few lucky NASA picked government employees.
Do you want to go into space at some point?
I certainly do, and constellation had zero chance of ever letting me do that.
Maybe you think constellation would have opened access to space and expanded the possibilities for the rest of us, but I think you are wrong.
So, so wrong.
The current plan for NASA has the best chance of anything NASA has done since its creation of truly opening access to space.
New technologies, reducing cost, encouraging multiple options for access to orbit.
That's what NASA's goal should be and needs to be.
Not a repeat of Apollo.
Not another huge expense for flags, footprints, and some neat video that ends up getting 5 minutes on the evening news.
So there's my rant.
Take it or leave it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276014</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267128840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>farble1670, you forgot:<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't blame bush jr. the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame. bush might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office....<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't blame clinton. the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame. clinton might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office....<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Your hypocracy amazes me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>farble1670 , you forgot : ... do n't blame bush jr. the incredible , astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people * we * elected is to blame .
bush might end up being a terrible president , but you ca n't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.... ... do n't blame clinton .
the incredible , astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people * we * elected is to blame .
clinton might end up being a terrible president , but you ca n't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.... ....Your hypocracy amazes me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>farble1670, you forgot: ... don't blame bush jr. the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame.
bush might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.... ... don't blame clinton.
the incredible, astounding debt that this country has racked up under the leadership of the people *we* elected is to blame.
clinton might end up being a terrible president, but you can't blame him for things that happened before he was in office.... ....Your hypocracy amazes me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274546</id>
	<title>Re:Plans but no strategy</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1267123680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its probably a more well thought out overall plan he had in mind. While the many successes achieved by groups like NASA are well worth celebrating, I share the dismay no doubt many people hold at recent and ongoing setbacks in the development of the future goals of space exploration. The central issuing facing Space groups, as I see it, is a lack of a single unified plan, a step by step global strategy to move mankind into space which takes account of commercial, economic, resource based and political realities, which is achievable within a reasonable timeframe. The piecemeal method of pushing progress forward is effective only insofar as there is public and governmental momentum in the area - something which has been falling off of late. In the face of such an environment, piecemeal efforts might not be as effective as otherwise.</p></div><p>I think the idea of a global plan is a bad idea. First, we only have one example of international cooperation on a space project of that scale, the International Space Station. IMHO, it's international nature has been one of the crucial reasons (dependence on the Shuttle being another one) for a tremendous cost run up. My view is that we're not going to solve the conflicts of interest, bureaucracy, and other problems that an international program of this scale would face unless there was some compelling reason (like an impending huge asteroid impact or alien invasion) to spur cooperation. I view extreme cost, piecemeal effort, and the other flaws you saw in NASA as the natural consequence of an international program too. Instead, I wish to point out something else you wrote later.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How much of the existing knowledge of space flight would even be there in the first place if not for government investment? This isn't the internal combustion engine we're talking about, its a very long and deep tree of technology with limited practical uses until you reach a reasonably high level. This plan attempts to isolate the profitable parts of the tree en route and subisidise the rest, with the whol ultimately becoming not just self sustaining but a source of infinite resources for the population of earth.</p></div><p>It's worth noting here that NASA has generated a tremendous amount of value in exploring this technology tree. There's no question that recent vehicle developments have been due to prior NASA research. Yet at the same time, it is clear that NASA itself doesn't have the same capability to develop vehicles. Witness the difference in outcome between Scaled Composite's efforts and NASA development of next generation RLVs. NASA has spent billions in developing several dead-end suborbital RLV prototypes, while Scaled Composites has spent a few tens of millions to develop SpaceShipTwo. Much less money has been spent and the vehicle will probably get used. Similarly, SpaceX has developed two rockets, three rocket engines, and made 5 launch attempts (with 2 successes) on a budget roughly the size of the marginal cost of a single Shuttle launch.<br> <br>

I think focused risk retirement of various technologies (like nuclear reactors in space) and activities (like in situ resource utilization on the Moon) would be a better use of NASA's effort and money than competing with private industry for stuff that the commercial world can already provide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its probably a more well thought out overall plan he had in mind .
While the many successes achieved by groups like NASA are well worth celebrating , I share the dismay no doubt many people hold at recent and ongoing setbacks in the development of the future goals of space exploration .
The central issuing facing Space groups , as I see it , is a lack of a single unified plan , a step by step global strategy to move mankind into space which takes account of commercial , economic , resource based and political realities , which is achievable within a reasonable timeframe .
The piecemeal method of pushing progress forward is effective only insofar as there is public and governmental momentum in the area - something which has been falling off of late .
In the face of such an environment , piecemeal efforts might not be as effective as otherwise.I think the idea of a global plan is a bad idea .
First , we only have one example of international cooperation on a space project of that scale , the International Space Station .
IMHO , it 's international nature has been one of the crucial reasons ( dependence on the Shuttle being another one ) for a tremendous cost run up .
My view is that we 're not going to solve the conflicts of interest , bureaucracy , and other problems that an international program of this scale would face unless there was some compelling reason ( like an impending huge asteroid impact or alien invasion ) to spur cooperation .
I view extreme cost , piecemeal effort , and the other flaws you saw in NASA as the natural consequence of an international program too .
Instead , I wish to point out something else you wrote later.How much of the existing knowledge of space flight would even be there in the first place if not for government investment ?
This is n't the internal combustion engine we 're talking about , its a very long and deep tree of technology with limited practical uses until you reach a reasonably high level .
This plan attempts to isolate the profitable parts of the tree en route and subisidise the rest , with the whol ultimately becoming not just self sustaining but a source of infinite resources for the population of earth.It 's worth noting here that NASA has generated a tremendous amount of value in exploring this technology tree .
There 's no question that recent vehicle developments have been due to prior NASA research .
Yet at the same time , it is clear that NASA itself does n't have the same capability to develop vehicles .
Witness the difference in outcome between Scaled Composite 's efforts and NASA development of next generation RLVs .
NASA has spent billions in developing several dead-end suborbital RLV prototypes , while Scaled Composites has spent a few tens of millions to develop SpaceShipTwo .
Much less money has been spent and the vehicle will probably get used .
Similarly , SpaceX has developed two rockets , three rocket engines , and made 5 launch attempts ( with 2 successes ) on a budget roughly the size of the marginal cost of a single Shuttle launch .
I think focused risk retirement of various technologies ( like nuclear reactors in space ) and activities ( like in situ resource utilization on the Moon ) would be a better use of NASA 's effort and money than competing with private industry for stuff that the commercial world can already provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its probably a more well thought out overall plan he had in mind.
While the many successes achieved by groups like NASA are well worth celebrating, I share the dismay no doubt many people hold at recent and ongoing setbacks in the development of the future goals of space exploration.
The central issuing facing Space groups, as I see it, is a lack of a single unified plan, a step by step global strategy to move mankind into space which takes account of commercial, economic, resource based and political realities, which is achievable within a reasonable timeframe.
The piecemeal method of pushing progress forward is effective only insofar as there is public and governmental momentum in the area - something which has been falling off of late.
In the face of such an environment, piecemeal efforts might not be as effective as otherwise.I think the idea of a global plan is a bad idea.
First, we only have one example of international cooperation on a space project of that scale, the International Space Station.
IMHO, it's international nature has been one of the crucial reasons (dependence on the Shuttle being another one) for a tremendous cost run up.
My view is that we're not going to solve the conflicts of interest, bureaucracy, and other problems that an international program of this scale would face unless there was some compelling reason (like an impending huge asteroid impact or alien invasion) to spur cooperation.
I view extreme cost, piecemeal effort, and the other flaws you saw in NASA as the natural consequence of an international program too.
Instead, I wish to point out something else you wrote later.How much of the existing knowledge of space flight would even be there in the first place if not for government investment?
This isn't the internal combustion engine we're talking about, its a very long and deep tree of technology with limited practical uses until you reach a reasonably high level.
This plan attempts to isolate the profitable parts of the tree en route and subisidise the rest, with the whol ultimately becoming not just self sustaining but a source of infinite resources for the population of earth.It's worth noting here that NASA has generated a tremendous amount of value in exploring this technology tree.
There's no question that recent vehicle developments have been due to prior NASA research.
Yet at the same time, it is clear that NASA itself doesn't have the same capability to develop vehicles.
Witness the difference in outcome between Scaled Composite's efforts and NASA development of next generation RLVs.
NASA has spent billions in developing several dead-end suborbital RLV prototypes, while Scaled Composites has spent a few tens of millions to develop SpaceShipTwo.
Much less money has been spent and the vehicle will probably get used.
Similarly, SpaceX has developed two rockets, three rocket engines, and made 5 launch attempts (with 2 successes) on a budget roughly the size of the marginal cost of a single Shuttle launch.
I think focused risk retirement of various technologies (like nuclear reactors in space) and activities (like in situ resource utilization on the Moon) would be a better use of NASA's effort and money than competing with private industry for stuff that the commercial world can already provide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273078</id>
	<title>NASA is great PR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will probably get ignored or moded down coming from an AC, but NASA hasn't really had a mission since the 60s and the "space race".  They have shut down many of their wind tunnels and other aerospace experiments (nobody thinks of NASA besides space stuff).  Going back to the moon is pointless.  Going to Mars while interesting, hence the PR piece; it doesn't do too much for the human race in the short or long term.</p><p>I guess its dull, but I would like to see a more dedicated focus on things like getting off of coal, high speed rails, etc.  Yes, I realize these things are under way, but they don't have a brand name like NASA behind them, and they are not as awe inspiring as robots on Mars or other space missions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will probably get ignored or moded down coming from an AC , but NASA has n't really had a mission since the 60s and the " space race " .
They have shut down many of their wind tunnels and other aerospace experiments ( nobody thinks of NASA besides space stuff ) .
Going back to the moon is pointless .
Going to Mars while interesting , hence the PR piece ; it does n't do too much for the human race in the short or long term.I guess its dull , but I would like to see a more dedicated focus on things like getting off of coal , high speed rails , etc .
Yes , I realize these things are under way , but they do n't have a brand name like NASA behind them , and they are not as awe inspiring as robots on Mars or other space missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will probably get ignored or moded down coming from an AC, but NASA hasn't really had a mission since the 60s and the "space race".
They have shut down many of their wind tunnels and other aerospace experiments (nobody thinks of NASA besides space stuff).
Going back to the moon is pointless.
Going to Mars while interesting, hence the PR piece; it doesn't do too much for the human race in the short or long term.I guess its dull, but I would like to see a more dedicated focus on things like getting off of coal, high speed rails, etc.
Yes, I realize these things are under way, but they don't have a brand name like NASA behind them, and they are not as awe inspiring as robots on Mars or other space missions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275772</id>
	<title>Re:Plans but no strategy</title>
	<author>bjk002</author>
	<datestamp>1267127880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can you imagine what (to use your number) $60B/year invested in the world's best minds would do in a decade? </p></div><p>Generate hundreds of essentially the same set of studies?  Offer no conclusive direct at the end of it? Get them all yachts?</p><p>I have a fairly expansive imagination.  Unfortunately it has been tinged with a significant quantity of cynicism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine what ( to use your number ) $ 60B/year invested in the world 's best minds would do in a decade ?
Generate hundreds of essentially the same set of studies ?
Offer no conclusive direct at the end of it ?
Get them all yachts ? I have a fairly expansive imagination .
Unfortunately it has been tinged with a significant quantity of cynicism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine what (to use your number) $60B/year invested in the world's best minds would do in a decade?
Generate hundreds of essentially the same set of studies?
Offer no conclusive direct at the end of it?
Get them all yachts?I have a fairly expansive imagination.
Unfortunately it has been tinged with a significant quantity of cynicism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275160</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267125600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays."<br>You must not be paying attention....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I ca n't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays .
" You must not be paying attention... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays.
"You must not be paying attention....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706</id>
	<title>NASA had plans...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267116840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe that senator didn't realize that NASA had lots of plans that it was working towards, up until Obama killed them all with his new budget. The death of the Constellation program nixed everything that NASA had been working on for the last few years.</p><p>Realistically though, the senator probably *did* realize this and was just being a jackass and trying to score some political points by "demanding results" and making NASA look bad in the process. Hooray for politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that senator did n't realize that NASA had lots of plans that it was working towards , up until Obama killed them all with his new budget .
The death of the Constellation program nixed everything that NASA had been working on for the last few years.Realistically though , the senator probably * did * realize this and was just being a jackass and trying to score some political points by " demanding results " and making NASA look bad in the process .
Hooray for politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that senator didn't realize that NASA had lots of plans that it was working towards, up until Obama killed them all with his new budget.
The death of the Constellation program nixed everything that NASA had been working on for the last few years.Realistically though, the senator probably *did* realize this and was just being a jackass and trying to score some political points by "demanding results" and making NASA look bad in the process.
Hooray for politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273010</id>
	<title>Cheaper way to get to orbit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Let's construct a space elevator."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let 's construct a space elevator .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let's construct a space elevator.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276304</id>
	<title>Sen. Vitter's attack on NASA deputy backfires</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1267130040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you who've watched the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esCGYkVhhnY&amp;feature=channel" title="youtube.com">Senate hearing video</a> [youtube.com] that QuantumG linked to, there's this rather bizarre part where Sen. Vitter (R-La) made some insinuations that Bolden wasn't actually involved in the planning, but it was all supposedly done by his deputy Lori Garver. The Orlando Sentinel has some follow-up on this, with sources reporting that ATK (one of the primary contractors on the Ares I rocket) had put up the Senator to make those attacks:</p><p><a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news\_space\_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html" title="orlandosentinel.com">http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news\_space\_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html</a> [orlandosentinel.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The attacks on NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver spearheaded by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter during a hearing on Wednesday on the 2011 NASA budget have badly backfired, according to a range of sources.</p><p>Vitter accused Garver -- who was not present at the hearing -- of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. He also seemed to suggest that Garver was running the agency, and not Administrator Charlie Bolden. Bolden later called Vitter's comment "unfair."</p><p>Not only were administration outraged by Vitter's remarks but several female civil servants and women executives in aerospace companies who have known Garver for years felt compelled to send their complaints to senate staff Wednesday afternoon.</p><p>Several sources on the Hill, in industry and inside the Obama administration blame rocket maker ATK, the developer of the Ares I rocket first stage, for putting Vitter up to the attack. Sources say that complaints have been sent to ATK and so far there has been no response.</p><p>In the meantime, members of the Senate and the House said they were going to refrain from any further personal attacks as they move against the White House's proposed 2011 budget for the space agency.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you who 've watched the Senate hearing video [ youtube.com ] that QuantumG linked to , there 's this rather bizarre part where Sen. Vitter ( R-La ) made some insinuations that Bolden was n't actually involved in the planning , but it was all supposedly done by his deputy Lori Garver .
The Orlando Sentinel has some follow-up on this , with sources reporting that ATK ( one of the primary contractors on the Ares I rocket ) had put up the Senator to make those attacks : http : //blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news \ _space \ _thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html [ orlandosentinel.com ] The attacks on NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver spearheaded by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter during a hearing on Wednesday on the 2011 NASA budget have badly backfired , according to a range of sources.Vitter accused Garver -- who was not present at the hearing -- of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation .
He also seemed to suggest that Garver was running the agency , and not Administrator Charlie Bolden .
Bolden later called Vitter 's comment " unfair .
" Not only were administration outraged by Vitter 's remarks but several female civil servants and women executives in aerospace companies who have known Garver for years felt compelled to send their complaints to senate staff Wednesday afternoon.Several sources on the Hill , in industry and inside the Obama administration blame rocket maker ATK , the developer of the Ares I rocket first stage , for putting Vitter up to the attack .
Sources say that complaints have been sent to ATK and so far there has been no response.In the meantime , members of the Senate and the House said they were going to refrain from any further personal attacks as they move against the White House 's proposed 2011 budget for the space agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you who've watched the Senate hearing video [youtube.com] that QuantumG linked to, there's this rather bizarre part where Sen. Vitter (R-La) made some insinuations that Bolden wasn't actually involved in the planning, but it was all supposedly done by his deputy Lori Garver.
The Orlando Sentinel has some follow-up on this, with sources reporting that ATK (one of the primary contractors on the Ares I rocket) had put up the Senator to make those attacks:http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news\_space\_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html [orlandosentinel.com] The attacks on NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver spearheaded by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter during a hearing on Wednesday on the 2011 NASA budget have badly backfired, according to a range of sources.Vitter accused Garver -- who was not present at the hearing -- of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation.
He also seemed to suggest that Garver was running the agency, and not Administrator Charlie Bolden.
Bolden later called Vitter's comment "unfair.
"Not only were administration outraged by Vitter's remarks but several female civil servants and women executives in aerospace companies who have known Garver for years felt compelled to send their complaints to senate staff Wednesday afternoon.Several sources on the Hill, in industry and inside the Obama administration blame rocket maker ATK, the developer of the Ares I rocket first stage, for putting Vitter up to the attack.
Sources say that complaints have been sent to ATK and so far there has been no response.In the meantime, members of the Senate and the House said they were going to refrain from any further personal attacks as they move against the White House's proposed 2011 budget for the space agency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273238</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1267119420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?</p></div></blockquote><p>Where are the purple flying unicorns?<br> <br>A <i>politician</i> cannot get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting (re-)elected over achieving meaningful progress.  This is why there are no politicians with the fortitude to do what must be done.  And if one somehow manages to claw his way to the top and get elected to Congress, he is quickly marginalized by the deadbeat politicians who dominate the system.  He'll slowly be brought into the system, as he willingly trades away his ideals in order to get something done, one small step at a time.<br> <br>Our culture disembowels those who wish to maintain principles while in office.  But we put them there... we vote on 15-second sound-bites.  We vote on who has better hair, who we'd rather our daughter date, who we'd like to imagine our fathers and grandfathers would look like if they weren't drunken whoring bastards (never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just don't look like it because they have an army of PR staff).  <br> <br>And the worst part of it -- for me -- those who do appear to have principles, who have a spine, too often are mired in a religious conservatism that I believe has no place in national politics.  But I digress...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing ? Where are the purple flying unicorns ?
A politician can not get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting ( re- ) elected over achieving meaningful progress .
This is why there are no politicians with the fortitude to do what must be done .
And if one somehow manages to claw his way to the top and get elected to Congress , he is quickly marginalized by the deadbeat politicians who dominate the system .
He 'll slowly be brought into the system , as he willingly trades away his ideals in order to get something done , one small step at a time .
Our culture disembowels those who wish to maintain principles while in office .
But we put them there... we vote on 15-second sound-bites .
We vote on who has better hair , who we 'd rather our daughter date , who we 'd like to imagine our fathers and grandfathers would look like if they were n't drunken whoring bastards ( never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just do n't look like it because they have an army of PR staff ) .
And the worst part of it -- for me -- those who do appear to have principles , who have a spine , too often are mired in a religious conservatism that I believe has no place in national politics .
But I digress.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?Where are the purple flying unicorns?
A politician cannot get elected to the highest offices unless they prioritize getting (re-)elected over achieving meaningful progress.
This is why there are no politicians with the fortitude to do what must be done.
And if one somehow manages to claw his way to the top and get elected to Congress, he is quickly marginalized by the deadbeat politicians who dominate the system.
He'll slowly be brought into the system, as he willingly trades away his ideals in order to get something done, one small step at a time.
Our culture disembowels those who wish to maintain principles while in office.
But we put them there... we vote on 15-second sound-bites.
We vote on who has better hair, who we'd rather our daughter date, who we'd like to imagine our fathers and grandfathers would look like if they weren't drunken whoring bastards (never mind the fact that many of those we elect ARE drunken whoring bastards -- they just don't look like it because they have an army of PR staff).
And the worst part of it -- for me -- those who do appear to have principles, who have a spine, too often are mired in a religious conservatism that I believe has no place in national politics.
But I digress...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277244</id>
	<title>Re:Plans but no strategy</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1267090620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude;<br>A crowd of people walked out of a talk that Bill Nye was giving in Waco Texas last year, because he mentioned sunlight reflecting off the moon - and to them, that was contradictory to biblical scripture, and therefore blasphemy.</p><p>This is a small example of a huge freaking problem, which I believe is the MOST difficult problem that humanity faces, in the challenge to become a spacefaring civilization. Not faster-than-light travel.  Not artificial gravity.  Not sustainability of colonies (let alone our original home planet - which we still have not figured out yet).<br>And I'm not preaching hardcore atheism-by-force.  I'm simply saying, you're proposing a grand unified activity for a large group of people, when you can't even find a sample of a subset of, I'd even bet 100,000 people, who agree on that vision.  I'd bet you'd find at least one person among every 100,000 who would fight to the death to sustain some backwards belief like, the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth is 5000 years old, and there's no need to colonize space because the saints are all going to be raptured by their savior.  I don't think one can understate this problem.</p><p>Your points are all fine and dandy, it's a nice plan and all.  But you're never going to see a politically and economically stable environment in which to execute it.  Not with humans, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude ; A crowd of people walked out of a talk that Bill Nye was giving in Waco Texas last year , because he mentioned sunlight reflecting off the moon - and to them , that was contradictory to biblical scripture , and therefore blasphemy.This is a small example of a huge freaking problem , which I believe is the MOST difficult problem that humanity faces , in the challenge to become a spacefaring civilization .
Not faster-than-light travel .
Not artificial gravity .
Not sustainability of colonies ( let alone our original home planet - which we still have not figured out yet ) .And I 'm not preaching hardcore atheism-by-force .
I 'm simply saying , you 're proposing a grand unified activity for a large group of people , when you ca n't even find a sample of a subset of , I 'd even bet 100,000 people , who agree on that vision .
I 'd bet you 'd find at least one person among every 100,000 who would fight to the death to sustain some backwards belief like , the sun revolves around the earth , or the earth is 5000 years old , and there 's no need to colonize space because the saints are all going to be raptured by their savior .
I do n't think one can understate this problem.Your points are all fine and dandy , it 's a nice plan and all .
But you 're never going to see a politically and economically stable environment in which to execute it .
Not with humans , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude;A crowd of people walked out of a talk that Bill Nye was giving in Waco Texas last year, because he mentioned sunlight reflecting off the moon - and to them, that was contradictory to biblical scripture, and therefore blasphemy.This is a small example of a huge freaking problem, which I believe is the MOST difficult problem that humanity faces, in the challenge to become a spacefaring civilization.
Not faster-than-light travel.
Not artificial gravity.
Not sustainability of colonies (let alone our original home planet - which we still have not figured out yet).And I'm not preaching hardcore atheism-by-force.
I'm simply saying, you're proposing a grand unified activity for a large group of people, when you can't even find a sample of a subset of, I'd even bet 100,000 people, who agree on that vision.
I'd bet you'd find at least one person among every 100,000 who would fight to the death to sustain some backwards belief like, the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth is 5000 years old, and there's no need to colonize space because the saints are all going to be raptured by their savior.
I don't think one can understate this problem.Your points are all fine and dandy, it's a nice plan and all.
But you're never going to see a politically and economically stable environment in which to execute it.
Not with humans, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275052</id>
	<title>Consistent Budget Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267125300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When NASA knows they have set budgets for 15 yrs, then they can plan.  Without committed budgets that are truly committed, NASA plans mean nothing.</p><p>In the past, they would come up with a grand mission, get everyone excited about it, then go off and start estimating the real cost and time lines. When the budget numbers came in 18 months later, the costs were 2-3x the initial estimates. Congress says "no way" and all the people working on the project disappear and wait for the next budget exercise so they can earn another paycheck.</p><p>The other part of the problem is well known.  Almost every congressional district gets something they can claim is part of the space program. It doesn't matter how much more expensive that makes it. Sometimes spreading things out doesn't allow collaboration. I was amazed at how much cross thought my team had over lunches with others working on the shuttle and ISS programs. When 80\% of the parts are designed and built 200+ miles away from the center, it is hard to get that mixing of thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When NASA knows they have set budgets for 15 yrs , then they can plan .
Without committed budgets that are truly committed , NASA plans mean nothing.In the past , they would come up with a grand mission , get everyone excited about it , then go off and start estimating the real cost and time lines .
When the budget numbers came in 18 months later , the costs were 2-3x the initial estimates .
Congress says " no way " and all the people working on the project disappear and wait for the next budget exercise so they can earn another paycheck.The other part of the problem is well known .
Almost every congressional district gets something they can claim is part of the space program .
It does n't matter how much more expensive that makes it .
Sometimes spreading things out does n't allow collaboration .
I was amazed at how much cross thought my team had over lunches with others working on the shuttle and ISS programs .
When 80 \ % of the parts are designed and built 200 + miles away from the center , it is hard to get that mixing of thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When NASA knows they have set budgets for 15 yrs, then they can plan.
Without committed budgets that are truly committed, NASA plans mean nothing.In the past, they would come up with a grand mission, get everyone excited about it, then go off and start estimating the real cost and time lines.
When the budget numbers came in 18 months later, the costs were 2-3x the initial estimates.
Congress says "no way" and all the people working on the project disappear and wait for the next budget exercise so they can earn another paycheck.The other part of the problem is well known.
Almost every congressional district gets something they can claim is part of the space program.
It doesn't matter how much more expensive that makes it.
Sometimes spreading things out doesn't allow collaboration.
I was amazed at how much cross thought my team had over lunches with others working on the shuttle and ISS programs.
When 80\% of the parts are designed and built 200+ miles away from the center, it is hard to get that mixing of thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282640</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>JewFish</author>
	<datestamp>1267177260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just checking your numbers...  NASA budget for 2010: 18.69 Billion.  F-22 program cost: &gt;65 Billion (Lockheed awarded F-22 on 23 April 1991).  Damn, you really could run NASA for 4 years on what the F-22 program cost alone.</p><p>Just imagine how long you could run NASA for based on the F-35 program cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just checking your numbers... NASA budget for 2010 : 18.69 Billion .
F-22 program cost : &gt; 65 Billion ( Lockheed awarded F-22 on 23 April 1991 ) .
Damn , you really could run NASA for 4 years on what the F-22 program cost alone.Just imagine how long you could run NASA for based on the F-35 program cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just checking your numbers...  NASA budget for 2010: 18.69 Billion.
F-22 program cost: &gt;65 Billion (Lockheed awarded F-22 on 23 April 1991).
Damn, you really could run NASA for 4 years on what the F-22 program cost alone.Just imagine how long you could run NASA for based on the F-35 program cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275430</id>
	<title>Re:The President has to lead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267126800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please stop repeating this FUD.  Just by the nature of your comments I can narrow down your location to one of 5 cities in the country.  What you care about is not manned space flight or US dominance in any field.  What you care about is your own precious job.  <br>  From Huntsville, AL I've been hearing this for weeks now.  People that have no idea what the actual budget says.  No idea of what the Augustine Report recommended.  And people that have no interest in knowing.  Maintaining Constellation over superior space objectives is nothing more than a jobs program.  Its welfare, and I for one would rather earn my pay; thank you very much.<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/endrant</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop repeating this FUD .
Just by the nature of your comments I can narrow down your location to one of 5 cities in the country .
What you care about is not manned space flight or US dominance in any field .
What you care about is your own precious job .
From Huntsville , AL I 've been hearing this for weeks now .
People that have no idea what the actual budget says .
No idea of what the Augustine Report recommended .
And people that have no interest in knowing .
Maintaining Constellation over superior space objectives is nothing more than a jobs program .
Its welfare , and I for one would rather earn my pay ; thank you very much .
/endrant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop repeating this FUD.
Just by the nature of your comments I can narrow down your location to one of 5 cities in the country.
What you care about is not manned space flight or US dominance in any field.
What you care about is your own precious job.
From Huntsville, AL I've been hearing this for weeks now.
People that have no idea what the actual budget says.
No idea of what the Augustine Report recommended.
And people that have no interest in knowing.
Maintaining Constellation over superior space objectives is nothing more than a jobs program.
Its welfare, and I for one would rather earn my pay; thank you very much.
/endrant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274054</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>tbischel</author>
	<datestamp>1267122120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA's budget is less than 0.5\% of the federal budget, so arguing cost cutting is a red herring.  Entitlement spending expansion without end as the baby boomers retire is the real structural deficit that needs to be addressed.  Here is a <a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1" title="thespacereview.com" rel="nofollow">slightly dated article</a> [thespacereview.com] that explains this a little better.  And, as I understand it, they are actually expanding funding for NASA, just taking the plans for an american moon mission off the table, and redirecting that to R&amp;D.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA 's budget is less than 0.5 \ % of the federal budget , so arguing cost cutting is a red herring .
Entitlement spending expansion without end as the baby boomers retire is the real structural deficit that needs to be addressed .
Here is a slightly dated article [ thespacereview.com ] that explains this a little better .
And , as I understand it , they are actually expanding funding for NASA , just taking the plans for an american moon mission off the table , and redirecting that to R&amp;D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA's budget is less than 0.5\% of the federal budget, so arguing cost cutting is a red herring.
Entitlement spending expansion without end as the baby boomers retire is the real structural deficit that needs to be addressed.
Here is a slightly dated article [thespacereview.com] that explains this a little better.
And, as I understand it, they are actually expanding funding for NASA, just taking the plans for an american moon mission off the table, and redirecting that to R&amp;D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273154</id>
	<title>People want to be ignorant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?</p></div><p>That'll happen when the electorate becomes informed on the issues.</p><p>...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....</p><p>*wipes tears from his eyes and changes underwear* </p><p>You see, the bulk of the electorate is spoon fed information - over simplified information, I might add - about the issues from the electronic media because that's what sells. And the electorate ONLY wants information that fits in their World view. Fox News has this down to a science. Most people like it this way. Most people are ignorant and WANT to be so.</p><p>Now I know why Freud said what he said when asked why he always had a scowl on his face - something to the effect of being disgusted with the human race.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing ? That 'll happen when the electorate becomes informed on the issues....Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.... * wipes tears from his eyes and changes underwear * You see , the bulk of the electorate is spoon fed information - over simplified information , I might add - about the issues from the electronic media because that 's what sells .
And the electorate ONLY wants information that fits in their World view .
Fox News has this down to a science .
Most people like it this way .
Most people are ignorant and WANT to be so.Now I know why Freud said what he said when asked why he always had a scowl on his face - something to the effect of being disgusted with the human race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?That'll happen when the electorate becomes informed on the issues....Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....*wipes tears from his eyes and changes underwear* You see, the bulk of the electorate is spoon fed information - over simplified information, I might add - about the issues from the electronic media because that's what sells.
And the electorate ONLY wants information that fits in their World view.
Fox News has this down to a science.
Most people like it this way.
Most people are ignorant and WANT to be so.Now I know why Freud said what he said when asked why he always had a scowl on his face - something to the effect of being disgusted with the human race.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275324</id>
	<title>is the US astronaut program next to die?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267126380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was in at a function yesterday where there were some NASA contractors. They said this option is on the table.  Until the US has it own manned space vehicle, now estimated earliest 2017 due to Aries confusion, the demand for US astronaut launches is about four per year at best. NASA has contracted for Soyuz seats at $50M a pop through 2012.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in at a function yesterday where there were some NASA contractors .
They said this option is on the table .
Until the US has it own manned space vehicle , now estimated earliest 2017 due to Aries confusion , the demand for US astronaut launches is about four per year at best .
NASA has contracted for Soyuz seats at $ 50M a pop through 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in at a function yesterday where there were some NASA contractors.
They said this option is on the table.
Until the US has it own manned space vehicle, now estimated earliest 2017 due to Aries confusion, the demand for US astronaut launches is about four per year at best.
NASA has contracted for Soyuz seats at $50M a pop through 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273192</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267119240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cuts to NASA are completely and utterly pointless as far as balancing the budget.  NASA's represents less than half a percent of the federal budget.  You could run NASA at current levels for 4 years on what the F-22 project alone has cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuts to NASA are completely and utterly pointless as far as balancing the budget .
NASA 's represents less than half a percent of the federal budget .
You could run NASA at current levels for 4 years on what the F-22 project alone has cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuts to NASA are completely and utterly pointless as far as balancing the budget.
NASA's represents less than half a percent of the federal budget.
You could run NASA at current levels for 4 years on what the F-22 project alone has cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275350</id>
	<title>Re:Plans but no strategy</title>
	<author>iamwahoo2</author>
	<datestamp>1267126440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your over-thinking this. It is highly unlikely that this politician even read the plan (which he claims lacks any vision) that has been put on the table. So, would modifying the plan with a better vision or strategy or other additional elements really help? He will not read the new plan either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your over-thinking this .
It is highly unlikely that this politician even read the plan ( which he claims lacks any vision ) that has been put on the table .
So , would modifying the plan with a better vision or strategy or other additional elements really help ?
He will not read the new plan either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your over-thinking this.
It is highly unlikely that this politician even read the plan (which he claims lacks any vision) that has been put on the table.
So, would modifying the plan with a better vision or strategy or other additional elements really help?
He will not read the new plan either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854</id>
	<title>Playing to the votors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267117560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA has spread around the work to the maximum number of congressional districts to maximize their political support. But ask those same congressmen what they are willing to give up...ask them how important it is to balance the budget and even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...gasp..to begin paying off some debts..and they go quiet about what they want to give up...except to demand that the budget be balanced (but let someone else's district pay for it).</p><p>Obama puts a freeze on some agencies spending and already the constituencies are whining.</p><p>Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA has spread around the work to the maximum number of congressional districts to maximize their political support .
But ask those same congressmen what they are willing to give up...ask them how important it is to balance the budget and even ...gasp..to begin paying off some debts..and they go quiet about what they want to give up...except to demand that the budget be balanced ( but let someone else 's district pay for it ) .Obama puts a freeze on some agencies spending and already the constituencies are whining.Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA has spread around the work to the maximum number of congressional districts to maximize their political support.
But ask those same congressmen what they are willing to give up...ask them how important it is to balance the budget and even ...gasp..to begin paying off some debts..and they go quiet about what they want to give up...except to demand that the budget be balanced (but let someone else's district pay for it).Obama puts a freeze on some agencies spending and already the constituencies are whining.Where are politicians with guts who care more about the future of the country than getting elected with phony promises and posturing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274444</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US government</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1267123380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus.</p></div><p>Sometimes, I'm plain glad they don't listen to the public. A lot good it would have done the economy to have the financial sector fail and have a drawn out depression.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the bailouts .
They did n't listen when the public said " no " to the stimulus.Sometimes , I 'm plain glad they do n't listen to the public .
A lot good it would have done the economy to have the financial sector fail and have a drawn out depression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts.
They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus.Sometimes, I'm plain glad they don't listen to the public.
A lot good it would have done the economy to have the financial sector fail and have a drawn out depression.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277742</id>
	<title>You can always blast NASA for</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1267092840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>possibly wasting money with primitive space expeditions. But you simply cannot say they do not have vision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>possibly wasting money with primitive space expeditions .
But you simply can not say they do not have vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>possibly wasting money with primitive space expeditions.
But you simply cannot say they do not have vision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276134</id>
	<title>Senate blasted by NASA for earlier blasting!</title>
	<author>Majestix</author>
	<datestamp>1267129440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just in!</p><p>"NASA's chief clashed with a Senate science subcommittee on Wednesday, saying the senate and the government in general lacked a clear goal for the program's purse strings. A skeptical chief told the senate that it should not just talk about plans, but set out to do something specific. NASA administrator expressed a unified opposition to the senates plans and the initiatives of the a government lacking vision"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in !
" NASA 's chief clashed with a Senate science subcommittee on Wednesday , saying the senate and the government in general lacked a clear goal for the program 's purse strings .
A skeptical chief told the senate that it should not just talk about plans , but set out to do something specific .
NASA administrator expressed a unified opposition to the senates plans and the initiatives of the a government lacking vision "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in!
"NASA's chief clashed with a Senate science subcommittee on Wednesday, saying the senate and the government in general lacked a clear goal for the program's purse strings.
A skeptical chief told the senate that it should not just talk about plans, but set out to do something specific.
NASA administrator expressed a unified opposition to the senates plans and the initiatives of the a government lacking vision"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31281414</id>
	<title>Re:Commercialisation</title>
	<author>devinoni</author>
	<datestamp>1267118100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Apollo project, even though run by NASA, was really a military project.  It was an extension of the Cold War.  It was all about beating the Soviet Union, and not about the science of getting to the Moon.</p><p>Any project to the Moon, to be cost effective, would have to use existing technologies.  And it's questionable if the the President and Congress will fund NASA enough to develop those technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apollo project , even though run by NASA , was really a military project .
It was an extension of the Cold War .
It was all about beating the Soviet Union , and not about the science of getting to the Moon.Any project to the Moon , to be cost effective , would have to use existing technologies .
And it 's questionable if the the President and Congress will fund NASA enough to develop those technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apollo project, even though run by NASA, was really a military project.
It was an extension of the Cold War.
It was all about beating the Soviet Union, and not about the science of getting to the Moon.Any project to the Moon, to be cost effective, would have to use existing technologies.
And it's questionable if the the President and Congress will fund NASA enough to develop those technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272990</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31281874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31311950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31278330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31281414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31295416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31283296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1424218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31311950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31281414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31282640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31283296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276014
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31278330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31295416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31281874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31273188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31277158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31275902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31274700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1424218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31272794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1424218.31276304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
