<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_06_1427256</id>
	<title>Shuttle Extension &amp; Heavy Launcher Bill Proposed</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267889040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FleaPlus writes <i>"In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA (criticized as 'radical') proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden, Sen. Hutchinson (R-TX and ranking member of the Senate committee dealing with NASA) has proposed a compromise bill. Hutchinson's bill <a href="http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/">calls for postponing the Space Shuttle's retirement until 2015</a>, and instead of wholly canceling Constellation/Ares, it would adapt the more effective portions to a 'government-operated space transportation system,' largely inspired by the <a href="http://www.directlauncher.com/">DIRECT proposal</a>. NASA would also pursue commercial crew and cargo launches to orbit, although the bill leaves out Charles Bolden's proposal for R&amp;D of <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/03/01/AW\_03\_01\_2010\_p24-207699.xml&amp;headline=Technology\%20Would\%20Shape\%20New\%20NASA&amp;channel=awst">'game-changing' technologies</a> for sustainable and cost-effective space exploration."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FleaPlus writes " In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA ( criticized as 'radical ' ) proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden , Sen. Hutchinson ( R-TX and ranking member of the Senate committee dealing with NASA ) has proposed a compromise bill .
Hutchinson 's bill calls for postponing the Space Shuttle 's retirement until 2015 , and instead of wholly canceling Constellation/Ares , it would adapt the more effective portions to a 'government-operated space transportation system, ' largely inspired by the DIRECT proposal .
NASA would also pursue commercial crew and cargo launches to orbit , although the bill leaves out Charles Bolden 's proposal for R&amp;D of 'game-changing ' technologies for sustainable and cost-effective space exploration .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FleaPlus writes "In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA (criticized as 'radical') proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden, Sen. Hutchinson (R-TX and ranking member of the Senate committee dealing with NASA) has proposed a compromise bill.
Hutchinson's bill calls for postponing the Space Shuttle's retirement until 2015, and instead of wholly canceling Constellation/Ares, it would adapt the more effective portions to a 'government-operated space transportation system,' largely inspired by the DIRECT proposal.
NASA would also pursue commercial crew and cargo launches to orbit, although the bill leaves out Charles Bolden's proposal for R&amp;D of 'game-changing' technologies for sustainable and cost-effective space exploration.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381230</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1267896480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you elaborate more on that?</p><p>What kind of problems could a DSLR cause in space? If there's potential trouble with the batteries, for instance, there exist DSLRs that use plain AA batteries, and surely somebody already tried to bring into space something that uses those.</p><p>Other than that, a DSLR seems like a rather harmless device to me. The good ones are sealed, so they should be unlikely to produce any sort of contamination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you elaborate more on that ? What kind of problems could a DSLR cause in space ?
If there 's potential trouble with the batteries , for instance , there exist DSLRs that use plain AA batteries , and surely somebody already tried to bring into space something that uses those.Other than that , a DSLR seems like a rather harmless device to me .
The good ones are sealed , so they should be unlikely to produce any sort of contamination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you elaborate more on that?What kind of problems could a DSLR cause in space?
If there's potential trouble with the batteries, for instance, there exist DSLRs that use plain AA batteries, and surely somebody already tried to bring into space something that uses those.Other than that, a DSLR seems like a rather harmless device to me.
The good ones are sealed, so they should be unlikely to produce any sort of contamination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090</id>
	<title>shuttle may not make 2015</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267894680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the thing. On one hand I think the shuttles are good enough, and we should use them indefinitely.  Of course, indefinitely means until one of the three remaining shuttles fail, most likely taking another crew.  I don't think most people want this to happen, which is why they are being retired now that we know and have seen the consequences of some sub optimal design decisions. In effect we have a choice of giving up this year,or simply not setting a date certain.  I think the later might be a reasonable decision.
<p>
In any case, the decision must be made in terms of safety and effective spending of tax money, not politics. Those people who are going to be fired, are, after all, in conservative terms, are overpaid federal bureaucrats.  Now, the people most effected by this are the people of clear lake,TX. These fine people elected Pete Olson, a fine conservative.  Pete Olson does not believe in socialism. Pete Olson does not believe in extending unemployment checks, as one conservative said if you feed  a stray animal the just multiply.  Olson voted against a bill to help keep people in thier homes, a decision which I do not disagree with. Given this,  it is clear that the only right and proper thing we must do is look at the technical side, and disregard all this fear mongering about jobs.  These are allegedly technical and educated people. They will be able to find or create jobs. Unemployment in Texas is 2 points below the national average, and for professionals much lower.
</p><p>
The thing to do is to look at what is best for the country, and what is best to reduce the tax burden of the American People,and limit the role of government.  That is what the last election cycle clearly indicated was the will of the people.  If a few people in Clear Lake have to find other jobs to achieve that goal, then maybe that is what needs to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the thing .
On one hand I think the shuttles are good enough , and we should use them indefinitely .
Of course , indefinitely means until one of the three remaining shuttles fail , most likely taking another crew .
I do n't think most people want this to happen , which is why they are being retired now that we know and have seen the consequences of some sub optimal design decisions .
In effect we have a choice of giving up this year,or simply not setting a date certain .
I think the later might be a reasonable decision .
In any case , the decision must be made in terms of safety and effective spending of tax money , not politics .
Those people who are going to be fired , are , after all , in conservative terms , are overpaid federal bureaucrats .
Now , the people most effected by this are the people of clear lake,TX .
These fine people elected Pete Olson , a fine conservative .
Pete Olson does not believe in socialism .
Pete Olson does not believe in extending unemployment checks , as one conservative said if you feed a stray animal the just multiply .
Olson voted against a bill to help keep people in thier homes , a decision which I do not disagree with .
Given this , it is clear that the only right and proper thing we must do is look at the technical side , and disregard all this fear mongering about jobs .
These are allegedly technical and educated people .
They will be able to find or create jobs .
Unemployment in Texas is 2 points below the national average , and for professionals much lower .
The thing to do is to look at what is best for the country , and what is best to reduce the tax burden of the American People,and limit the role of government .
That is what the last election cycle clearly indicated was the will of the people .
If a few people in Clear Lake have to find other jobs to achieve that goal , then maybe that is what needs to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the thing.
On one hand I think the shuttles are good enough, and we should use them indefinitely.
Of course, indefinitely means until one of the three remaining shuttles fail, most likely taking another crew.
I don't think most people want this to happen, which is why they are being retired now that we know and have seen the consequences of some sub optimal design decisions.
In effect we have a choice of giving up this year,or simply not setting a date certain.
I think the later might be a reasonable decision.
In any case, the decision must be made in terms of safety and effective spending of tax money, not politics.
Those people who are going to be fired, are, after all, in conservative terms, are overpaid federal bureaucrats.
Now, the people most effected by this are the people of clear lake,TX.
These fine people elected Pete Olson, a fine conservative.
Pete Olson does not believe in socialism.
Pete Olson does not believe in extending unemployment checks, as one conservative said if you feed  a stray animal the just multiply.
Olson voted against a bill to help keep people in thier homes, a decision which I do not disagree with.
Given this,  it is clear that the only right and proper thing we must do is look at the technical side, and disregard all this fear mongering about jobs.
These are allegedly technical and educated people.
They will be able to find or create jobs.
Unemployment in Texas is 2 points below the national average, and for professionals much lower.
The thing to do is to look at what is best for the country, and what is best to reduce the tax burden of the American People,and limit the role of government.
That is what the last election cycle clearly indicated was the will of the people.
If a few people in Clear Lake have to find other jobs to achieve that goal, then maybe that is what needs to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384658</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267879680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd guess it's an heritage of aircrafts. I'm working on helicopter avionics, it's the same specs all over the place. 28 VDC for the win.</p><p>And as usual in avionics: if it works (and is qualified) - don't touch it. ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd guess it 's an heritage of aircrafts .
I 'm working on helicopter avionics , it 's the same specs all over the place .
28 VDC for the win.And as usual in avionics : if it works ( and is qualified ) - do n't touch it .
ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd guess it's an heritage of aircrafts.
I'm working on helicopter avionics, it's the same specs all over the place.
28 VDC for the win.And as usual in avionics: if it works (and is qualified) - don't touch it.
ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956</id>
	<title>No!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267893360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a lab which is deeply involved in both the Constellation and COTS programs. Yes, Constellation might have been cool, but Obama has the right idea. He understands that building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities. NASA is slow and bureaucratic with this because they have done it before. NASA is MOST effective when they are doing something without precedent. Then NASA is developing something new which no one else might have done, and which may not have economically rational given the risk of failure. This is a much better role for NASA than just replicating rocket technology over and over again.</p><p>I have watched this first hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a lab which is deeply involved in both the Constellation and COTS programs .
Yes , Constellation might have been cool , but Obama has the right idea .
He understands that building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities .
NASA is slow and bureaucratic with this because they have done it before .
NASA is MOST effective when they are doing something without precedent .
Then NASA is developing something new which no one else might have done , and which may not have economically rational given the risk of failure .
This is a much better role for NASA than just replicating rocket technology over and over again.I have watched this first hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a lab which is deeply involved in both the Constellation and COTS programs.
Yes, Constellation might have been cool, but Obama has the right idea.
He understands that building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities.
NASA is slow and bureaucratic with this because they have done it before.
NASA is MOST effective when they are doing something without precedent.
Then NASA is developing something new which no one else might have done, and which may not have economically rational given the risk of failure.
This is a much better role for NASA than just replicating rocket technology over and over again.I have watched this first hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382068</id>
	<title>this FP for GNNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do, or indeed what AppLe too. No, of business and was contact to see if goals. It's when</htmltext>
<tokenext>do , or indeed what AppLe too .
No , of business and was contact to see if goals .
It 's when</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do, or indeed what AppLe too.
No, of business and was contact to see if goals.
It's when</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382008</id>
	<title>Nitpicks and Bill Number</title>
	<author>OctaviusIII</author>
	<datestamp>1267903980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, it was Kay Bailey Hutchison (no "n" in Hutchison).  Second, the bill can be found <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:33:./temp/~bds181::\%7C/bss/\%7C" title="loc.gov">here, on THOMAS</a> [loc.gov].  Although the text of the bill isn't up yet, the introducing language is up.  It's bill S. 3068, if anyone cares.<br> <br>Third, this is not a good idea.  If there was ever a time to grow our spaceflight industry it's now, at the inflection point.  Saying that it will lose us space is just silly: who do they think we will contract with after Soyuz?  Arianne?  This is exactly how you <i>win</i> space, by spurring private sector investment in space transportation for its own purposes.  Rocketry is mature enough for the start-ups, so get NASA to do things others cannot: major spaceflight research.  Look at what Bigelow is doing with inflatable modules and is planning on doing going forward.  If we can get such major tech in the hands of industry and provide a guaranteed market, I think we're well on our way to owning spaceflight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it was Kay Bailey Hutchison ( no " n " in Hutchison ) .
Second , the bill can be found here , on THOMAS [ loc.gov ] .
Although the text of the bill is n't up yet , the introducing language is up .
It 's bill S. 3068 , if anyone cares .
Third , this is not a good idea .
If there was ever a time to grow our spaceflight industry it 's now , at the inflection point .
Saying that it will lose us space is just silly : who do they think we will contract with after Soyuz ?
Arianne ? This is exactly how you win space , by spurring private sector investment in space transportation for its own purposes .
Rocketry is mature enough for the start-ups , so get NASA to do things others can not : major spaceflight research .
Look at what Bigelow is doing with inflatable modules and is planning on doing going forward .
If we can get such major tech in the hands of industry and provide a guaranteed market , I think we 're well on our way to owning spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it was Kay Bailey Hutchison (no "n" in Hutchison).
Second, the bill can be found here, on THOMAS [loc.gov].
Although the text of the bill isn't up yet, the introducing language is up.
It's bill S. 3068, if anyone cares.
Third, this is not a good idea.
If there was ever a time to grow our spaceflight industry it's now, at the inflection point.
Saying that it will lose us space is just silly: who do they think we will contract with after Soyuz?
Arianne?  This is exactly how you win space, by spurring private sector investment in space transportation for its own purposes.
Rocketry is mature enough for the start-ups, so get NASA to do things others cannot: major spaceflight research.
Look at what Bigelow is doing with inflatable modules and is planning on doing going forward.
If we can get such major tech in the hands of industry and provide a guaranteed market, I think we're well on our way to owning spaceflight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383030</id>
	<title>Wishing thinking</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1267867080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love the Shuttle to continue, and some new launcher to take its place, but
I can't realistically see it happening with so much US debt at the moment.
Of the Ares launchers, presumablely the Ares I would be the one to stay,
but its heavy lift launchers that the world is short of. Plus there is the
spectre of another Shuttle disaster hanging over any plan to extent
the shuttles life span.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/space\%20craft/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Space Craft</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love the Shuttle to continue , and some new launcher to take its place , but I ca n't realistically see it happening with so much US debt at the moment .
Of the Ares launchers , presumablely the Ares I would be the one to stay , but its heavy lift launchers that the world is short of .
Plus there is the spectre of another Shuttle disaster hanging over any plan to extent the shuttles life span .
--- Space Craft [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love the Shuttle to continue, and some new launcher to take its place, but
I can't realistically see it happening with so much US debt at the moment.
Of the Ares launchers, presumablely the Ares I would be the one to stay,
but its heavy lift launchers that the world is short of.
Plus there is the
spectre of another Shuttle disaster hanging over any plan to extent
the shuttles life span.
---

Space Craft [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128</id>
	<title>Ah yes, politicians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267895160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much for Republican core values of small government, free enterprise, and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better, cheaper, and without the stifling bureaucracy.</p><p>At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for.  In public.  Officially.</p><p>Pork always wins out, tho.</p><p>(Note to Republicans who are incensed by this attack on their imploded view of reality: see the title of this post.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for Republican core values of small government , free enterprise , and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better , cheaper , and without the stifling bureaucracy.At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for .
In public .
Officially.Pork always wins out , tho .
( Note to Republicans who are incensed by this attack on their imploded view of reality : see the title of this post .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for Republican core values of small government, free enterprise, and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better, cheaper, and without the stifling bureaucracy.At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for.
In public.
Officially.Pork always wins out, tho.
(Note to Republicans who are incensed by this attack on their imploded view of reality: see the title of this post.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381322</id>
	<title>No, she is not giving u new spaceships</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1267897260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>She wants to slow DOWN new ones and keep the existing one going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>She wants to slow DOWN new ones and keep the existing one going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She wants to slow DOWN new ones and keep the existing one going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>Ellis D. Tripp</author>
	<datestamp>1267896900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device won't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g, etc. It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.</p></div><p>NASA would need to be sure that any lubricants used on the camera's moving parts (yes, even DSLR's have them) will not outgas if exposed to vacuum, or freeze/liquefy when exposed to the wide temperature variations experienced in space. The same would go for components like electrolytic capacitors, batteries, etc, which might rupture and release toxic chemicals when exposed to a vacuum.</p><p>The battery charger most likely needs to be customized in order to make one that can plug into the 28VDC or 400/800 Hz AC power systems typically used on spacecraft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device wo n't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g , etc .
It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.NASA would need to be sure that any lubricants used on the camera 's moving parts ( yes , even DSLR 's have them ) will not outgas if exposed to vacuum , or freeze/liquefy when exposed to the wide temperature variations experienced in space .
The same would go for components like electrolytic capacitors , batteries , etc , which might rupture and release toxic chemicals when exposed to a vacuum.The battery charger most likely needs to be customized in order to make one that can plug into the 28VDC or 400/800 Hz AC power systems typically used on spacecraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device won't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g, etc.
It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.NASA would need to be sure that any lubricants used on the camera's moving parts (yes, even DSLR's have them) will not outgas if exposed to vacuum, or freeze/liquefy when exposed to the wide temperature variations experienced in space.
The same would go for components like electrolytic capacitors, batteries, etc, which might rupture and release toxic chemicals when exposed to a vacuum.The battery charger most likely needs to be customized in order to make one that can plug into the 28VDC or 400/800 Hz AC power systems typically used on spacecraft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386826</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>cthulhu11</author>
	<datestamp>1267900860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA has been thoroughly Nikon for quite a while.  Given the press Nikon gets for this, I suspect that they heavily subsidize anything needed to update NASA's gear.  Recent news about the D3s:  <a href="http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/1221\_NASA-D3S\_01.htm" title="nikon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/1221\_NASA-D3S\_01.htm</a> [nikon.com]

I'm skeptical that the incremental upgrade from the D2x required millions of NASA dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA has been thoroughly Nikon for quite a while .
Given the press Nikon gets for this , I suspect that they heavily subsidize anything needed to update NASA 's gear .
Recent news about the D3s : http : //www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/1221 \ _NASA-D3S \ _01.htm [ nikon.com ] I 'm skeptical that the incremental upgrade from the D2x required millions of NASA dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA has been thoroughly Nikon for quite a while.
Given the press Nikon gets for this, I suspect that they heavily subsidize anything needed to update NASA's gear.
Recent news about the D3s:  http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2009/1221\_NASA-D3S\_01.htm [nikon.com]

I'm skeptical that the incremental upgrade from the D2x required millions of NASA dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381424</id>
	<title>Re:Bring home the bacon!</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1267898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not want them in the business of Health Care either. However, some pretty good arguments have been made for Single Payer (extending Medicare to all). As it is, Medicare served as the basis of a health insurance for Germany, Japan, Swiss, etc and all are well known for their excellent health care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not want them in the business of Health Care either .
However , some pretty good arguments have been made for Single Payer ( extending Medicare to all ) .
As it is , Medicare served as the basis of a health insurance for Germany , Japan , Swiss , etc and all are well known for their excellent health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not want them in the business of Health Care either.
However, some pretty good arguments have been made for Single Payer (extending Medicare to all).
As it is, Medicare served as the basis of a health insurance for Germany, Japan, Swiss, etc and all are well known for their excellent health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31408406</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268056440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's plenty.  Open questions include will it outgas anything that will foul the life support system? Does it shed? That is, under the conditions it will be subjected to will the case shed any fine particulates?</p><p>They must also consider what sort of problems space flight might cause a DSLR. I'll bet the manufacturer doesn't certify operation in zero G. Getting to space can be an issue as well. After a ride to space at 3G, will the mechanism THEN work fine in zero-G? Can it be sterilized and if so, will it still work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's plenty .
Open questions include will it outgas anything that will foul the life support system ?
Does it shed ?
That is , under the conditions it will be subjected to will the case shed any fine particulates ? They must also consider what sort of problems space flight might cause a DSLR .
I 'll bet the manufacturer does n't certify operation in zero G. Getting to space can be an issue as well .
After a ride to space at 3G , will the mechanism THEN work fine in zero-G ?
Can it be sterilized and if so , will it still work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's plenty.
Open questions include will it outgas anything that will foul the life support system?
Does it shed?
That is, under the conditions it will be subjected to will the case shed any fine particulates?They must also consider what sort of problems space flight might cause a DSLR.
I'll bet the manufacturer doesn't certify operation in zero G. Getting to space can be an issue as well.
After a ride to space at 3G, will the mechanism THEN work fine in zero-G?
Can it be sterilized and if so, will it still work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385712</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>etnoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267888560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA would need to be sure that any lubricants used on the camera's moving parts (yes, even DSLR's have them) will not outgas if exposed to vacuum, or freeze/liquefy when exposed to the wide temperature variations experienced in space.</p></div><p>Yup, the previous set of DSLR:s NASA used needed a new lubricant before being allowed into space. The new cameras (which were ordered just last year, Nikon D3s to be specific) had incorporated this change into the stock model. Guess Nikon figured the change was so small it could be used on all cameras, possibly reducing the modification costs for the cams to be space-approved. This new generation will be used on the ISS without any modification at all (except for the aforementioned battery charger), during the spacewalks the cameras will need to be taped white to not get too hot. Vaccum doesn't absorb any heat in contrast to air, so the sun's rays would heat up a black object too quickly. The color change was all that was needed to get that camera into *space*. That's pretty cool methinks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA would need to be sure that any lubricants used on the camera 's moving parts ( yes , even DSLR 's have them ) will not outgas if exposed to vacuum , or freeze/liquefy when exposed to the wide temperature variations experienced in space.Yup , the previous set of DSLR : s NASA used needed a new lubricant before being allowed into space .
The new cameras ( which were ordered just last year , Nikon D3s to be specific ) had incorporated this change into the stock model .
Guess Nikon figured the change was so small it could be used on all cameras , possibly reducing the modification costs for the cams to be space-approved .
This new generation will be used on the ISS without any modification at all ( except for the aforementioned battery charger ) , during the spacewalks the cameras will need to be taped white to not get too hot .
Vaccum does n't absorb any heat in contrast to air , so the sun 's rays would heat up a black object too quickly .
The color change was all that was needed to get that camera into * space * .
That 's pretty cool methinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA would need to be sure that any lubricants used on the camera's moving parts (yes, even DSLR's have them) will not outgas if exposed to vacuum, or freeze/liquefy when exposed to the wide temperature variations experienced in space.Yup, the previous set of DSLR:s NASA used needed a new lubricant before being allowed into space.
The new cameras (which were ordered just last year, Nikon D3s to be specific) had incorporated this change into the stock model.
Guess Nikon figured the change was so small it could be used on all cameras, possibly reducing the modification costs for the cams to be space-approved.
This new generation will be used on the ISS without any modification at all (except for the aforementioned battery charger), during the spacewalks the cameras will need to be taped white to not get too hot.
Vaccum doesn't absorb any heat in contrast to air, so the sun's rays would heat up a black object too quickly.
The color change was all that was needed to get that camera into *space*.
That's pretty cool methinks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381550</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation in America is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267899240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days.  The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.</p><p>For starters, because this is slashdot, have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now.  Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010.  No innovation?</p><p>Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s, those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings.  Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking, electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines.  Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die.  At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight. Air bags, GPS navigation, OBD-II, catalytic converters, solid state radio, radial tires, digital sensors and readouts (even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out).  Cars are not the same.</p><p>My parents house was built in mid 60s, well built and doing fine.  The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine. Both places will be good for another 30 years at least, where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing, guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places (effects of Depression) and you don't know about it because it didn't stand the test of time, your sample set is flawed..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days .
The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.For starters , because this is slashdot , have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now .
Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010 .
No innovation ? Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s , those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings .
Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking , electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines .
Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die .
At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight .
Air bags , GPS navigation , OBD-II , catalytic converters , solid state radio , radial tires , digital sensors and readouts ( even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out ) .
Cars are not the same.My parents house was built in mid 60s , well built and doing fine .
The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine .
Both places will be good for another 30 years at least , where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing , guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places ( effects of Depression ) and you do n't know about it because it did n't stand the test of time , your sample set is flawed. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days.
The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.For starters, because this is slashdot, have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now.
Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010.
No innovation?Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s, those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings.
Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking, electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines.
Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die.
At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight.
Air bags, GPS navigation, OBD-II, catalytic converters, solid state radio, radial tires, digital sensors and readouts (even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out).
Cars are not the same.My parents house was built in mid 60s, well built and doing fine.
The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine.
Both places will be good for another 30 years at least, where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing, guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places (effects of Depression) and you don't know about it because it didn't stand the test of time, your sample set is flawed..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</id>
	<title>speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267893600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last night I was visiting with a friend who has worked at NASA for 11 years. He is concerned for his job, etc. Among the things we discussed was astronaut photography. Sometimes an astronaut comes through the program and demands an update to the cameras they're approved to bring into space. The administration is very resistant to these upgrades because of the testing that is involved to approve a new device to bring into space. Something as simple as a dslr camera requires <strong>millions</strong> of dollars in testing to ensure that the device won't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g, etc. It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.<br> <br>Seth</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last night I was visiting with a friend who has worked at NASA for 11 years .
He is concerned for his job , etc .
Among the things we discussed was astronaut photography .
Sometimes an astronaut comes through the program and demands an update to the cameras they 're approved to bring into space .
The administration is very resistant to these upgrades because of the testing that is involved to approve a new device to bring into space .
Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device wo n't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g , etc .
It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last night I was visiting with a friend who has worked at NASA for 11 years.
He is concerned for his job, etc.
Among the things we discussed was astronaut photography.
Sometimes an astronaut comes through the program and demands an update to the cameras they're approved to bring into space.
The administration is very resistant to these upgrades because of the testing that is involved to approve a new device to bring into space.
Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device won't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g, etc.
It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.
Seth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381064</id>
	<title>No bucks</title>
	<author>ComputerInsultant</author>
	<datestamp>1267894440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
<br> <br>
This will go nowhere unless additional cash is added to NASA's budget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No bucks , no Buck Rogers .
This will go nowhere unless additional cash is added to NASA 's budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
This will go nowhere unless additional cash is added to NASA's budget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31418504</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>SethJohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1268126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wonder how often the cameras need to be updated. They certainly don't need to do annual model replacements, updated cameras rarely change significantly. I bet a five year old SLR that's been certified will do the job just fine, keep using them until there's concern about something breaking.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The problem is that NASA astronauts are regarded as royalty within the program. Some come through who are photography nuts and they'll piss and moan if they don't have whatever state-of-the-art that's available. The administration resists their demands on this kind of stuff, but the astronauts are smart and can craft compelling arguments that force the issue.<br> <br>I don't believe the same exact camera is used on multiple missions. I believe the same model is used until it's updated with an approved new camera.<br> <br>Seth</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how often the cameras need to be updated .
They certainly do n't need to do annual model replacements , updated cameras rarely change significantly .
I bet a five year old SLR that 's been certified will do the job just fine , keep using them until there 's concern about something breaking .
The problem is that NASA astronauts are regarded as royalty within the program .
Some come through who are photography nuts and they 'll piss and moan if they do n't have whatever state-of-the-art that 's available .
The administration resists their demands on this kind of stuff , but the astronauts are smart and can craft compelling arguments that force the issue .
I do n't believe the same exact camera is used on multiple missions .
I believe the same model is used until it 's updated with an approved new camera .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how often the cameras need to be updated.
They certainly don't need to do annual model replacements, updated cameras rarely change significantly.
I bet a five year old SLR that's been certified will do the job just fine, keep using them until there's concern about something breaking.
The problem is that NASA astronauts are regarded as royalty within the program.
Some come through who are photography nuts and they'll piss and moan if they don't have whatever state-of-the-art that's available.
The administration resists their demands on this kind of stuff, but the astronauts are smart and can craft compelling arguments that force the issue.
I don't believe the same exact camera is used on multiple missions.
I believe the same model is used until it's updated with an approved new camera.
Seth
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382888</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1267866180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, but while SLRs (or any camera) may \_seem\_ simple, they aren't, take a look at the cut-away diagrams some time.  Even a disposable style film camera would require a lot of testing too.</p><p>I wonder how often the cameras need to be updated.  They certainly don't need to do annual model replacements, updated cameras rarely change significantly.  I bet a five year old SLR that's been certified will do the job just fine, keep using them until there's concern about something breaking.</p><p>I thought some of the considerations were interesting, Olympus made a special space version of one of their cameras: <a href="http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/21760/olympus-slr-camera/" title="letsgodigital.org">http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/21760/olympus-slr-camera/</a> [letsgodigital.org]  Particularly, the removable caps are clear so you can see if anything is floating inside, to avoid accidentally releasing pieces into the living space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , but while SLRs ( or any camera ) may \ _seem \ _ simple , they are n't , take a look at the cut-away diagrams some time .
Even a disposable style film camera would require a lot of testing too.I wonder how often the cameras need to be updated .
They certainly do n't need to do annual model replacements , updated cameras rarely change significantly .
I bet a five year old SLR that 's been certified will do the job just fine , keep using them until there 's concern about something breaking.I thought some of the considerations were interesting , Olympus made a special space version of one of their cameras : http : //www.letsgodigital.org/en/21760/olympus-slr-camera/ [ letsgodigital.org ] Particularly , the removable caps are clear so you can see if anything is floating inside , to avoid accidentally releasing pieces into the living space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, but while SLRs (or any camera) may \_seem\_ simple, they aren't, take a look at the cut-away diagrams some time.
Even a disposable style film camera would require a lot of testing too.I wonder how often the cameras need to be updated.
They certainly don't need to do annual model replacements, updated cameras rarely change significantly.
I bet a five year old SLR that's been certified will do the job just fine, keep using them until there's concern about something breaking.I thought some of the considerations were interesting, Olympus made a special space version of one of their cameras: http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/21760/olympus-slr-camera/ [letsgodigital.org]  Particularly, the removable caps are clear so you can see if anything is floating inside, to avoid accidentally releasing pieces into the living space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31393996</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing</title>
	<author>dsmall</author>
	<datestamp>1267958760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WindBourne said,<br>"As such we NEED multiple architectures<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I agree with you. Yet it takes a look at history to see how we got here.</p><p>"The above will prevent Congress from doing what it is doing AND will prevent an accident in a rocket from shutting down the entire space program."</p><p>Your point here escapes me. Congress controls spending; that's in the Constitution. How could we prevent Congress from doing anything? Recently, Bush's space policy (go back to the Moon, etc) was a good one. However, Congress did not fund it. While I see you faulting "neo-cons", the truth is that the bean counters at OMB (Office of Management &amp; Budget) have control. When the Republicans were in office, no funding. Now the Democrats are in office. No funding.</p><p>Obama has had a year to express interest in the space program, or even allocate keep-the-workforce-alive funding.</p><p>You wrote, "Nixon killed Skylab because he did not fund NASA properly for building the Shuttle after shutting down Apollo in 1970."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I came across a detailed and well written history of the Space Shuttle. It's a detailed history of the winding down of Apollo, the effort to fund a Mars mission, a space station, and many different incarnations of the Shuttle. The OMB constantly shows up in these decisions. I highly recommend this history.</p><p>
&nbsp; You can find it at:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>As an example, here is a quote from that history concerning Nixon's decision to approve the Shuttle:</p><p>"Why, finally, did Nixon decide to build the Shuttle? One must not underestimate the tendency of the federal government to look after its own; few major Washington programs reach an end, to vanish into the night. Nixon had no wish to shut down piloted space flight; he wanted to keep it alive. He also was concerned over aerospace employment. Yet he could have addressed such issues with nothing more than Big Gemini riding atop a Titan III-M, to fly occasionally and show the flag.</p><p>The key to the Shuttle was its well-founded prospect of low cost and routine operation. This promise did not rest on the cost-benefit studies of Mathematica, which the Flax Committee largely refuted and the OMB rejected out of hand. Rather, it rested on technical developments: automated onboard checkout, reusable thermal protection, rocket engines with long life. No OMB internal memo or White House report ever denied this promise; only experience would do that, years later. The Shuttle thus could find its way to approval, within a nation and government that remained willing to embrace the new."</p><p>Thanks,</p><p>David Small</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WindBourne said , " As such we NEED multiple architectures ... "       I agree with you .
Yet it takes a look at history to see how we got here .
" The above will prevent Congress from doing what it is doing AND will prevent an accident in a rocket from shutting down the entire space program .
" Your point here escapes me .
Congress controls spending ; that 's in the Constitution .
How could we prevent Congress from doing anything ?
Recently , Bush 's space policy ( go back to the Moon , etc ) was a good one .
However , Congress did not fund it .
While I see you faulting " neo-cons " , the truth is that the bean counters at OMB ( Office of Management &amp; Budget ) have control .
When the Republicans were in office , no funding .
Now the Democrats are in office .
No funding.Obama has had a year to express interest in the space program , or even allocate keep-the-workforce-alive funding.You wrote , " Nixon killed Skylab because he did not fund NASA properly for building the Shuttle after shutting down Apollo in 1970 .
"         I came across a detailed and well written history of the Space Shuttle .
It 's a detailed history of the winding down of Apollo , the effort to fund a Mars mission , a space station , and many different incarnations of the Shuttle .
The OMB constantly shows up in these decisions .
I highly recommend this history .
  You can find it at :       http : //history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm [ nasa.gov ] As an example , here is a quote from that history concerning Nixon 's decision to approve the Shuttle : " Why , finally , did Nixon decide to build the Shuttle ?
One must not underestimate the tendency of the federal government to look after its own ; few major Washington programs reach an end , to vanish into the night .
Nixon had no wish to shut down piloted space flight ; he wanted to keep it alive .
He also was concerned over aerospace employment .
Yet he could have addressed such issues with nothing more than Big Gemini riding atop a Titan III-M , to fly occasionally and show the flag.The key to the Shuttle was its well-founded prospect of low cost and routine operation .
This promise did not rest on the cost-benefit studies of Mathematica , which the Flax Committee largely refuted and the OMB rejected out of hand .
Rather , it rested on technical developments : automated onboard checkout , reusable thermal protection , rocket engines with long life .
No OMB internal memo or White House report ever denied this promise ; only experience would do that , years later .
The Shuttle thus could find its way to approval , within a nation and government that remained willing to embrace the new .
" Thanks,David Small</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WindBourne said,"As such we NEED multiple architectures ... "
      I agree with you.
Yet it takes a look at history to see how we got here.
"The above will prevent Congress from doing what it is doing AND will prevent an accident in a rocket from shutting down the entire space program.
"Your point here escapes me.
Congress controls spending; that's in the Constitution.
How could we prevent Congress from doing anything?
Recently, Bush's space policy (go back to the Moon, etc) was a good one.
However, Congress did not fund it.
While I see you faulting "neo-cons", the truth is that the bean counters at OMB (Office of Management &amp; Budget) have control.
When the Republicans were in office, no funding.
Now the Democrats are in office.
No funding.Obama has had a year to express interest in the space program, or even allocate keep-the-workforce-alive funding.You wrote, "Nixon killed Skylab because he did not fund NASA properly for building the Shuttle after shutting down Apollo in 1970.
"
        I came across a detailed and well written history of the Space Shuttle.
It's a detailed history of the winding down of Apollo, the effort to fund a Mars mission, a space station, and many different incarnations of the Shuttle.
The OMB constantly shows up in these decisions.
I highly recommend this history.
  You can find it at:
      http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm [nasa.gov]As an example, here is a quote from that history concerning Nixon's decision to approve the Shuttle:"Why, finally, did Nixon decide to build the Shuttle?
One must not underestimate the tendency of the federal government to look after its own; few major Washington programs reach an end, to vanish into the night.
Nixon had no wish to shut down piloted space flight; he wanted to keep it alive.
He also was concerned over aerospace employment.
Yet he could have addressed such issues with nothing more than Big Gemini riding atop a Titan III-M, to fly occasionally and show the flag.The key to the Shuttle was its well-founded prospect of low cost and routine operation.
This promise did not rest on the cost-benefit studies of Mathematica, which the Flax Committee largely refuted and the OMB rejected out of hand.
Rather, it rested on technical developments: automated onboard checkout, reusable thermal protection, rocket engines with long life.
No OMB internal memo or White House report ever denied this promise; only experience would do that, years later.
The Shuttle thus could find its way to approval, within a nation and government that remained willing to embrace the new.
"Thanks,David Small
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31388144</id>
	<title>Re:shuttle may not make 2015</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267963140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is just one flaw in your plan. it's rational.</p><p>(the lack of kick-backs hurts it too)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is just one flaw in your plan .
it 's rational .
( the lack of kick-backs hurts it too )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is just one flaw in your plan.
it's rational.
(the lack of kick-backs hurts it too)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380986</id>
	<title>Re:Bring home the bacon!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267893540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I don't think the Gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing health care, either. If they can't balance a bank book (i.e. the budget) then how do we expect they can handle running health care?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I do n't think the Gov't should n't be in the business of providing health care , either .
If they ca n't balance a bank book ( i.e .
the budget ) then how do we expect they can handle running health care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I don't think the Gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing health care, either.
If they can't balance a bank book (i.e.
the budget) then how do we expect they can handle running health care?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381140</id>
	<title>Retire the Shuttle?  How about defund NASA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267895340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America is in the midst of an economic crisis and it is about time to cut our losses.  What has NASA given in return for its massive funding?  Just about as much as the military incursions into the middle east, almost nothing.    Maybe in the future we should return to space, but not right now.  Right now America needs to focus n getting debt under control while still being able to take care of its citizens.  That is why we need to Retire the shuttles,not in 2015, but in 2012.  This way everyone can be brought back from the International Space Station, deorbit the space station, defund NASA completely, and sell off all of its assets.  By that time America should have enough money to get a better grasp on its soaring deficit and debt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America is in the midst of an economic crisis and it is about time to cut our losses .
What has NASA given in return for its massive funding ?
Just about as much as the military incursions into the middle east , almost nothing .
Maybe in the future we should return to space , but not right now .
Right now America needs to focus n getting debt under control while still being able to take care of its citizens .
That is why we need to Retire the shuttles,not in 2015 , but in 2012 .
This way everyone can be brought back from the International Space Station , deorbit the space station , defund NASA completely , and sell off all of its assets .
By that time America should have enough money to get a better grasp on its soaring deficit and debt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is in the midst of an economic crisis and it is about time to cut our losses.
What has NASA given in return for its massive funding?
Just about as much as the military incursions into the middle east, almost nothing.
Maybe in the future we should return to space, but not right now.
Right now America needs to focus n getting debt under control while still being able to take care of its citizens.
That is why we need to Retire the shuttles,not in 2015, but in 2012.
This way everyone can be brought back from the International Space Station, deorbit the space station, defund NASA completely, and sell off all of its assets.
By that time America should have enough money to get a better grasp on its soaring deficit and debt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385868</id>
	<title>A NASA White Knight Emerges: Ergo, NASA = JOBS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It appears that the Right Honorable Mr. Bolden was chosen for the job becasue "Bolden" rhyms with "Golden", a.k.a. a former NASA Chief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that the Right Honorable Mr. Bolden was chosen for the job becasue " Bolden " rhyms with " Golden " , a.k.a .
a former NASA Chief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that the Right Honorable Mr. Bolden was chosen for the job becasue "Bolden" rhyms with "Golden", a.k.a.
a former NASA Chief.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383104</id>
	<title>Can the shuttle</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1267867500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should have never been built.  The Apollo was PERFECT (the rocket, not the CM).  It should have been allowed to continue.
The ORIGINAL shuttle design would have been safer, but, they once again went the cheap route.
What they need to do is build something that has a CM similar to the old Apollo, and make a heavy launch vehicle for hauling
equipment &amp; supplies.
The only reason Senator Hutchison is proposing this is to keep the shuttle jobs alive.

An astronaut, long ago was asked if anything about flying into space scared him.
He replied, the only thing that bothers me is that I'm sitting on top of something that
went to the lowest bidder!

Truer words were ever spoken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should have never been built .
The Apollo was PERFECT ( the rocket , not the CM ) .
It should have been allowed to continue .
The ORIGINAL shuttle design would have been safer , but , they once again went the cheap route .
What they need to do is build something that has a CM similar to the old Apollo , and make a heavy launch vehicle for hauling equipment &amp; supplies .
The only reason Senator Hutchison is proposing this is to keep the shuttle jobs alive .
An astronaut , long ago was asked if anything about flying into space scared him .
He replied , the only thing that bothers me is that I 'm sitting on top of something that went to the lowest bidder !
Truer words were ever spoken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should have never been built.
The Apollo was PERFECT (the rocket, not the CM).
It should have been allowed to continue.
The ORIGINAL shuttle design would have been safer, but, they once again went the cheap route.
What they need to do is build something that has a CM similar to the old Apollo, and make a heavy launch vehicle for hauling
equipment &amp; supplies.
The only reason Senator Hutchison is proposing this is to keep the shuttle jobs alive.
An astronaut, long ago was asked if anything about flying into space scared him.
He replied, the only thing that bothers me is that I'm sitting on top of something that
went to the lowest bidder!
Truer words were ever spoken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31408454</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268056740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also CYA. If a bureaucrat or engineer signs off on something going up and it causes a problem, it's his ass. If he just doesn't notice when an astronaut smuggles it on, he's in the clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also CYA .
If a bureaucrat or engineer signs off on something going up and it causes a problem , it 's his ass .
If he just does n't notice when an astronaut smuggles it on , he 's in the clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also CYA.
If a bureaucrat or engineer signs off on something going up and it causes a problem, it's his ass.
If he just doesn't notice when an astronaut smuggles it on, he's in the clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385120</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1267883760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's called gold plating.</p><p>BTW, every private astronaut who has flown on the ISS has taken equipment without NASA oversight.. and there's been no incidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's called gold plating.BTW , every private astronaut who has flown on the ISS has taken equipment without NASA oversight.. and there 's been no incidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's called gold plating.BTW, every private astronaut who has flown on the ISS has taken equipment without NASA oversight.. and there's been no incidents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383992</id>
	<title>too frikin late!</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Half of the factories have been shut down already and people let go.  Its a two year pipeline to prepare a shuttle.  The pipeline only has seven months left in it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Half of the factories have been shut down already and people let go .
Its a two year pipeline to prepare a shuttle .
The pipeline only has seven months left in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half of the factories have been shut down already and people let go.
Its a two year pipeline to prepare a shuttle.
The pipeline only has seven months left in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384554</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes, politicians</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1267878840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So much for Republican core values of small government, free enterprise, and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better, cheaper, and without the stifling bureaucracy.</p><p>At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for.  In public.  Officially.</p><p>Pork always wins out, tho.</p></div><p>Yup.  Hutchinson is from Texas, and NASA has a lot of legacy infrastructure in Texas ("Houston, we have a problem...").</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for Republican core values of small government , free enterprise , and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better , cheaper , and without the stifling bureaucracy.At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for .
In public .
Officially.Pork always wins out , tho.Yup .
Hutchinson is from Texas , and NASA has a lot of legacy infrastructure in Texas ( " Houston , we have a problem... " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for Republican core values of small government, free enterprise, and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better, cheaper, and without the stifling bureaucracy.At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for.
In public.
Officially.Pork always wins out, tho.Yup.
Hutchinson is from Texas, and NASA has a lot of legacy infrastructure in Texas ("Houston, we have a problem...").
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385510</id>
	<title>Re:shuttle may not make 2015</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1267886340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the government should have a role in space exploration, but you are right. We shouldn't just keep paying to keep jobs, we should keep exploring for the sake of technology and society. There are many things not economically viable for a private entity to research, and space travel / exploration is one of the most important.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Clear Lake born and raised</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the government should have a role in space exploration , but you are right .
We should n't just keep paying to keep jobs , we should keep exploring for the sake of technology and society .
There are many things not economically viable for a private entity to research , and space travel / exploration is one of the most important .
/Clear Lake born and raised</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the government should have a role in space exploration, but you are right.
We shouldn't just keep paying to keep jobs, we should keep exploring for the sake of technology and society.
There are many things not economically viable for a private entity to research, and space travel / exploration is one of the most important.
/Clear Lake born and raised</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382476</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267906800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do spacecraft use those power specs, out of curiosity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do spacecraft use those power specs , out of curiosity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do spacecraft use those power specs, out of curiosity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381934</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes, politicians</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1267903140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So much for Republican core values of small government, free enterprise, and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better, cheaper, and without the stifling bureaucracy.</p><p>At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for.  In public.  Officially.</p><p>Pork always wins out, tho.</p><p>(Note to Republicans who are incensed by this attack on their imploded view of reality: see the title of this post.)</p></div><p>As you pointed out, Republicans (and many other politicians) are all for cutting government in somebody *else's* district; for free trade until a company in their district loses out to a competitor; while at the same time *creating* jobs in their district (with federal dollars, of course.)</p><p>Newsflash - the government does not create jobs - it just picks winners and losers; and will keep doing so as long as bring home federal money means getting re-elected.  We vote them in of course, sow we truly have met the enemy, and he is us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for Republican core values of small government , free enterprise , and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better , cheaper , and without the stifling bureaucracy.At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for .
In public .
Officially.Pork always wins out , tho .
( Note to Republicans who are incensed by this attack on their imploded view of reality : see the title of this post .
) As you pointed out , Republicans ( and many other politicians ) are all for cutting government in somebody * else 's * district ; for free trade until a company in their district loses out to a competitor ; while at the same time * creating * jobs in their district ( with federal dollars , of course .
) Newsflash - the government does not create jobs - it just picks winners and losers ; and will keep doing so as long as bring home federal money means getting re-elected .
We vote them in of course , sow we truly have met the enemy , and he is us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for Republican core values of small government, free enterprise, and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better, cheaper, and without the stifling bureaucracy.At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for.
In public.
Officially.Pork always wins out, tho.
(Note to Republicans who are incensed by this attack on their imploded view of reality: see the title of this post.
)As you pointed out, Republicans (and many other politicians) are all for cutting government in somebody *else's* district; for free trade until a company in their district loses out to a competitor; while at the same time *creating* jobs in their district (with federal dollars, of course.
)Newsflash - the government does not create jobs - it just picks winners and losers; and will keep doing so as long as bring home federal money means getting re-elected.
We vote them in of course, sow we truly have met the enemy, and he is us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386210</id>
	<title>Re:shuttle may not make 2015</title>
	<author>gschuell</author>
	<datestamp>1267893540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pete Olson is a motherfucking asshole and should die a horrible a death as should all you fucking conservatives. We need socialism like the rest of the fucking civilized world, you fucktard!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pete Olson is a motherfucking asshole and should die a horrible a death as should all you fucking conservatives .
We need socialism like the rest of the fucking civilized world , you fucktard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pete Olson is a motherfucking asshole and should die a horrible a death as should all you fucking conservatives.
We need socialism like the rest of the fucking civilized world, you fucktard!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384498</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267878360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or get a waterproof camera case and use that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or get a waterproof camera case and use that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or get a waterproof camera case and use that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381960</id>
	<title>Re:No!</title>
	<author>Xarius</author>
	<datestamp>1267903500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>NASA is MOST effective when they are doing something without precedent. Then NASA is developing something new which no one else might have done, and which may not have economically rational given the risk of failure.</p></div> </blockquote><p>How can we tell if they're being effective, if it has never been done before? What are we comparing it against?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is MOST effective when they are doing something without precedent .
Then NASA is developing something new which no one else might have done , and which may not have economically rational given the risk of failure .
How can we tell if they 're being effective , if it has never been done before ?
What are we comparing it against ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is MOST effective when they are doing something without precedent.
Then NASA is developing something new which no one else might have done, and which may not have economically rational given the risk of failure.
How can we tell if they're being effective, if it has never been done before?
What are we comparing it against?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385420</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes, politicians</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1267885680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There isn't a huge amount of overlap between "Republican" and "fiscal conservative" any more.  That's why they got creamed in 2006 and it also gave birth to the Tea Party movement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't a huge amount of overlap between " Republican " and " fiscal conservative " any more .
That 's why they got creamed in 2006 and it also gave birth to the Tea Party movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't a huge amount of overlap between "Republican" and "fiscal conservative" any more.
That's why they got creamed in 2006 and it also gave birth to the Tea Party movement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383976</id>
	<title>Hutchinson LOST the Texas primary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267873920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hutchinson LOST the Texas Republican Primary a few days ago, in part because she does so much spending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hutchinson LOST the Texas Republican Primary a few days ago , in part because she does so much spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hutchinson LOST the Texas Republican Primary a few days ago, in part because she does so much spending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31395332</id>
	<title>Re:No!</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, Constellation might have been cool, but Obama has the right idea. He understands that building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which, oddly enough, is precisely why commercial entities have been building rockets and selling them on the open market for decades to government and private entities.  Other than odd sounding rocket class vehicle or the occasional small prototype, the government hasn't built any rockets in decades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Constellation might have been cool , but Obama has the right idea .
He understands that building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities.Which , oddly enough , is precisely why commercial entities have been building rockets and selling them on the open market for decades to government and private entities .
Other than odd sounding rocket class vehicle or the occasional small prototype , the government has n't built any rockets in decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Constellation might have been cool, but Obama has the right idea.
He understands that building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities.Which, oddly enough, is precisely why commercial entities have been building rockets and selling them on the open market for decades to government and private entities.
Other than odd sounding rocket class vehicle or the occasional small prototype, the government hasn't built any rockets in decades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922</id>
	<title>Bring home the bacon!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267893120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government shouldn't make sure that Americans aren't killed or bankrupted by treatable illnesses.</p><p>Government is for invading foreign countries and building spaceships in a certain Republican senator's home state.</p><p>Thanks, Kay. You could have given us health care but instead your giving us spaceships.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government should n't make sure that Americans are n't killed or bankrupted by treatable illnesses.Government is for invading foreign countries and building spaceships in a certain Republican senator 's home state.Thanks , Kay .
You could have given us health care but instead your giving us spaceships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government shouldn't make sure that Americans aren't killed or bankrupted by treatable illnesses.Government is for invading foreign countries and building spaceships in a certain Republican senator's home state.Thanks, Kay.
You could have given us health care but instead your giving us spaceships.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380980</id>
	<title>Pork, US Government Way Of Life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267893480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government isn't supposed to be in control of my life from the womb to my tomb either.  With drawl from the ISS, cancel the STS and get NASA out of the low earth manned space program all together and let industry do it's work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government is n't supposed to be in control of my life from the womb to my tomb either .
With drawl from the ISS , cancel the STS and get NASA out of the low earth manned space program all together and let industry do it 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government isn't supposed to be in control of my life from the womb to my tomb either.
With drawl from the ISS, cancel the STS and get NASA out of the low earth manned space program all together and let industry do it's work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381774</id>
	<title>Why are we still wasting money on this?</title>
	<author>terraplane</author>
	<datestamp>1267901400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to kill the space program once and for all. A juvenile, stupid waste of money and lives.</p><p>Go indulge your space adventure fantasies somewhere else, idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to kill the space program once and for all .
A juvenile , stupid waste of money and lives.Go indulge your space adventure fantasies somewhere else , idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to kill the space program once and for all.
A juvenile, stupid waste of money and lives.Go indulge your space adventure fantasies somewhere else, idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384954</id>
	<title>This Way Leads to Failure</title>
	<author>Your Anus</author>
	<datestamp>1267882320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is stupid. Even with the extension, there won't be any flights for at least three years, because there aren't any external tanks left in the pipeline. NASA will be stuck in the past, and we will never leave Earth orbit because we will spending our moon money on make-work projects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is stupid .
Even with the extension , there wo n't be any flights for at least three years , because there are n't any external tanks left in the pipeline .
NASA will be stuck in the past , and we will never leave Earth orbit because we will spending our moon money on make-work projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is stupid.
Even with the extension, there won't be any flights for at least three years, because there aren't any external tanks left in the pipeline.
NASA will be stuck in the past, and we will never leave Earth orbit because we will spending our moon money on make-work projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381058</id>
	<title>Innovation in America is dead.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267894380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks to Nixon opening up relations with China in the 1970s, followed by NAFTA and other free trade agreements in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by the Republican craziness of the 2000s, we've seen several decades of American industry, R&amp;D and education being severely damaged.</p><p>It's no wonder that America's space initiatives have stalled, and we're stuck using technology first developed in the early 1970s. The Shuttle is the last major innovation we've seen out of America.</p><p>Computer networking and the Internet arose in the 1960s. Computer hardware has only been incrementally improving since the 1970s (look at how early PCs are nearly identical to PCs of today in terms of the sort of hardware they use). When it comes to software, the best we have (UNIX-like technologies) date from the 1960s. OOP is a 1970s concept. Functional programming predates that by a decade.</p><p>Most of our mobile phone and smartphone technology was initially developed in Europe, by Nokia and Ericsson. The rest was developed in Japan.</p><p>Our American-made vehicles are nearly identical to what we had in the 1950s.</p><p>We haven't had any new power generation methods developed since the nuclear power pioneered in the 1950s.</p><p>Buildings and infrastructure from the 1920s boom have proven to be far more reliable and robust than anything we've built since then. Suburbia is reaching the age where the shitty 1950s homes are starting to fall apart, and homes from the 1990s are now falling apart even quicker.</p><p>Now we see Europe, Japan and China becoming the leaders in biotech, thanks to backwards Republican thinking that punished researchers who sought to investigate stem-cell-based techniques.</p><p>What's worse, the education system of America has become so pathetic that it can't be turned around. There aren't enough intelligent, qualified Americans between the ages of 20 and 60 who can teach our youth. Even if we could improve education immediately, there'd still be a 50-year gap consisting of people who were born and raised during the so-called "American Dark Ages" of the 1970s until now.</p><p>These Shuttle issues are just the tip of the massive iceberg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to Nixon opening up relations with China in the 1970s , followed by NAFTA and other free trade agreements in the 1980s and 1990s , followed by the Republican craziness of the 2000s , we 've seen several decades of American industry , R&amp;D and education being severely damaged.It 's no wonder that America 's space initiatives have stalled , and we 're stuck using technology first developed in the early 1970s .
The Shuttle is the last major innovation we 've seen out of America.Computer networking and the Internet arose in the 1960s .
Computer hardware has only been incrementally improving since the 1970s ( look at how early PCs are nearly identical to PCs of today in terms of the sort of hardware they use ) .
When it comes to software , the best we have ( UNIX-like technologies ) date from the 1960s .
OOP is a 1970s concept .
Functional programming predates that by a decade.Most of our mobile phone and smartphone technology was initially developed in Europe , by Nokia and Ericsson .
The rest was developed in Japan.Our American-made vehicles are nearly identical to what we had in the 1950s.We have n't had any new power generation methods developed since the nuclear power pioneered in the 1950s.Buildings and infrastructure from the 1920s boom have proven to be far more reliable and robust than anything we 've built since then .
Suburbia is reaching the age where the shitty 1950s homes are starting to fall apart , and homes from the 1990s are now falling apart even quicker.Now we see Europe , Japan and China becoming the leaders in biotech , thanks to backwards Republican thinking that punished researchers who sought to investigate stem-cell-based techniques.What 's worse , the education system of America has become so pathetic that it ca n't be turned around .
There are n't enough intelligent , qualified Americans between the ages of 20 and 60 who can teach our youth .
Even if we could improve education immediately , there 'd still be a 50-year gap consisting of people who were born and raised during the so-called " American Dark Ages " of the 1970s until now.These Shuttle issues are just the tip of the massive iceberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to Nixon opening up relations with China in the 1970s, followed by NAFTA and other free trade agreements in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by the Republican craziness of the 2000s, we've seen several decades of American industry, R&amp;D and education being severely damaged.It's no wonder that America's space initiatives have stalled, and we're stuck using technology first developed in the early 1970s.
The Shuttle is the last major innovation we've seen out of America.Computer networking and the Internet arose in the 1960s.
Computer hardware has only been incrementally improving since the 1970s (look at how early PCs are nearly identical to PCs of today in terms of the sort of hardware they use).
When it comes to software, the best we have (UNIX-like technologies) date from the 1960s.
OOP is a 1970s concept.
Functional programming predates that by a decade.Most of our mobile phone and smartphone technology was initially developed in Europe, by Nokia and Ericsson.
The rest was developed in Japan.Our American-made vehicles are nearly identical to what we had in the 1950s.We haven't had any new power generation methods developed since the nuclear power pioneered in the 1950s.Buildings and infrastructure from the 1920s boom have proven to be far more reliable and robust than anything we've built since then.
Suburbia is reaching the age where the shitty 1950s homes are starting to fall apart, and homes from the 1990s are now falling apart even quicker.Now we see Europe, Japan and China becoming the leaders in biotech, thanks to backwards Republican thinking that punished researchers who sought to investigate stem-cell-based techniques.What's worse, the education system of America has become so pathetic that it can't be turned around.
There aren't enough intelligent, qualified Americans between the ages of 20 and 60 who can teach our youth.
Even if we could improve education immediately, there'd still be a 50-year gap consisting of people who were born and raised during the so-called "American Dark Ages" of the 1970s until now.These Shuttle issues are just the tip of the massive iceberg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31394666</id>
	<title>Radical</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1267962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA (criticized as 'radical') proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden</p></div><p> <b>Dixon:</b> Guardians are here to mend and defend, okay? Not sit around trying to work out the way User thinks and why Viruses are introduced into systems. Sheesh. I'm just glad the Prime Guardian hasn't seen any of <em>your</em> works.<br><b>Bob:</b> I had a meeting with Turbo just last second. He thought my ideas to reprogram Viruses for the good were <em>radical</em>!<br><b>Dixon:</b> Radical. Ha, he used the word "radical" and you think--</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA ( criticized as 'radical ' ) proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden Dixon : Guardians are here to mend and defend , okay ?
Not sit around trying to work out the way User thinks and why Viruses are introduced into systems .
Sheesh. I 'm just glad the Prime Guardian has n't seen any of your works.Bob : I had a meeting with Turbo just last second .
He thought my ideas to reprogram Viruses for the good were radical ! Dixon : Radical .
Ha , he used the word " radical " and you think--</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA (criticized as 'radical') proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden Dixon: Guardians are here to mend and defend, okay?
Not sit around trying to work out the way User thinks and why Viruses are introduced into systems.
Sheesh. I'm just glad the Prime Guardian hasn't seen any of your works.Bob: I had a meeting with Turbo just last second.
He thought my ideas to reprogram Viruses for the good were radical!Dixon: Radical.
Ha, he used the word "radical" and you think--
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381446</id>
	<title>Choosing the government option (for orbital lift)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267898280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it funny - the government option for health care (that will benefit poorer citizens and keep the greedy corporations honest) is opposed by the Republicans, and yet the government option for orbital transportation is supported by them - higher costs, benefits only going to their friends at Boeing, Lockheed etc etc.</p><p>Brought to you by the letter 'H' for Hypocrisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it funny - the government option for health care ( that will benefit poorer citizens and keep the greedy corporations honest ) is opposed by the Republicans , and yet the government option for orbital transportation is supported by them - higher costs , benefits only going to their friends at Boeing , Lockheed etc etc.Brought to you by the letter 'H ' for Hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it funny - the government option for health care (that will benefit poorer citizens and keep the greedy corporations honest) is opposed by the Republicans, and yet the government option for orbital transportation is supported by them - higher costs, benefits only going to their friends at Boeing, Lockheed etc etc.Brought to you by the letter 'H' for Hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383268</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation in America is dead.</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1267868580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days.  The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.</p><p>For starters, because this is slashdot, have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now.  Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010.  No innovation?</p><p>Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s, those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings.  Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking, electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines.  Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die.  At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight. Air bags, GPS navigation, OBD-II, catalytic converters, solid state radio, radial tires, digital sensors and readouts (even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out).  Cars are not the same.</p><p>My parents house was built in mid 60s, well built and doing fine.  The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine. Both places will be good for another 30 years at least, where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing, guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places (effects of Depression) and you don't know about it because it didn't stand the test of time, your sample set is flawed..</p></div><p>
The number one crucial development for the Automobile Industry that has stalled for decades is engine efficiency. That is intentional, not because they can't sell 100mpg vehicles. They fear they would sell less of them. Those fears are unfounded. People upgrade for the look, not the efficiency no matter how efficient the vehicle. Porsche could sell a 100mpg vehicle and within 5 years add a bunch of "luxury" items now considered stock only to see a large used market for those 5 year vehicles because everyone has to have the new stock model. Henry Ford sold the world a drug and intentionally provided incremental upgrades to keep the habit going.
</p><p>
Make the Highspeed [250mph+] rail systems that loops the entire US and provides a connection Hub to Denver and St Louis that branches like a web to the midwest for [150mph] rails and just see how fast the Auto Industry innovates itself or dies. Add lightrail for all US Metro cities at 200K+ and watch the lobbying protest against it from the Auto industry. Your list of luxury accessories for Autos weren't invented for the sake of evolving the industry. They were invented to keep the addiction going and to comply with ways to handle factors of safety the heads of these Auto corporations would prefer not to care about.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days .
The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.For starters , because this is slashdot , have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now .
Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010 .
No innovation ? Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s , those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings .
Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking , electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines .
Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die .
At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight .
Air bags , GPS navigation , OBD-II , catalytic converters , solid state radio , radial tires , digital sensors and readouts ( even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out ) .
Cars are not the same.My parents house was built in mid 60s , well built and doing fine .
The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine .
Both places will be good for another 30 years at least , where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing , guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places ( effects of Depression ) and you do n't know about it because it did n't stand the test of time , your sample set is flawed. . The number one crucial development for the Automobile Industry that has stalled for decades is engine efficiency .
That is intentional , not because they ca n't sell 100mpg vehicles .
They fear they would sell less of them .
Those fears are unfounded .
People upgrade for the look , not the efficiency no matter how efficient the vehicle .
Porsche could sell a 100mpg vehicle and within 5 years add a bunch of " luxury " items now considered stock only to see a large used market for those 5 year vehicles because everyone has to have the new stock model .
Henry Ford sold the world a drug and intentionally provided incremental upgrades to keep the habit going .
Make the Highspeed [ 250mph + ] rail systems that loops the entire US and provides a connection Hub to Denver and St Louis that branches like a web to the midwest for [ 150mph ] rails and just see how fast the Auto Industry innovates itself or dies .
Add lightrail for all US Metro cities at 200K + and watch the lobbying protest against it from the Auto industry .
Your list of luxury accessories for Autos were n't invented for the sake of evolving the industry .
They were invented to keep the addiction going and to comply with ways to handle factors of safety the heads of these Auto corporations would prefer not to care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days.
The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.For starters, because this is slashdot, have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now.
Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010.
No innovation?Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s, those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings.
Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking, electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines.
Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die.
At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight.
Air bags, GPS navigation, OBD-II, catalytic converters, solid state radio, radial tires, digital sensors and readouts (even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out).
Cars are not the same.My parents house was built in mid 60s, well built and doing fine.
The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine.
Both places will be good for another 30 years at least, where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing, guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places (effects of Depression) and you don't know about it because it didn't stand the test of time, your sample set is flawed..
The number one crucial development for the Automobile Industry that has stalled for decades is engine efficiency.
That is intentional, not because they can't sell 100mpg vehicles.
They fear they would sell less of them.
Those fears are unfounded.
People upgrade for the look, not the efficiency no matter how efficient the vehicle.
Porsche could sell a 100mpg vehicle and within 5 years add a bunch of "luxury" items now considered stock only to see a large used market for those 5 year vehicles because everyone has to have the new stock model.
Henry Ford sold the world a drug and intentionally provided incremental upgrades to keep the habit going.
Make the Highspeed [250mph+] rail systems that loops the entire US and provides a connection Hub to Denver and St Louis that branches like a web to the midwest for [150mph] rails and just see how fast the Auto Industry innovates itself or dies.
Add lightrail for all US Metro cities at 200K+ and watch the lobbying protest against it from the Auto industry.
Your list of luxury accessories for Autos weren't invented for the sake of evolving the industry.
They were invented to keep the addiction going and to comply with ways to handle factors of safety the heads of these Auto corporations would prefer not to care about.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385958</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation in America is dead.</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1267890960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Computer hardware has only been incrementally improving since the 1970s (look at how early PCs are nearly identical to PCs of today in terms of the sort of hardware they use).</p></div><p>I love watching those old shows on TV Land and seeing their wireless networks, solid state drives, flat panel monitors, and RAID arrays.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Our American-made vehicles are nearly identical to what we had in the 1950s.</p></div><p>I love watching <i>Happy Days</i> reruns and seeing their fuel injection, airbags, antilock brakes, satellite radios, and mp3 players.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer hardware has only been incrementally improving since the 1970s ( look at how early PCs are nearly identical to PCs of today in terms of the sort of hardware they use ) .I love watching those old shows on TV Land and seeing their wireless networks , solid state drives , flat panel monitors , and RAID arrays.Our American-made vehicles are nearly identical to what we had in the 1950s.I love watching Happy Days reruns and seeing their fuel injection , airbags , antilock brakes , satellite radios , and mp3 players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer hardware has only been incrementally improving since the 1970s (look at how early PCs are nearly identical to PCs of today in terms of the sort of hardware they use).I love watching those old shows on TV Land and seeing their wireless networks, solid state drives, flat panel monitors, and RAID arrays.Our American-made vehicles are nearly identical to what we had in the 1950s.I love watching Happy Days reruns and seeing their fuel injection, airbags, antilock brakes, satellite radios, and mp3 players.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381166</id>
	<title>Hypocrite Republican: Texas Jobs Bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267895700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those hypocrites in the Republican Party! This is nothing more than a jobs bill for Houston and the Southern states who all own most of the various NASA installations [Texas, Alabama, Florida] and so they will stand to lose when the admirable-but-currently-unaffordable NASA Launch Business is set to retire.<br>
<br>
I'm sure this Republican from Texas, who is basically proposing the opposite of what President Obama has proposed, is all against government waste--except when it comes to things that benefit his district.<br>
<br>
<b>I love the space program. I admire most of what NASA has done. I agree with President Obama that NASA should delegate the conventional launch business to the private sector. NASA should focus on developing the technologies of the future, not ones that were invented by Goddard back in the twenties.</b>
<br>
Though it would be cool and exciting to see the huge Ares V rocket blast off, <i>we cannot afford it right now.</i> Why is that so hard for people to understand? We can afford to do research on the next generation but we should not be in the Space Truck business. Let's throw a few bones to the private sector. Let them build it cheaply and we will buy seats for our people and stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those hypocrites in the Republican Party !
This is nothing more than a jobs bill for Houston and the Southern states who all own most of the various NASA installations [ Texas , Alabama , Florida ] and so they will stand to lose when the admirable-but-currently-unaffordable NASA Launch Business is set to retire .
I 'm sure this Republican from Texas , who is basically proposing the opposite of what President Obama has proposed , is all against government waste--except when it comes to things that benefit his district .
I love the space program .
I admire most of what NASA has done .
I agree with President Obama that NASA should delegate the conventional launch business to the private sector .
NASA should focus on developing the technologies of the future , not ones that were invented by Goddard back in the twenties .
Though it would be cool and exciting to see the huge Ares V rocket blast off , we can not afford it right now .
Why is that so hard for people to understand ?
We can afford to do research on the next generation but we should not be in the Space Truck business .
Let 's throw a few bones to the private sector .
Let them build it cheaply and we will buy seats for our people and stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those hypocrites in the Republican Party!
This is nothing more than a jobs bill for Houston and the Southern states who all own most of the various NASA installations [Texas, Alabama, Florida] and so they will stand to lose when the admirable-but-currently-unaffordable NASA Launch Business is set to retire.
I'm sure this Republican from Texas, who is basically proposing the opposite of what President Obama has proposed, is all against government waste--except when it comes to things that benefit his district.
I love the space program.
I admire most of what NASA has done.
I agree with President Obama that NASA should delegate the conventional launch business to the private sector.
NASA should focus on developing the technologies of the future, not ones that were invented by Goddard back in the twenties.
Though it would be cool and exciting to see the huge Ares V rocket blast off, we cannot afford it right now.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?
We can afford to do research on the next generation but we should not be in the Space Truck business.
Let's throw a few bones to the private sector.
Let them build it cheaply and we will buy seats for our people and stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383726</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes, politicians</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267872060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm kinda shocked that it took this long for someone to point out the hypocrisy here. Hutchison is proposing a government-operated space transportation system? Really? Not only is the commercial sector already active in that area, it's a massive expansion of NASA into unknown territory (from cutting-edge research to providing a public service) along with a billion dollar expenditure that really isn't needed.</p><p>I'm baffled. Shouldn't his brain implode when considering these options? Wait, you're right. He's a simple politician. For them, that behavior is par for the course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kinda shocked that it took this long for someone to point out the hypocrisy here .
Hutchison is proposing a government-operated space transportation system ?
Really ? Not only is the commercial sector already active in that area , it 's a massive expansion of NASA into unknown territory ( from cutting-edge research to providing a public service ) along with a billion dollar expenditure that really is n't needed.I 'm baffled .
Should n't his brain implode when considering these options ?
Wait , you 're right .
He 's a simple politician .
For them , that behavior is par for the course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kinda shocked that it took this long for someone to point out the hypocrisy here.
Hutchison is proposing a government-operated space transportation system?
Really? Not only is the commercial sector already active in that area, it's a massive expansion of NASA into unknown territory (from cutting-edge research to providing a public service) along with a billion dollar expenditure that really isn't needed.I'm baffled.
Shouldn't his brain implode when considering these options?
Wait, you're right.
He's a simple politician.
For them, that behavior is par for the course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384608</id>
	<title>Abysmal decision making from the Whitehouse</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1267879260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is good to see the congress contest the abysmal decision making coming from the Whitehouse. There is no logical reason to end NASA's manned space program. Obama's sycophants at NASA are in full retreat. I look forward to the return of Constellation and extension of the Shuttle project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is good to see the congress contest the abysmal decision making coming from the Whitehouse .
There is no logical reason to end NASA 's manned space program .
Obama 's sycophants at NASA are in full retreat .
I look forward to the return of Constellation and extension of the Shuttle project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is good to see the congress contest the abysmal decision making coming from the Whitehouse.
There is no logical reason to end NASA's manned space program.
Obama's sycophants at NASA are in full retreat.
I look forward to the return of Constellation and extension of the Shuttle project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386850</id>
	<title>Re:shuttle may not make 2015</title>
	<author>cthulhu11</author>
	<datestamp>1267901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Now, the people most effected by this</i> <p>

Nobody is effected by it, but some may be <b>a</b>ffected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , the people most effected by this Nobody is effected by it , but some may be affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, the people most effected by this 

Nobody is effected by it, but some may be affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381142</id>
	<title>Fickle American Public!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267895400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with using the aging shuttle technology indefinitely is one of safety.  Not just for the crews of these craft, although that is very important, but for the safety of the entire program.  Americans will not stand for too many other disasters.  Anybody remotely acquainted with the space program knows that it cannot be made perfectly safe.  But the American public will blow things far out of proportion if another shuttle goes down.  Every big disaster that happens people start thinking that NASA is wasting money and lives on frivolous activities.  We need to be very careful here!</p><p>Blessed Atheist Bible Study @ http://blessedatheist.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with using the aging shuttle technology indefinitely is one of safety .
Not just for the crews of these craft , although that is very important , but for the safety of the entire program .
Americans will not stand for too many other disasters .
Anybody remotely acquainted with the space program knows that it can not be made perfectly safe .
But the American public will blow things far out of proportion if another shuttle goes down .
Every big disaster that happens people start thinking that NASA is wasting money and lives on frivolous activities .
We need to be very careful here ! Blessed Atheist Bible Study @ http : //blessedatheist.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with using the aging shuttle technology indefinitely is one of safety.
Not just for the crews of these craft, although that is very important, but for the safety of the entire program.
Americans will not stand for too many other disasters.
Anybody remotely acquainted with the space program knows that it cannot be made perfectly safe.
But the American public will blow things far out of proportion if another shuttle goes down.
Every big disaster that happens people start thinking that NASA is wasting money and lives on frivolous activities.
We need to be very careful here!Blessed Atheist Bible Study @ http://blessedatheist.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381300</id>
	<title>that is not a NASA issue</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1267897080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason is that NASA funds things like that, and then Russia, ESA, JAXA, CSA, and even Chinese use that as the approved list. The fact is, that  the testing HAS to happen since it was not designed from the gitgo with space missions in mind. If an America company was smart (kodak comes to mind, but then, they are not very smart), they would follow the Fischer Pen approach and design a camera to survive in space, water, etc. and then advertise it as being rugged for space as well as water, camping, etc. That little bit of marketing helped make Fischer Space pen sell a million more than what it would have otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason is that NASA funds things like that , and then Russia , ESA , JAXA , CSA , and even Chinese use that as the approved list .
The fact is , that the testing HAS to happen since it was not designed from the gitgo with space missions in mind .
If an America company was smart ( kodak comes to mind , but then , they are not very smart ) , they would follow the Fischer Pen approach and design a camera to survive in space , water , etc .
and then advertise it as being rugged for space as well as water , camping , etc .
That little bit of marketing helped make Fischer Space pen sell a million more than what it would have otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason is that NASA funds things like that, and then Russia, ESA, JAXA, CSA, and even Chinese use that as the approved list.
The fact is, that  the testing HAS to happen since it was not designed from the gitgo with space missions in mind.
If an America company was smart (kodak comes to mind, but then, they are not very smart), they would follow the Fischer Pen approach and design a camera to survive in space, water, etc.
and then advertise it as being rugged for space as well as water, camping, etc.
That little bit of marketing helped make Fischer Space pen sell a million more than what it would have otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384164</id>
	<title>Re:No!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities.</p></div><p>commercial entities as opposed to what? You claim to work on Constellation. Do you think that NASA was going to build a factory to build Ares? Do you think there'd be a NASA factory with NASA workers building Orion? No. Commercial entities were going to be given contracts to build the rockets and the capsules, just like how Rockwell built the Space Shuttle and Grumman build the lunar lander.</p><p>So your comment basically boils down to: "bush's plan to use commercial entities is fundamentally flawed. Obama's plan to use <i>commercial entities</i> is brilliant!!"</p><p>To me, that's what this whole issue comes down to. People don't like Bush. Well guess what: no matter what Obama does, in eight years president (god help us) Palin is going to cancel it because she and the republicans wont like Obama. And they'll claim that they're just canceling it because it's having budget problems and their plan is so much better. The only difference will be that since 99\% of the internets are liberal democrats, you'll be whining about it when Palin does it. But that wont change the fact that it'll be the exact same thing for the exact same reason.</p><p>And eight years after that, president Chelsey Clinton will cancel Palin's space program and if you're still around you'll say, "oh yes, Clinton has the right idea. We really need to use commercial companies."</p><p>bah!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities.commercial entities as opposed to what ?
You claim to work on Constellation .
Do you think that NASA was going to build a factory to build Ares ?
Do you think there 'd be a NASA factory with NASA workers building Orion ?
No. Commercial entities were going to be given contracts to build the rockets and the capsules , just like how Rockwell built the Space Shuttle and Grumman build the lunar lander.So your comment basically boils down to : " bush 's plan to use commercial entities is fundamentally flawed .
Obama 's plan to use commercial entities is brilliant ! !
" To me , that 's what this whole issue comes down to .
People do n't like Bush .
Well guess what : no matter what Obama does , in eight years president ( god help us ) Palin is going to cancel it because she and the republicans wont like Obama .
And they 'll claim that they 're just canceling it because it 's having budget problems and their plan is so much better .
The only difference will be that since 99 \ % of the internets are liberal democrats , you 'll be whining about it when Palin does it .
But that wont change the fact that it 'll be the exact same thing for the exact same reason.And eight years after that , president Chelsey Clinton will cancel Palin 's space program and if you 're still around you 'll say , " oh yes , Clinton has the right idea .
We really need to use commercial companies .
" bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities.commercial entities as opposed to what?
You claim to work on Constellation.
Do you think that NASA was going to build a factory to build Ares?
Do you think there'd be a NASA factory with NASA workers building Orion?
No. Commercial entities were going to be given contracts to build the rockets and the capsules, just like how Rockwell built the Space Shuttle and Grumman build the lunar lander.So your comment basically boils down to: "bush's plan to use commercial entities is fundamentally flawed.
Obama's plan to use commercial entities is brilliant!!
"To me, that's what this whole issue comes down to.
People don't like Bush.
Well guess what: no matter what Obama does, in eight years president (god help us) Palin is going to cancel it because she and the republicans wont like Obama.
And they'll claim that they're just canceling it because it's having budget problems and their plan is so much better.
The only difference will be that since 99\% of the internets are liberal democrats, you'll be whining about it when Palin does it.
But that wont change the fact that it'll be the exact same thing for the exact same reason.And eight years after that, president Chelsey Clinton will cancel Palin's space program and if you're still around you'll say, "oh yes, Clinton has the right idea.
We really need to use commercial companies.
"bah!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381226</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267896420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same set of neo-cons that carp about Stimulus bill are busy pushing another jobs bill via this. And where are they from? Texas, Fl, Al, and Ca.
Surprised that they would put their election ahead of the nation?
Not me.

With that said, this bill is a prime example of neo-con spend and borrow. It wants to extend the shuttle for another 2-3 years, but only gives up 3 billion to fund it. Well, if you fly ONE SHUTTLE, then you have to fund the entire crew. That means 3-4 BILLION for that year. So, you are better off flying as many as possible since each flight is only about 200 million in variable costs.

The problem that we have with our space system is that we have depended on exactly ONE arch to get us to the moon and then exactly one to get us into LEO. That needs to change if we want to support a moon base, or even a mars base. As such we NEED multiple architectures. in
<ol>
<li>Human lift to LEO,</li>
<li>Small and Medium Cargo Lift to LEO</li>
<li>SUPER-Heavy cargo lift to leo.</li>
<li>Pluggable way to add a tug to a craft.</li>
</ol><p>
The above will prevent Congress from doing what it is doing AND will prevent an accident in a rocket from shutting down the entire space program.
Nixon killed skylab because he did not fund NASA properly for building the shuttle after shutting down Apollo in 1970.
Likewise, W and the 2004 Congress SEVERELY underfunded NASA after pushing a mistake like Constellation.
In addition, Challenger and Columbia shut down NASA's Manned missions for several years.
For us to move off this planet, we need to prevent such nightmares from happening again.

The heavy lifter that NASA is pushing is not on the drawing board yet. They want to do more RD to bring up to speed on engines. THEN they want to have Private Space build 2 or more heavy lift mostly on their dollar, and have NASA focus on doing cutting edge RD as well as focused on how to build out a system that moves us out of LEO.

The new plan will build up private space and help get them to the moon along with a national consortium (almost certainly all of the ISS crew and possible adding  India and Brazil).

The issue will be the idiots in congress that did not fund these vehicles over the last 6 years, but are now wanting to throw good money after bad ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same set of neo-cons that carp about Stimulus bill are busy pushing another jobs bill via this .
And where are they from ?
Texas , Fl , Al , and Ca .
Surprised that they would put their election ahead of the nation ?
Not me .
With that said , this bill is a prime example of neo-con spend and borrow .
It wants to extend the shuttle for another 2-3 years , but only gives up 3 billion to fund it .
Well , if you fly ONE SHUTTLE , then you have to fund the entire crew .
That means 3-4 BILLION for that year .
So , you are better off flying as many as possible since each flight is only about 200 million in variable costs .
The problem that we have with our space system is that we have depended on exactly ONE arch to get us to the moon and then exactly one to get us into LEO .
That needs to change if we want to support a moon base , or even a mars base .
As such we NEED multiple architectures .
in Human lift to LEO , Small and Medium Cargo Lift to LEO SUPER-Heavy cargo lift to leo .
Pluggable way to add a tug to a craft .
The above will prevent Congress from doing what it is doing AND will prevent an accident in a rocket from shutting down the entire space program .
Nixon killed skylab because he did not fund NASA properly for building the shuttle after shutting down Apollo in 1970 .
Likewise , W and the 2004 Congress SEVERELY underfunded NASA after pushing a mistake like Constellation .
In addition , Challenger and Columbia shut down NASA 's Manned missions for several years .
For us to move off this planet , we need to prevent such nightmares from happening again .
The heavy lifter that NASA is pushing is not on the drawing board yet .
They want to do more RD to bring up to speed on engines .
THEN they want to have Private Space build 2 or more heavy lift mostly on their dollar , and have NASA focus on doing cutting edge RD as well as focused on how to build out a system that moves us out of LEO .
The new plan will build up private space and help get them to the moon along with a national consortium ( almost certainly all of the ISS crew and possible adding India and Brazil ) .
The issue will be the idiots in congress that did not fund these vehicles over the last 6 years , but are now wanting to throw good money after bad ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same set of neo-cons that carp about Stimulus bill are busy pushing another jobs bill via this.
And where are they from?
Texas, Fl, Al, and Ca.
Surprised that they would put their election ahead of the nation?
Not me.
With that said, this bill is a prime example of neo-con spend and borrow.
It wants to extend the shuttle for another 2-3 years, but only gives up 3 billion to fund it.
Well, if you fly ONE SHUTTLE, then you have to fund the entire crew.
That means 3-4 BILLION for that year.
So, you are better off flying as many as possible since each flight is only about 200 million in variable costs.
The problem that we have with our space system is that we have depended on exactly ONE arch to get us to the moon and then exactly one to get us into LEO.
That needs to change if we want to support a moon base, or even a mars base.
As such we NEED multiple architectures.
in

Human lift to LEO,
Small and Medium Cargo Lift to LEO
SUPER-Heavy cargo lift to leo.
Pluggable way to add a tug to a craft.
The above will prevent Congress from doing what it is doing AND will prevent an accident in a rocket from shutting down the entire space program.
Nixon killed skylab because he did not fund NASA properly for building the shuttle after shutting down Apollo in 1970.
Likewise, W and the 2004 Congress SEVERELY underfunded NASA after pushing a mistake like Constellation.
In addition, Challenger and Columbia shut down NASA's Manned missions for several years.
For us to move off this planet, we need to prevent such nightmares from happening again.
The heavy lifter that NASA is pushing is not on the drawing board yet.
They want to do more RD to bring up to speed on engines.
THEN they want to have Private Space build 2 or more heavy lift mostly on their dollar, and have NASA focus on doing cutting edge RD as well as focused on how to build out a system that moves us out of LEO.
The new plan will build up private space and help get them to the moon along with a national consortium (almost certainly all of the ISS crew and possible adding  India and Brazil).
The issue will be the idiots in congress that did not fund these vehicles over the last 6 years, but are now wanting to throw good money after bad ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381254</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267896660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what DO you do when the battery charger bursts into flames on orbit? Can't call the fire dept, can't run out the door, your options are limited. And fire extinguishers make a mess, more so in zero than on the ground. Also consider that many AC adapters, even for high-end consumer cameras, come with NO documentation. In many cases, the housing (made of an unspecified black plastic-like material) is sealed or glued shut and can't be opened to allow inspection of the circuitry. Given the effort required to gather to the necessary information to assess the safety of the unit, and the likelihood that even with all the information it might still be impossible to assure the safety of the unit, it really might make more sense to design and build your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what DO you do when the battery charger bursts into flames on orbit ?
Ca n't call the fire dept , ca n't run out the door , your options are limited .
And fire extinguishers make a mess , more so in zero than on the ground .
Also consider that many AC adapters , even for high-end consumer cameras , come with NO documentation .
In many cases , the housing ( made of an unspecified black plastic-like material ) is sealed or glued shut and ca n't be opened to allow inspection of the circuitry .
Given the effort required to gather to the necessary information to assess the safety of the unit , and the likelihood that even with all the information it might still be impossible to assure the safety of the unit , it really might make more sense to design and build your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what DO you do when the battery charger bursts into flames on orbit?
Can't call the fire dept, can't run out the door, your options are limited.
And fire extinguishers make a mess, more so in zero than on the ground.
Also consider that many AC adapters, even for high-end consumer cameras, come with NO documentation.
In many cases, the housing (made of an unspecified black plastic-like material) is sealed or glued shut and can't be opened to allow inspection of the circuitry.
Given the effort required to gather to the necessary information to assess the safety of the unit, and the likelihood that even with all the information it might still be impossible to assure the safety of the unit, it really might make more sense to design and build your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31388144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31393996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31408406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31395332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31418504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31408454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_1427256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31393996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31388144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31383268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31408406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382476
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31385120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31408454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31382888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31418504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31386826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_1427256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31380956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31381960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31384164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_1427256.31395332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
