<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_2214208</id>
	<title>Former Astronauts Call Obama NASA Plans "Catastrophic"</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268476500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>krou writes <i>"Talking to the BBC at a private function held at the Royal Society in London, former astronauts Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan both <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8565243.stm">spoke out about Obama's decision to postpone further moon missions</a>. Lovell claimed that 'it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology,' while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon. Said Cernan: 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence.' Neil Armstrong, who was also at the event, avoided commenting on the subject."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>krou writes " Talking to the BBC at a private function held at the Royal Society in London , former astronauts Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan both spoke out about Obama 's decision to postpone further moon missions .
Lovell claimed that 'it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology, ' while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed ' to have been the last person to land on the moon .
Said Cernan : 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ... to seek knowledge .
Curiosity 's the essence of human existence .
' Neil Armstrong , who was also at the event , avoided commenting on the subject .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>krou writes "Talking to the BBC at a private function held at the Royal Society in London, former astronauts Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan both spoke out about Obama's decision to postpone further moon missions.
Lovell claimed that 'it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology,' while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon.
Said Cernan: 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ... to seek knowledge.
Curiosity's the essence of human existence.
' Neil Armstrong, who was also at the event, avoided commenting on the subject.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31473302</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Obama even matter</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1268593200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since many states have branches of NASA and their subcontractors, expect congressional opposition to the Obama plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since many states have branches of NASA and their subcontractors , expect congressional opposition to the Obama plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since many states have branches of NASA and their subcontractors, expect congressional opposition to the Obama plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467956</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1268484720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Better go look at the budget. Obama's budget *increases* NASA spending while removing its most visible mission. Basically, he plans on creating the next Lockheed or Boeing at taxpayer expense.</p></div><p>Quite the opposite, actually. The current Constellation program favors cost-plus non-competitive contracts, while the new plan uses fixed-price commercial contracts with multiple companies competing and developing in parallel, with companies only getting paid for meeting milestones. For example, a number of companies are currently under "CCDev" contracts for developing commercial crew vehicles and technologies, and only get paid the full amount if they meet all of their milestones by the end of 2010. You can read more about this in the budget documents:</p><p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html" title="nasa.gov">http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main\_Exploration.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main\_Exploration.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main\_Exploration.pdf" title="nasa.gov">http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main\_Exploration.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better go look at the budget .
Obama 's budget * increases * NASA spending while removing its most visible mission .
Basically , he plans on creating the next Lockheed or Boeing at taxpayer expense.Quite the opposite , actually .
The current Constellation program favors cost-plus non-competitive contracts , while the new plan uses fixed-price commercial contracts with multiple companies competing and developing in parallel , with companies only getting paid for meeting milestones .
For example , a number of companies are currently under " CCDev " contracts for developing commercial crew vehicles and technologies , and only get paid the full amount if they meet all of their milestones by the end of 2010 .
You can read more about this in the budget documents : http : //www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html [ nasa.gov ] http : //www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main \ _Exploration.pdf [ nasa.gov ] http : //www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main \ _Exploration.pdf [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better go look at the budget.
Obama's budget *increases* NASA spending while removing its most visible mission.
Basically, he plans on creating the next Lockheed or Boeing at taxpayer expense.Quite the opposite, actually.
The current Constellation program favors cost-plus non-competitive contracts, while the new plan uses fixed-price commercial contracts with multiple companies competing and developing in parallel, with companies only getting paid for meeting milestones.
For example, a number of companies are currently under "CCDev" contracts for developing commercial crew vehicles and technologies, and only get paid the full amount if they meet all of their milestones by the end of 2010.
You can read more about this in the budget documents:http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html [nasa.gov]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main\_Exploration.pdf [nasa.gov]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main\_Exploration.pdf [nasa.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469600</id>
	<title>there are other avenues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buzz Aldrin is channeling his urge to explore in the dance studio.</p><p><a href="http://abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/cast-announcement/ThemeGallery/397911" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">buzz</a> [go.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz Aldrin is channeling his urge to explore in the dance studio.buzz [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz Aldrin is channeling his urge to explore in the dance studio.buzz [go.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467688</id>
	<title>Re:maned space travel = not just now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268482620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The cost is ridiculous</p></div></blockquote><p>You people keep on saying this, but it is absolute bullshit.  Have you ever tried comparing the cost of manned spaceflight with... well... just about <i>anything</i> else the government does?  It is damned <b>cheap</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost is ridiculousYou people keep on saying this , but it is absolute bullshit .
Have you ever tried comparing the cost of manned spaceflight with... well... just about anything else the government does ?
It is damned cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost is ridiculousYou people keep on saying this, but it is absolute bullshit.
Have you ever tried comparing the cost of manned spaceflight with... well... just about anything else the government does?
It is damned cheap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467858</id>
	<title>Politicians and Their Broken Promises</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1268483820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the presidential campaign in 2008, Barack Hussein Obama promised generous funding for many government programs including NASA.  According to <a href="http://www.space.com/news/ft-080805-obama-space-policy.html" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">a typical news report</a> [space.com] of his promises, "<b>Sen. Barack Obama promised not to cut NASA funding</b> and said Saturday at a town hall meeting he will rely on Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and revered astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn to help form his space policy.
<p>
'Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again and is going to help grow the economy right here in Brevard County,' said the presumptive Democratic nominee, speaking to a crowd of 1,400 at Brevard Community College's Titusville campus.
</p><p>
<b>Obama has changed an earlier position, in which he planned to delay the Constellation program five years and use up to $5 billion from the NASA budget for education.</b>"
</p><p>
Like many politicians of all political parties, Obama tells the voters whatever they want to hear.  After he wins election, he quickly changes course.
</p><p>
The principal difference between Obama and the typical dishonest politican is that Obama personally hates Western culture and Western civilization.  For 20 years, he attended a church which taught that the West is solely responsible for the failure of non-Western societies.
</p><p>
Of course, Japan is proof that Obama (and his church) is wrong.  Not coincidentally, Japan continues to aggressively pursue space exploration.  According to <a href="http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090630i1.html" title="japantimes.co.jp" rel="nofollow">a recent news article</a> [japantimes.co.jp], "<b>Despite the recession, the [Japanese] government budgeted &yen;344.8 billion for space exploration in fiscal 2009, an increase of 10.4 percent from the previous year.</b>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the presidential campaign in 2008 , Barack Hussein Obama promised generous funding for many government programs including NASA .
According to a typical news report [ space.com ] of his promises , " Sen. Barack Obama promised not to cut NASA funding and said Saturday at a town hall meeting he will rely on Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and revered astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn to help form his space policy .
'Under my watch , NASA will inspire the world once again and is going to help grow the economy right here in Brevard County, ' said the presumptive Democratic nominee , speaking to a crowd of 1,400 at Brevard Community College 's Titusville campus .
Obama has changed an earlier position , in which he planned to delay the Constellation program five years and use up to $ 5 billion from the NASA budget for education .
" Like many politicians of all political parties , Obama tells the voters whatever they want to hear .
After he wins election , he quickly changes course .
The principal difference between Obama and the typical dishonest politican is that Obama personally hates Western culture and Western civilization .
For 20 years , he attended a church which taught that the West is solely responsible for the failure of non-Western societies .
Of course , Japan is proof that Obama ( and his church ) is wrong .
Not coincidentally , Japan continues to aggressively pursue space exploration .
According to a recent news article [ japantimes.co.jp ] , " Despite the recession , the [ Japanese ] government budgeted   344.8 billion for space exploration in fiscal 2009 , an increase of 10.4 percent from the previous year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the presidential campaign in 2008, Barack Hussein Obama promised generous funding for many government programs including NASA.
According to a typical news report [space.com] of his promises, "Sen. Barack Obama promised not to cut NASA funding and said Saturday at a town hall meeting he will rely on Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and revered astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn to help form his space policy.
'Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again and is going to help grow the economy right here in Brevard County,' said the presumptive Democratic nominee, speaking to a crowd of 1,400 at Brevard Community College's Titusville campus.
Obama has changed an earlier position, in which he planned to delay the Constellation program five years and use up to $5 billion from the NASA budget for education.
"

Like many politicians of all political parties, Obama tells the voters whatever they want to hear.
After he wins election, he quickly changes course.
The principal difference between Obama and the typical dishonest politican is that Obama personally hates Western culture and Western civilization.
For 20 years, he attended a church which taught that the West is solely responsible for the failure of non-Western societies.
Of course, Japan is proof that Obama (and his church) is wrong.
Not coincidentally, Japan continues to aggressively pursue space exploration.
According to a recent news article [japantimes.co.jp], "Despite the recession, the [Japanese] government budgeted ¥344.8 billion for space exploration in fiscal 2009, an increase of 10.4 percent from the previous year.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469864</id>
	<title>Space</title>
	<author>Space Guerilla</author>
	<datestamp>1268502720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To go to the Moon again makes sense. We need to make a Moon Base. A permanent Moon Base.
To go to Mars and back would be expensive. And a bit silly at this point.

If we plan to go to Mars in a manned mission it makes more sense to go when we can establish a permanent colony.

If we really want to live on Mars we need to:
1) put a biosphere in the Artic first. That way we can fix any problems that we didn't anticipate (shortages of supplies, accidents, etc).
2) put a biosphere on the Moon. And make it a permanent settlement, expand it and make it into a lauch site for rockets.
Have entire generations live on the Moon: schools, businesses, colonies.
3) The end goal would be to put a biosphere on Mars

The biggest hurdles to get over will be:
Creating a biosphere that can scale, and keep it running with the only inputs being energy and the raw materials available on Mars.
What will power a permanent Mars base? Fission? Fuel Cell? Solar? Wind?
What will build the cities in Mars? Self replicating robots? A couple large but efficient builder robots? Or will they be like the Earth movers we already use?
How do we cost effectively get that much stuff into orbit to build the giant rocket to get to Mars? We could mine asteroids and build rockets in space or on the Moon.

I think it makes the most sense to start with a space colony (in space or the Moon) outside the Earth, and from their population and resources move on to Mars.
Starting from Earth and going directly to Mars would require such a big rocket to start with (or many smaller rockets that would have to be assembled in space).
A space elevator would be possible for the Moon already (and maybe for Mars).

Earth-&gt;Mars is impractical (like a Saturn V except Bigger)
Earth-&gt;Moon is doable (with a very big rocket)
Earth-&gt;Moon-&gt;Mars would be much easier with a Moon Base
A Moon Base would be a significant investment (assuming a one time cost, it could provide a growing population that could hopefully scale)
 There are of course political problems that could arise if the colony wanted to become an independent entity and wanted to claim Mars for itself.
 As it is the Moonists would be the ones who would go to Mars.
Moon-&gt;Earth is easy (with minimal thrust)
Mars-&gt;Earth could be done (it has less gravity than Earth, it might be possible to construct a space elevator for Mars)</htmltext>
<tokenext>To go to the Moon again makes sense .
We need to make a Moon Base .
A permanent Moon Base .
To go to Mars and back would be expensive .
And a bit silly at this point .
If we plan to go to Mars in a manned mission it makes more sense to go when we can establish a permanent colony .
If we really want to live on Mars we need to : 1 ) put a biosphere in the Artic first .
That way we can fix any problems that we did n't anticipate ( shortages of supplies , accidents , etc ) .
2 ) put a biosphere on the Moon .
And make it a permanent settlement , expand it and make it into a lauch site for rockets .
Have entire generations live on the Moon : schools , businesses , colonies .
3 ) The end goal would be to put a biosphere on Mars The biggest hurdles to get over will be : Creating a biosphere that can scale , and keep it running with the only inputs being energy and the raw materials available on Mars .
What will power a permanent Mars base ?
Fission ? Fuel Cell ?
Solar ? Wind ?
What will build the cities in Mars ?
Self replicating robots ?
A couple large but efficient builder robots ?
Or will they be like the Earth movers we already use ?
How do we cost effectively get that much stuff into orbit to build the giant rocket to get to Mars ?
We could mine asteroids and build rockets in space or on the Moon .
I think it makes the most sense to start with a space colony ( in space or the Moon ) outside the Earth , and from their population and resources move on to Mars .
Starting from Earth and going directly to Mars would require such a big rocket to start with ( or many smaller rockets that would have to be assembled in space ) .
A space elevator would be possible for the Moon already ( and maybe for Mars ) .
Earth- &gt; Mars is impractical ( like a Saturn V except Bigger ) Earth- &gt; Moon is doable ( with a very big rocket ) Earth- &gt; Moon- &gt; Mars would be much easier with a Moon Base A Moon Base would be a significant investment ( assuming a one time cost , it could provide a growing population that could hopefully scale ) There are of course political problems that could arise if the colony wanted to become an independent entity and wanted to claim Mars for itself .
As it is the Moonists would be the ones who would go to Mars .
Moon- &gt; Earth is easy ( with minimal thrust ) Mars- &gt; Earth could be done ( it has less gravity than Earth , it might be possible to construct a space elevator for Mars )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To go to the Moon again makes sense.
We need to make a Moon Base.
A permanent Moon Base.
To go to Mars and back would be expensive.
And a bit silly at this point.
If we plan to go to Mars in a manned mission it makes more sense to go when we can establish a permanent colony.
If we really want to live on Mars we need to:
1) put a biosphere in the Artic first.
That way we can fix any problems that we didn't anticipate (shortages of supplies, accidents, etc).
2) put a biosphere on the Moon.
And make it a permanent settlement, expand it and make it into a lauch site for rockets.
Have entire generations live on the Moon: schools, businesses, colonies.
3) The end goal would be to put a biosphere on Mars

The biggest hurdles to get over will be:
Creating a biosphere that can scale, and keep it running with the only inputs being energy and the raw materials available on Mars.
What will power a permanent Mars base?
Fission? Fuel Cell?
Solar? Wind?
What will build the cities in Mars?
Self replicating robots?
A couple large but efficient builder robots?
Or will they be like the Earth movers we already use?
How do we cost effectively get that much stuff into orbit to build the giant rocket to get to Mars?
We could mine asteroids and build rockets in space or on the Moon.
I think it makes the most sense to start with a space colony (in space or the Moon) outside the Earth, and from their population and resources move on to Mars.
Starting from Earth and going directly to Mars would require such a big rocket to start with (or many smaller rockets that would have to be assembled in space).
A space elevator would be possible for the Moon already (and maybe for Mars).
Earth-&gt;Mars is impractical (like a Saturn V except Bigger)
Earth-&gt;Moon is doable (with a very big rocket)
Earth-&gt;Moon-&gt;Mars would be much easier with a Moon Base
A Moon Base would be a significant investment (assuming a one time cost, it could provide a growing population that could hopefully scale)
 There are of course political problems that could arise if the colony wanted to become an independent entity and wanted to claim Mars for itself.
As it is the Moonists would be the ones who would go to Mars.
Moon-&gt;Earth is easy (with minimal thrust)
Mars-&gt;Earth could be done (it has less gravity than Earth, it might be possible to construct a space elevator for Mars)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469066</id>
	<title>Leadership?</title>
	<author>yesterdaystomorrow</author>
	<datestamp>1268494080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence."
<br> <br>
Apollo's technology was at the cutting edge. But today? It takes decades to get a new idea into space. NASA's leadership is as frightened of 21st century technology as any superstitious savage.
<br> <br>
Curiosity? Anybody who works with NASA these days knows that it has comprehensively institutionalized the murder of curiosity.
<br> <br>
Seek knowledge? The joke inside the walls is that "NASA" stands for "Not A Science Agency".
<br> <br>
"Personally I think it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology."
<br> <br>
Spin-offs? Very rare these days. You can't have spin-offs if you're not pushing the technology envelope, and NASA simply isn't. You want advanced technology, peek inside an iPhone.
<br> <br>
The relationship between NASA and its contractors is rigorously legal, and thoroughly dishonest.
<br> <br>
NASA is very good at PR, and totally committed to using it to get taxpayer money to spend (and its private contractors are experts at capturing the money without having to deliver corresponding value). They are also good at international cooperation, which they use as a vehicle to inflict their stagnant practices on the potential competition.
<br> <br>
Within NASA, the human program is the most stagnant of all. The space station has the highest ratio of cost to actual accomplishment of anything NASA has ever done (but it gets great PR). The return to the Moon was never a genuinely serious program, just more institutional welfare.
<br> <br>
In the great age of European exploration, it took about a year of human labor on the shore to equip a sailor for a one year journey. In NASA's system, that ratio is thousands to one. With that inefficiency, there's no way that space travel can become a truly significant human activity. If you look at the advances in the supporting technologies since 1969, it might be possible to reduce costs that much, but having institutionalized layers and layers of barriers to even trying means it cannot happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge .
Curiosity 's the essence of human existence .
" Apollo 's technology was at the cutting edge .
But today ?
It takes decades to get a new idea into space .
NASA 's leadership is as frightened of 21st century technology as any superstitious savage .
Curiosity ? Anybody who works with NASA these days knows that it has comprehensively institutionalized the murder of curiosity .
Seek knowledge ?
The joke inside the walls is that " NASA " stands for " Not A Science Agency " .
" Personally I think it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology .
" Spin-offs ?
Very rare these days .
You ca n't have spin-offs if you 're not pushing the technology envelope , and NASA simply is n't .
You want advanced technology , peek inside an iPhone .
The relationship between NASA and its contractors is rigorously legal , and thoroughly dishonest .
NASA is very good at PR , and totally committed to using it to get taxpayer money to spend ( and its private contractors are experts at capturing the money without having to deliver corresponding value ) .
They are also good at international cooperation , which they use as a vehicle to inflict their stagnant practices on the potential competition .
Within NASA , the human program is the most stagnant of all .
The space station has the highest ratio of cost to actual accomplishment of anything NASA has ever done ( but it gets great PR ) .
The return to the Moon was never a genuinely serious program , just more institutional welfare .
In the great age of European exploration , it took about a year of human labor on the shore to equip a sailor for a one year journey .
In NASA 's system , that ratio is thousands to one .
With that inefficiency , there 's no way that space travel can become a truly significant human activity .
If you look at the advances in the supporting technologies since 1969 , it might be possible to reduce costs that much , but having institutionalized layers and layers of barriers to even trying means it can not happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge.
Curiosity's the essence of human existence.
"
 
Apollo's technology was at the cutting edge.
But today?
It takes decades to get a new idea into space.
NASA's leadership is as frightened of 21st century technology as any superstitious savage.
Curiosity? Anybody who works with NASA these days knows that it has comprehensively institutionalized the murder of curiosity.
Seek knowledge?
The joke inside the walls is that "NASA" stands for "Not A Science Agency".
"Personally I think it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology.
"
 
Spin-offs?
Very rare these days.
You can't have spin-offs if you're not pushing the technology envelope, and NASA simply isn't.
You want advanced technology, peek inside an iPhone.
The relationship between NASA and its contractors is rigorously legal, and thoroughly dishonest.
NASA is very good at PR, and totally committed to using it to get taxpayer money to spend (and its private contractors are experts at capturing the money without having to deliver corresponding value).
They are also good at international cooperation, which they use as a vehicle to inflict their stagnant practices on the potential competition.
Within NASA, the human program is the most stagnant of all.
The space station has the highest ratio of cost to actual accomplishment of anything NASA has ever done (but it gets great PR).
The return to the Moon was never a genuinely serious program, just more institutional welfare.
In the great age of European exploration, it took about a year of human labor on the shore to equip a sailor for a one year journey.
In NASA's system, that ratio is thousands to one.
With that inefficiency, there's no way that space travel can become a truly significant human activity.
If you look at the advances in the supporting technologies since 1969, it might be possible to reduce costs that much, but having institutionalized layers and layers of barriers to even trying means it cannot happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467768</id>
	<title>"Former Astronauts"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268483280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, <em>some</em> former Astronauts call this catastrophic. All two of them. I think the headline was worded specifically to make it sound as if this was a widespread belief among astronauts, rather than a minority one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , some former Astronauts call this catastrophic .
All two of them .
I think the headline was worded specifically to make it sound as if this was a widespread belief among astronauts , rather than a minority one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, some former Astronauts call this catastrophic.
All two of them.
I think the headline was worded specifically to make it sound as if this was a widespread belief among astronauts, rather than a minority one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467834</id>
	<title>www.oyundas.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268483700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We face no external threats, militarily speaking. It's time for us to discard our empire.</p><p>And what "empire" is that exactly? Do you demand we let go of Puerto Rico?</p><p>Other than that we have a number of military actions in areas where we are supporting democratic governments - Iraq and Iran - that are not in any way part of a U.S. "empire" (for better or worse).</p><p>As for the lack of military threats, I suggest to tell that to the people attacking our military and citizens. Perhaps they will stop once they realize they do not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We face no external threats , militarily speaking .
It 's time for us to discard our empire.And what " empire " is that exactly ?
Do you demand we let go of Puerto Rico ? Other than that we have a number of military actions in areas where we are supporting democratic governments - Iraq and Iran - that are not in any way part of a U.S. " empire " ( for better or worse ) .As for the lack of military threats , I suggest to tell that to the people attacking our military and citizens .
Perhaps they will stop once they realize they do not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We face no external threats, militarily speaking.
It's time for us to discard our empire.And what "empire" is that exactly?
Do you demand we let go of Puerto Rico?Other than that we have a number of military actions in areas where we are supporting democratic governments - Iraq and Iran - that are not in any way part of a U.S. "empire" (for better or worse).As for the lack of military threats, I suggest to tell that to the people attacking our military and citizens.
Perhaps they will stop once they realize they do not exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848</id>
	<title>Buzz Aldrin has a different view</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1268483760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's rather interesting that Buzz Aldrin has a completely opposite view of the new plan:</p><p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome\_b\_448667.html" title="huffingtonpost.com">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome\_b\_448667.html</a> [huffingtonpost.com] </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... The President courageously decided to redirect our nation's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years, aiming instead at boosting the agency's budget by more than $1 billion more per year over the next five years, topping off at $100 billion for NASA between now and 2015. And he directed NASA to spend a billion per year on buying rides for American astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles-that's American space vehicles. Other NASA funds will go into developing and testing new revolutionary technologies that we can use in living and working on Mars and its moons.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... For the past six years America's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020. That's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004. That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars, our ultimate destination in space. But two things happened along the way since that announcement, which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.</p><p>First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised. As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind. Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems. Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track. Even that effort fell short.</p><p>To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration. It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources. Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds. The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when. At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.</p><p>Enter the new Obama administration. Before deciding what to do about national space policy, Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts, headed up by my friend Norm Augustine, former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official. Augustine's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take (that group included me). In October, it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine. The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program, called Ares 1, and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station. And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race, but on something it called a "Flexible Path." Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons. Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach, not just one.</p><p>But with the limited NASA budget consumed by the Moon, no funds were available for this development effort -- until now. Now President Obama has signaled that new direction -- what I'm calling Flexible plus, containing much of the steps called for in the Augustine report. If Congress agrees, we'll turn over all space taxi services to the private sector and aim NASA at fully using the station -- extended to at least 2020 in Obama's plan -- and spending a billion dollars a year in creating these new private sector spaceships. When the time comes to start building deep space transports and refueling rocket tankers, it will be the commercial industry that steps up, not another government-owned, government managed enterprise. And if we want to use the Moon as a stepping stone in the future, we'll have to join with our international partners for the effort. No more "go it alone" space projects. If you or your children or grandkids ever hope to fly into orbit, these new vehicles are their only hope for a ride to space.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I know that change can be a scary thing. And I know the forces of the existing Constellation program are already preparing to fight the Obama plan. But I hope when the emotion subsides, my friends in Congress will see as I see the wisdom and strength that this new approach will give our nation's space program.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rather interesting that Buzz Aldrin has a completely opposite view of the new plan : http : //www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome \ _b \ _448667.html [ huffingtonpost.com ] ... The President courageously decided to redirect our nation 's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years , aiming instead at boosting the agency 's budget by more than $ 1 billion more per year over the next five years , topping off at $ 100 billion for NASA between now and 2015 .
And he directed NASA to spend a billion per year on buying rides for American astronauts aboard new , commercially developed space vehicles-that 's American space vehicles .
Other NASA funds will go into developing and testing new revolutionary technologies that we can use in living and working on Mars and its moons .
... For the past six years America 's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020 .
That 's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004 .
That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars , our ultimate destination in space .
But two things happened along the way since that announcement , which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.First , the President failed to fully fund the program , as he had initially promised .
As a result , each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind .
Second and most importantly , NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems .
Equally as bad , NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program , named Project Constellation , on track .
Even that effort fell short.To keep the focus on the return to the Moon , NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration .
It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA 's resources .
Yet despite much complaining , neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds .
The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when .
At the same time , there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle , due to be retired this year , or that of the International Space Station , due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015 , a scant handful of years after it was completed.Enter the new Obama administration .
Before deciding what to do about national space policy , Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts , headed up by my friend Norm Augustine , former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official .
Augustine 's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take ( that group included me ) .
In October , it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren , Obama 's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine .
The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program , called Ares 1 , and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station .
And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race , but on something it called a " Flexible Path .
" Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space , such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids , or comets , or even flying by Mars to land on its moons .
Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach , not just one.But with the limited NASA budget consumed by the Moon , no funds were available for this development effort -- until now .
Now President Obama has signaled that new direction -- what I 'm calling Flexible plus , containing much of the steps called for in the Augustine report .
If Congress agrees , we 'll turn over all space taxi services to the private sector and aim NASA at fully using the station -- extended to at least 2020 in Obama 's plan -- and spending a billion dollars a year in creating these new private sector spaceships .
When the time comes to start building deep space transports and refueling rocket tankers , it will be the commercial industry that steps up , not another government-owned , government managed enterprise .
And if we want to use the Moon as a stepping stone in the future , we 'll have to join with our international partners for the effort .
No more " go it alone " space projects .
If you or your children or grandkids ever hope to fly into orbit , these new vehicles are their only hope for a ride to space .
... I know that change can be a scary thing .
And I know the forces of the existing Constellation program are already preparing to fight the Obama plan .
But I hope when the emotion subsides , my friends in Congress will see as I see the wisdom and strength that this new approach will give our nation 's space program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rather interesting that Buzz Aldrin has a completely opposite view of the new plan:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome\_b\_448667.html [huffingtonpost.com]  ... The President courageously decided to redirect our nation's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years, aiming instead at boosting the agency's budget by more than $1 billion more per year over the next five years, topping off at $100 billion for NASA between now and 2015.
And he directed NASA to spend a billion per year on buying rides for American astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles-that's American space vehicles.
Other NASA funds will go into developing and testing new revolutionary technologies that we can use in living and working on Mars and its moons.
... For the past six years America's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020.
That's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004.
That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars, our ultimate destination in space.
But two things happened along the way since that announcement, which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised.
As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind.
Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems.
Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track.
Even that effort fell short.To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration.
It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources.
Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds.
The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when.
At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.Enter the new Obama administration.
Before deciding what to do about national space policy, Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts, headed up by my friend Norm Augustine, former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official.
Augustine's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take (that group included me).
In October, it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine.
The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program, called Ares 1, and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station.
And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race, but on something it called a "Flexible Path.
" Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons.
Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach, not just one.But with the limited NASA budget consumed by the Moon, no funds were available for this development effort -- until now.
Now President Obama has signaled that new direction -- what I'm calling Flexible plus, containing much of the steps called for in the Augustine report.
If Congress agrees, we'll turn over all space taxi services to the private sector and aim NASA at fully using the station -- extended to at least 2020 in Obama's plan -- and spending a billion dollars a year in creating these new private sector spaceships.
When the time comes to start building deep space transports and refueling rocket tankers, it will be the commercial industry that steps up, not another government-owned, government managed enterprise.
And if we want to use the Moon as a stepping stone in the future, we'll have to join with our international partners for the effort.
No more "go it alone" space projects.
If you or your children or grandkids ever hope to fly into orbit, these new vehicles are their only hope for a ride to space.
... I know that change can be a scary thing.
And I know the forces of the existing Constellation program are already preparing to fight the Obama plan.
But I hope when the emotion subsides, my friends in Congress will see as I see the wisdom and strength that this new approach will give our nation's space program.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31473602</id>
	<title>Re:We don't have the whole picture.</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1268595600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What no one has discussed, either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against, is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path.</p> </div><p>Oh, there's been plenty of discussion about it, just check out the forums over at <a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/" title="nasaspaceflight.com">http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/</a> [nasaspaceflight.com]</p><p>The options are pretty much as follows:</p><p>Earth to LEO:<br>* COTS/CCDev (Atlas V, Delta IV, SpaceX, Orbital, etc.)<br>* DIRECT</p><p>LEO to Lagrange/Moon/asteroids/Mars/etc<br>* Earth Departure Stage, typically based on LH2/LO2, like the <a href="http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf" title="ulalaunch.com">ULA's ACES</a> [ulalaunch.com] or whatever DIRECT uses<br>* hypergolics<br>* using in-orbit refueling (either direct refueling or propellant depots) with either LH2/LO2 or hypergolics<br>* VASIMR</p><p>The point behind the new plans for NASA is that many of these ideas will be developed and tested in parallel, and the ones which work better in practice will be used for actual missions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What no one has discussed , either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against , is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path .
Oh , there 's been plenty of discussion about it , just check out the forums over at http : //forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ [ nasaspaceflight.com ] The options are pretty much as follows : Earth to LEO : * COTS/CCDev ( Atlas V , Delta IV , SpaceX , Orbital , etc .
) * DIRECTLEO to Lagrange/Moon/asteroids/Mars/etc * Earth Departure Stage , typically based on LH2/LO2 , like the ULA 's ACES [ ulalaunch.com ] or whatever DIRECT uses * hypergolics * using in-orbit refueling ( either direct refueling or propellant depots ) with either LH2/LO2 or hypergolics * VASIMRThe point behind the new plans for NASA is that many of these ideas will be developed and tested in parallel , and the ones which work better in practice will be used for actual missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What no one has discussed, either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against, is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path.
Oh, there's been plenty of discussion about it, just check out the forums over at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ [nasaspaceflight.com]The options are pretty much as follows:Earth to LEO:* COTS/CCDev (Atlas V, Delta IV, SpaceX, Orbital, etc.
)* DIRECTLEO to Lagrange/Moon/asteroids/Mars/etc* Earth Departure Stage, typically based on LH2/LO2, like the ULA's ACES [ulalaunch.com] or whatever DIRECT uses* hypergolics* using in-orbit refueling (either direct refueling or propellant depots) with either LH2/LO2 or hypergolics* VASIMRThe point behind the new plans for NASA is that many of these ideas will be developed and tested in parallel, and the ones which work better in practice will be used for actual missions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471520</id>
	<title>A different take on going to the moon</title>
	<author>Dolphinzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1268574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was 6 years old my parents moved to Titusville, Florida right across the Indian River Lagoon from the VAB.  I grew up watching Saturn V's, Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Shuttle space vehicles thunder skyward.  I went to school with the sons and daughters of real "Rocket Scientists".  I'd say the number one reason I got into the engineering field was the excitement and allure of these kind of epic and difficult endeavors.   What inspires people to go into engineering today ?  I only worked on Spacecraft and launch systems for 10 years before I got into other things,  but would I have been inspired at all by a presidential challenge to build a better battery, or an energy efficient home ?  I somehow doubt it.  So I would argue that not only does going to the moon spin-of useful technology it inspires the youth of today and tomorrow to achieve great things in engineering !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was 6 years old my parents moved to Titusville , Florida right across the Indian River Lagoon from the VAB .
I grew up watching Saturn V 's , Atlas , Delta , Titan , and Shuttle space vehicles thunder skyward .
I went to school with the sons and daughters of real " Rocket Scientists " .
I 'd say the number one reason I got into the engineering field was the excitement and allure of these kind of epic and difficult endeavors .
What inspires people to go into engineering today ?
I only worked on Spacecraft and launch systems for 10 years before I got into other things , but would I have been inspired at all by a presidential challenge to build a better battery , or an energy efficient home ?
I somehow doubt it .
So I would argue that not only does going to the moon spin-of useful technology it inspires the youth of today and tomorrow to achieve great things in engineering !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was 6 years old my parents moved to Titusville, Florida right across the Indian River Lagoon from the VAB.
I grew up watching Saturn V's, Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Shuttle space vehicles thunder skyward.
I went to school with the sons and daughters of real "Rocket Scientists".
I'd say the number one reason I got into the engineering field was the excitement and allure of these kind of epic and difficult endeavors.
What inspires people to go into engineering today ?
I only worked on Spacecraft and launch systems for 10 years before I got into other things,  but would I have been inspired at all by a presidential challenge to build a better battery, or an energy efficient home ?
I somehow doubt it.
So I would argue that not only does going to the moon spin-of useful technology it inspires the youth of today and tomorrow to achieve great things in engineering !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467360</id>
	<title>USA is almost broke get over it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467940</id>
	<title>Read the Augustine commision report.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268484600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The astronauts, members of Congress, and defense contractors make it sound as though there was a robust manned program in place that Obama arbitrarily decided to cancel.  Instead, the manned program was barely making headway and was cannibalizing the rest of the NASA budget.

Here is background on the sad shape that NASA was in 2009:

<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]

or

<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1955242/Future-of-NASAs-Manned-Spaceflight-Looks-Bleak" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1955242/Future-of-NASAs-Manned-Spaceflight-Looks-Bleak</a> [slashdot.org]

Summary:  There was not enough money in manned spaceflight to hit anything close to the proposed schedule for shuttle replacement/Moon/Mars.  The lack of money was driving the costs up even further (if you spread a program out over more time you wind up with a standing army drawing paychecks).

The administration had the choices to give NASA a lot more money to get the manned program back on track, cut the manned program, or watch the unmanned programs be cannibalized to feed the manned program as they have been for the last couple years.

I suppose upping the NASA budget would have been as good a stimulus as some, at least for aerospace engineers like me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The astronauts , members of Congress , and defense contractors make it sound as though there was a robust manned program in place that Obama arbitrarily decided to cancel .
Instead , the manned program was barely making headway and was cannibalizing the rest of the NASA budget .
Here is background on the sad shape that NASA was in 2009 : http : //www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main \ _HSF \ _Cmte \ _FinalReport.pdf [ nasa.gov ] or http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1955242/Future-of-NASAs-Manned-Spaceflight-Looks-Bleak [ slashdot.org ] Summary : There was not enough money in manned spaceflight to hit anything close to the proposed schedule for shuttle replacement/Moon/Mars .
The lack of money was driving the costs up even further ( if you spread a program out over more time you wind up with a standing army drawing paychecks ) .
The administration had the choices to give NASA a lot more money to get the manned program back on track , cut the manned program , or watch the unmanned programs be cannibalized to feed the manned program as they have been for the last couple years .
I suppose upping the NASA budget would have been as good a stimulus as some , at least for aerospace engineers like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The astronauts, members of Congress, and defense contractors make it sound as though there was a robust manned program in place that Obama arbitrarily decided to cancel.
Instead, the manned program was barely making headway and was cannibalizing the rest of the NASA budget.
Here is background on the sad shape that NASA was in 2009:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main\_HSF\_Cmte\_FinalReport.pdf [nasa.gov]

or

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1955242/Future-of-NASAs-Manned-Spaceflight-Looks-Bleak [slashdot.org]

Summary:  There was not enough money in manned spaceflight to hit anything close to the proposed schedule for shuttle replacement/Moon/Mars.
The lack of money was driving the costs up even further (if you spread a program out over more time you wind up with a standing army drawing paychecks).
The administration had the choices to give NASA a lot more money to get the manned program back on track, cut the manned program, or watch the unmanned programs be cannibalized to feed the manned program as they have been for the last couple years.
I suppose upping the NASA budget would have been as good a stimulus as some, at least for aerospace engineers like me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467538</id>
	<title>Why does Obama even matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268481660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't Congress just have an overall science budget? DOE, NASA, etc. can then figure out how to divide it up, independent of what the politicians think. Otherwise politicians compare astronauts playing golf on the moon against healthcare or their latest pork project (culminating in a celebratory round of golf). NASA should just have to compete against other science efforts. <br> <br>

This not only would insulate NASA somewhat from political agendas, but it would help keep NASA missions to a high standard. Missions with little scientific or technical benefit wouldn't be able to earn funding over more promising research in other fields.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't Congress just have an overall science budget ?
DOE , NASA , etc .
can then figure out how to divide it up , independent of what the politicians think .
Otherwise politicians compare astronauts playing golf on the moon against healthcare or their latest pork project ( culminating in a celebratory round of golf ) .
NASA should just have to compete against other science efforts .
This not only would insulate NASA somewhat from political agendas , but it would help keep NASA missions to a high standard .
Missions with little scientific or technical benefit would n't be able to earn funding over more promising research in other fields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't Congress just have an overall science budget?
DOE, NASA, etc.
can then figure out how to divide it up, independent of what the politicians think.
Otherwise politicians compare astronauts playing golf on the moon against healthcare or their latest pork project (culminating in a celebratory round of golf).
NASA should just have to compete against other science efforts.
This not only would insulate NASA somewhat from political agendas, but it would help keep NASA missions to a high standard.
Missions with little scientific or technical benefit wouldn't be able to earn funding over more promising research in other fields.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468868</id>
	<title>manned space travel has been catastrophic</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1268492280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's been catastrophic for space exploration is that we have sunk trillions into the manned space program for little return.  What's been catastrophic is that romantic visions of test pilots and the moon landing completely skewed everybody's understanding of what space exploration is or what it can achieve.</p><p>The military is already figuring it out and increasingly switching from manned planes to drones.  In a generation or two, when "military pilot" becomes synonymous with someone wielding a joystick, hopefully, we can also do the sensible thing and focus all our efforts on remotely operated space exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's been catastrophic for space exploration is that we have sunk trillions into the manned space program for little return .
What 's been catastrophic is that romantic visions of test pilots and the moon landing completely skewed everybody 's understanding of what space exploration is or what it can achieve.The military is already figuring it out and increasingly switching from manned planes to drones .
In a generation or two , when " military pilot " becomes synonymous with someone wielding a joystick , hopefully , we can also do the sensible thing and focus all our efforts on remotely operated space exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's been catastrophic for space exploration is that we have sunk trillions into the manned space program for little return.
What's been catastrophic is that romantic visions of test pilots and the moon landing completely skewed everybody's understanding of what space exploration is or what it can achieve.The military is already figuring it out and increasingly switching from manned planes to drones.
In a generation or two, when "military pilot" becomes synonymous with someone wielding a joystick, hopefully, we can also do the sensible thing and focus all our efforts on remotely operated space exploration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468090</id>
	<title>This is just how I feel.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1268485560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the proposed plan does the best job of fulfilling our "responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge.".  I mean, it's <i>all about</i> technology and seeking knowledge.  It's about doing things technologically that haven't been done before, not just engineering yet another rocket.  We've kinda already acquired that knowledge, and it's fully baked enough to be put in the hands of private industry now.  Instead focus on the kinds of things that JPL has been working on with minimal budget on the side and that have really pushed technology and increased our knowledge of the solar system.</p><p>It's only sad if he's the last one to <i>ever</i> land on the moon.  I hope that when we do it's for more than to put boots down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the proposed plan does the best job of fulfilling our " responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge. " .
I mean , it 's all about technology and seeking knowledge .
It 's about doing things technologically that have n't been done before , not just engineering yet another rocket .
We 've kinda already acquired that knowledge , and it 's fully baked enough to be put in the hands of private industry now .
Instead focus on the kinds of things that JPL has been working on with minimal budget on the side and that have really pushed technology and increased our knowledge of the solar system.It 's only sad if he 's the last one to ever land on the moon .
I hope that when we do it 's for more than to put boots down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the proposed plan does the best job of fulfilling our "responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge.".
I mean, it's all about technology and seeking knowledge.
It's about doing things technologically that haven't been done before, not just engineering yet another rocket.
We've kinda already acquired that knowledge, and it's fully baked enough to be put in the hands of private industry now.
Instead focus on the kinds of things that JPL has been working on with minimal budget on the side and that have really pushed technology and increased our knowledge of the solar system.It's only sad if he's the last one to ever land on the moon.
I hope that when we do it's for more than to put boots down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469750</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268501340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>with multiple companies competing</i> </p><p>Right up until one of the <b>TWO</b> competitors bailed in the past fgew days/ C</p><p>Competition, my asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with multiple companies competing Right up until one of the TWO competitors bailed in the past fgew days/ CCompetition , my asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with multiple companies competing Right up until one of the TWO competitors bailed in the past fgew days/ CCompetition, my asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469182</id>
	<title>Re:Why so expensive?</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1268495280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>With modern CGI techniques, surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?</i></p><p>You'd think they'd be working to improve things, and fake a Mars landing, but heck, they can't even fake finding WMDs. *shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With modern CGI techniques , surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper ? You 'd think they 'd be working to improve things , and fake a Mars landing , but heck , they ca n't even fake finding WMDs .
* shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With modern CGI techniques, surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?You'd think they'd be working to improve things, and fake a Mars landing, but heck, they can't even fake finding WMDs.
*shrug*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468974</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it have to be socialized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268493060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Private rich dudes are stepping up, but they're spending on more important matters. Look at the projects by the Gates foundation, for example. Will anyone tell me that his funding a moon mission would get more "bang for the buck" than what he's <i>actually</i> doing with his money? Only a true sicko really could think that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private rich dudes are stepping up , but they 're spending on more important matters .
Look at the projects by the Gates foundation , for example .
Will anyone tell me that his funding a moon mission would get more " bang for the buck " than what he 's actually doing with his money ?
Only a true sicko really could think that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private rich dudes are stepping up, but they're spending on more important matters.
Look at the projects by the Gates foundation, for example.
Will anyone tell me that his funding a moon mission would get more "bang for the buck" than what he's actually doing with his money?
Only a true sicko really could think that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468754</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it have to be socialized?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1268491140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Why don't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions?<br><br>All else being equal, it's generally a good deal easier to get voluntary contributions from poor people than from rich people.<br><br>There are occasional wealthy philanthropists, but they tend to give mostly to specific pet causes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why do n't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions ? All else being equal , it 's generally a good deal easier to get voluntary contributions from poor people than from rich people.There are occasional wealthy philanthropists , but they tend to give mostly to specific pet causes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why don't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions?All else being equal, it's generally a good deal easier to get voluntary contributions from poor people than from rich people.There are occasional wealthy philanthropists, but they tend to give mostly to specific pet causes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467710</id>
	<title>Terraforming the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268482740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't everybody get it by now?</p><p>Landing men and women and planting flags on foreign planets is for Hollywoord special effects. They're better handled by private industries and on sound stages.</p><p>Who cares if there is or isn't life on Mars presently or in the past? Why, we'll make Mars suitable for life instead! And that should be the ultimate goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't everybody get it by now ? Landing men and women and planting flags on foreign planets is for Hollywoord special effects .
They 're better handled by private industries and on sound stages.Who cares if there is or is n't life on Mars presently or in the past ?
Why , we 'll make Mars suitable for life instead !
And that should be the ultimate goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't everybody get it by now?Landing men and women and planting flags on foreign planets is for Hollywoord special effects.
They're better handled by private industries and on sound stages.Who cares if there is or isn't life on Mars presently or in the past?
Why, we'll make Mars suitable for life instead!
And that should be the ultimate goal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468086</id>
	<title>Sucks to be them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sucks for all the astronauts out there, but I think our problems back on Earth are more important than an intergalactic luxury cruise for a few rich kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sucks for all the astronauts out there , but I think our problems back on Earth are more important than an intergalactic luxury cruise for a few rich kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sucks for all the astronauts out there, but I think our problems back on Earth are more important than an intergalactic luxury cruise for a few rich kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31476734</id>
	<title>Re:Why so expensive?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268575980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if you want the astronauts to be eight feet tall and blue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if you want the astronauts to be eight feet tall and blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if you want the astronauts to be eight feet tall and blue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467976</id>
	<title>Of course it will happen again....</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1268484840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Nasa still aims to send astronauts back to the Moon, but it is likely to take decades and some believe that it will never happen again."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Oh, man will walk on the moon again someday... just maybe not in any currently living person's lifetime.
</p><p>
And of course, that's assuming that we won't all be wiped out by some sort of mass extinction event before then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nasa still aims to send astronauts back to the Moon , but it is likely to take decades and some believe that it will never happen again .
" Oh , man will walk on the moon again someday... just maybe not in any currently living person 's lifetime .
And of course , that 's assuming that we wo n't all be wiped out by some sort of mass extinction event before then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nasa still aims to send astronauts back to the Moon, but it is likely to take decades and some believe that it will never happen again.
"
Oh, man will walk on the moon again someday... just maybe not in any currently living person's lifetime.
And of course, that's assuming that we won't all be wiped out by some sort of mass extinction event before then.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470652</id>
	<title>Colonization, not exploration</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1268558280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The planet we live on currently has about 6.8 billion residents. Most estimates of Earth's carrying capacity are around 5 billion. We simply cannot sustainably survive on one planet unless we're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people. We need a plan to start moving people off of Earth in the next 50 years. NASA and it's European, Russian and Chinese equivalents are the most important agencies for the future of humanity, and I find it appalling that they're getting less funding than the wars in the Middle East.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The planet we live on currently has about 6.8 billion residents .
Most estimates of Earth 's carrying capacity are around 5 billion .
We simply can not sustainably survive on one planet unless we 're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people .
We need a plan to start moving people off of Earth in the next 50 years .
NASA and it 's European , Russian and Chinese equivalents are the most important agencies for the future of humanity , and I find it appalling that they 're getting less funding than the wars in the Middle East .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The planet we live on currently has about 6.8 billion residents.
Most estimates of Earth's carrying capacity are around 5 billion.
We simply cannot sustainably survive on one planet unless we're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people.
We need a plan to start moving people off of Earth in the next 50 years.
NASA and it's European, Russian and Chinese equivalents are the most important agencies for the future of humanity, and I find it appalling that they're getting less funding than the wars in the Middle East.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467372</id>
	<title>Priorities.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people.
<br>
<br>
Maybe if we hadn't squandered a trillion dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq we could afford things like going to the moon again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people .
Maybe if we had n't squandered a trillion dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq we could afford things like going to the moon again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people.
Maybe if we hadn't squandered a trillion dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq we could afford things like going to the moon again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468646</id>
	<title>oh man</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1268490120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leave the politics out of it. Nasa is a drop in the bucket. Lets not argue about Iraq or Afghanistan and instead pull troops out of somewhere we can all agree on, like Korea or Germany. Or ban political contributions ALL TOGETHER. Or how about passing an amendment that bars the federal government from bailing out ANY failing company or industry? There are thousands of places the government is sending our money that we can unanimously agree are things we do not want to pay for, why argue about the ones we can't agree on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave the politics out of it .
Nasa is a drop in the bucket .
Lets not argue about Iraq or Afghanistan and instead pull troops out of somewhere we can all agree on , like Korea or Germany .
Or ban political contributions ALL TOGETHER .
Or how about passing an amendment that bars the federal government from bailing out ANY failing company or industry ?
There are thousands of places the government is sending our money that we can unanimously agree are things we do not want to pay for , why argue about the ones we ca n't agree on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave the politics out of it.
Nasa is a drop in the bucket.
Lets not argue about Iraq or Afghanistan and instead pull troops out of somewhere we can all agree on, like Korea or Germany.
Or ban political contributions ALL TOGETHER.
Or how about passing an amendment that bars the federal government from bailing out ANY failing company or industry?
There are thousands of places the government is sending our money that we can unanimously agree are things we do not want to pay for, why argue about the ones we can't agree on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472284</id>
	<title>Re:Colonization, not exploration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268584080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We simply cannot sustainably survive on one planet unless we're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people. </i></p><p>Or we're willing to make contraception easy and cheap worldwide.</p><p>Beats nuke war. Cheaper than space funding too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We simply can not sustainably survive on one planet unless we 're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people .
Or we 're willing to make contraception easy and cheap worldwide.Beats nuke war .
Cheaper than space funding too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We simply cannot sustainably survive on one planet unless we're willing to have a nuclear war to kill a few billion people.
Or we're willing to make contraception easy and cheap worldwide.Beats nuke war.
Cheaper than space funding too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467512</id>
	<title>It's moral leadership to seek knowledge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268481480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think China should explore space and generate the spinoffs from technology.</p><p>Their people are smaller, their country has all the money, and they don't have baby boomers sucking the life out of the means to do anything through which Congress might actually forge agreement.</p><p>re:  "America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology".--It's over.  It's not 1997 anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think China should explore space and generate the spinoffs from technology.Their people are smaller , their country has all the money , and they do n't have baby boomers sucking the life out of the means to do anything through which Congress might actually forge agreement.re : " America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology " .--It 's over .
It 's not 1997 anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think China should explore space and generate the spinoffs from technology.Their people are smaller, their country has all the money, and they don't have baby boomers sucking the life out of the means to do anything through which Congress might actually forge agreement.re:  "America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology".--It's over.
It's not 1997 anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467648</id>
	<title>Re:Why so expensive?</title>
	<author>Ron Bennett</author>
	<datestamp>1268482260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And with better picture quality, as in Hi-Def 3D.</p><p>Ron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And with better picture quality , as in Hi-Def 3D.Ron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with better picture quality, as in Hi-Def 3D.Ron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467706</id>
	<title>Stop the madness</title>
	<author>approachingZero </author>
	<datestamp>1268482740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having seen Avatar at least six times I would hope all exploration / exploitation of space cease immediately. Shouldn't the Na'vi and other extraterrestrial cultures have a say in this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having seen Avatar at least six times I would hope all exploration / exploitation of space cease immediately .
Should n't the Na'vi and other extraterrestrial cultures have a say in this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having seen Avatar at least six times I would hope all exploration / exploitation of space cease immediately.
Shouldn't the Na'vi and other extraterrestrial cultures have a say in this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684</id>
	<title>Why does it have to be socialized?</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1268482620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467588</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268481900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The three largest expenditures are medicaid, social security, and military.  Interest on the deficit will soon be right near the top. If it manages to pass, health care "reform" will increase the deficit (it doesn't bend the cost curve and it's only deficit neutral in 10 year span because there are 10 years of taxes and only 4 years of expenses). The difference between Greece and the US is that Greece can't print their own money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The three largest expenditures are medicaid , social security , and military .
Interest on the deficit will soon be right near the top .
If it manages to pass , health care " reform " will increase the deficit ( it does n't bend the cost curve and it 's only deficit neutral in 10 year span because there are 10 years of taxes and only 4 years of expenses ) .
The difference between Greece and the US is that Greece ca n't print their own money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The three largest expenditures are medicaid, social security, and military.
Interest on the deficit will soon be right near the top.
If it manages to pass, health care "reform" will increase the deficit (it doesn't bend the cost curve and it's only deficit neutral in 10 year span because there are 10 years of taxes and only 4 years of expenses).
The difference between Greece and the US is that Greece can't print their own money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467854</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1268483820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if Obama wasn't spending trillions on failed stimulus programs in the middle of a recession, we'd have enough to go to the moon. Even India is heading there.</p><p>You people who try to portray it as nothing more than "sending tourists to a dry barren rock" are idiots. The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today, including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts. It's not just about flying to moon. Think a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if Obama was n't spending trillions on failed stimulus programs in the middle of a recession , we 'd have enough to go to the moon .
Even India is heading there.You people who try to portray it as nothing more than " sending tourists to a dry barren rock " are idiots .
The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today , including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts .
It 's not just about flying to moon .
Think a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if Obama wasn't spending trillions on failed stimulus programs in the middle of a recession, we'd have enough to go to the moon.
Even India is heading there.You people who try to portray it as nothing more than "sending tourists to a dry barren rock" are idiots.
The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today, including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts.
It's not just about flying to moon.
Think a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467904</id>
	<title>Re:We need to work on mineing the moon / other pla</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1268484360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the first step to that is cheap earth orbit, and the ability to move HEAVY objects into space. at present i think the cheapest price for getting something into orbit is $20,000/kg the the max payload is only a few tonnes<p>
to successfully mine the moon, you will need to move many 1000's of tonnes of equipment. I know some people on here think mining is just matter of digging a hole in the ground, but extracting minerals is actually a highly involved process.</p><p>
once you have the cost and pay issues solved, you'll need to have people live up there safely. remote control only will never cut it, at the very least you will require maintenance crews to live up there to maintain the robots. the biggest issue with this is protection from high energy space radiation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the first step to that is cheap earth orbit , and the ability to move HEAVY objects into space .
at present i think the cheapest price for getting something into orbit is $ 20,000/kg the the max payload is only a few tonnes to successfully mine the moon , you will need to move many 1000 's of tonnes of equipment .
I know some people on here think mining is just matter of digging a hole in the ground , but extracting minerals is actually a highly involved process .
once you have the cost and pay issues solved , you 'll need to have people live up there safely .
remote control only will never cut it , at the very least you will require maintenance crews to live up there to maintain the robots .
the biggest issue with this is protection from high energy space radiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first step to that is cheap earth orbit, and the ability to move HEAVY objects into space.
at present i think the cheapest price for getting something into orbit is $20,000/kg the the max payload is only a few tonnes
to successfully mine the moon, you will need to move many 1000's of tonnes of equipment.
I know some people on here think mining is just matter of digging a hole in the ground, but extracting minerals is actually a highly involved process.
once you have the cost and pay issues solved, you'll need to have people live up there safely.
remote control only will never cut it, at the very least you will require maintenance crews to live up there to maintain the robots.
the biggest issue with this is protection from high energy space radiation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468928</id>
	<title>And I was reading Carl Sagan...</title>
	<author>Alexandra Erenhart</author>
	<datestamp>1268492700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... while he was writing about the hopes he had on the space exploration and everything. It makes me sad. In some way I'm glad he's gone so he doesn't have to see this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... while he was writing about the hopes he had on the space exploration and everything .
It makes me sad .
In some way I 'm glad he 's gone so he does n't have to see this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... while he was writing about the hopes he had on the space exploration and everything.
It makes me sad.
In some way I'm glad he's gone so he doesn't have to see this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469530</id>
	<title>Going back to the moon is just a spectacle...</title>
	<author>poly\_pusher</author>
	<datestamp>1268498940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is nothing more important to our species than being capable of leaving this planet and finding alternative, habitable planets...
<br>
<br>
This is why Nasa's manned space program needs to end.
<br> <br>
It has been the most inefficient and grandstanding spectacle by a civilization since the pyramids.  Nasa has repeatedly claimed that the technology developed from the outrageously expensive trips provide innovations in the commercial sector.  While there is some truth to this, it is not comparable to the money spent.
<br> <br>
Nasa's JPL has been an example of efficiency in regards to gathering information about the universe.  The mars rovers and Phoenix have been resounding successes when cost vs. information gained is considered.  Keeping a human being alive and safe while traveling through space is a huge waste of resources whether it be money, energy or intellect.  Our current technology simply does not allow for that to be done efficiently.
<br> <br>
Pump money into the JPL for more remote missions, Offer awards and loans to the private sector for space travel innovations and utilize the private sector for low orbit missions and maintenance.  Offer an incentive and some really smart people will dig their heels in and solve the problem...
<br> <br>
Obama's decision  regarding the Constellation program was a smart one.  We will go back to the Moon eventually.  Going now will not significantly improve our understanding of how to get there, how to live there, or what resources are available.  It would just be another brute force spectacle.
<br> <br>
"The budget shifts priorities from going back to the moon to developing advanced technologies, including advanced propulsion research and climate research done at Marshall. It also proposes that NASA take on the development of a new heavy-lift rocket by developing improved rocket engines, materials and ways to fuel rockets in what are basically floating gas stations in space."
<br> <br>
Sounds to me like they want  to promote the development of an infrastructure that will allow for further expansion of our space travel capabilities.  That seems to make a lot more sense than the "America! F*&amp;\% YEAH!" trip we had planned...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing more important to our species than being capable of leaving this planet and finding alternative , habitable planets.. . This is why Nasa 's manned space program needs to end .
It has been the most inefficient and grandstanding spectacle by a civilization since the pyramids .
Nasa has repeatedly claimed that the technology developed from the outrageously expensive trips provide innovations in the commercial sector .
While there is some truth to this , it is not comparable to the money spent .
Nasa 's JPL has been an example of efficiency in regards to gathering information about the universe .
The mars rovers and Phoenix have been resounding successes when cost vs. information gained is considered .
Keeping a human being alive and safe while traveling through space is a huge waste of resources whether it be money , energy or intellect .
Our current technology simply does not allow for that to be done efficiently .
Pump money into the JPL for more remote missions , Offer awards and loans to the private sector for space travel innovations and utilize the private sector for low orbit missions and maintenance .
Offer an incentive and some really smart people will dig their heels in and solve the problem.. . Obama 's decision regarding the Constellation program was a smart one .
We will go back to the Moon eventually .
Going now will not significantly improve our understanding of how to get there , how to live there , or what resources are available .
It would just be another brute force spectacle .
" The budget shifts priorities from going back to the moon to developing advanced technologies , including advanced propulsion research and climate research done at Marshall .
It also proposes that NASA take on the development of a new heavy-lift rocket by developing improved rocket engines , materials and ways to fuel rockets in what are basically floating gas stations in space .
" Sounds to me like they want to promote the development of an infrastructure that will allow for further expansion of our space travel capabilities .
That seems to make a lot more sense than the " America !
F * &amp; \ % YEAH !
" trip we had planned.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing more important to our species than being capable of leaving this planet and finding alternative, habitable planets...


This is why Nasa's manned space program needs to end.
It has been the most inefficient and grandstanding spectacle by a civilization since the pyramids.
Nasa has repeatedly claimed that the technology developed from the outrageously expensive trips provide innovations in the commercial sector.
While there is some truth to this, it is not comparable to the money spent.
Nasa's JPL has been an example of efficiency in regards to gathering information about the universe.
The mars rovers and Phoenix have been resounding successes when cost vs. information gained is considered.
Keeping a human being alive and safe while traveling through space is a huge waste of resources whether it be money, energy or intellect.
Our current technology simply does not allow for that to be done efficiently.
Pump money into the JPL for more remote missions, Offer awards and loans to the private sector for space travel innovations and utilize the private sector for low orbit missions and maintenance.
Offer an incentive and some really smart people will dig their heels in and solve the problem...
 
Obama's decision  regarding the Constellation program was a smart one.
We will go back to the Moon eventually.
Going now will not significantly improve our understanding of how to get there, how to live there, or what resources are available.
It would just be another brute force spectacle.
"The budget shifts priorities from going back to the moon to developing advanced technologies, including advanced propulsion research and climate research done at Marshall.
It also proposes that NASA take on the development of a new heavy-lift rocket by developing improved rocket engines, materials and ways to fuel rockets in what are basically floating gas stations in space.
"
 
Sounds to me like they want  to promote the development of an infrastructure that will allow for further expansion of our space travel capabilities.
That seems to make a lot more sense than the "America!
F*&amp;\% YEAH!
" trip we had planned...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404</id>
	<title>Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got to cut <i>something</i> if the country is too politically polarized to raise enough revenue to cover expenditures. Sending tourists to a dry barren rock seems pretty low on the priority list, especially when robots can achieve the same science goals at a small fraction of the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got to cut something if the country is too politically polarized to raise enough revenue to cover expenditures .
Sending tourists to a dry barren rock seems pretty low on the priority list , especially when robots can achieve the same science goals at a small fraction of the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got to cut something if the country is too politically polarized to raise enough revenue to cover expenditures.
Sending tourists to a dry barren rock seems pretty low on the priority list, especially when robots can achieve the same science goals at a small fraction of the cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469576</id>
	<title>Re:maned space travel = not just now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, Hubble would have been a blind white elephant waiting to deorbit except for 4 MANNED servicing missions that have repaired, maintained, and advanced its capabilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , Hubble would have been a blind white elephant waiting to deorbit except for 4 MANNED servicing missions that have repaired , maintained , and advanced its capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, Hubble would have been a blind white elephant waiting to deorbit except for 4 MANNED servicing missions that have repaired, maintained, and advanced its capabilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471858</id>
	<title>Re:The sad thing is that</title>
	<author>the Atomic Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1268578500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if the republicans got elected the same thing would be going on - very little funding to NASA etc...</p></div></blockquote><p>You do realize that Obama's budget <i>increases</i> NASA funding by a significant amount, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if the republicans got elected the same thing would be going on - very little funding to NASA etc...You do realize that Obama 's budget increases NASA funding by a significant amount , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the republicans got elected the same thing would be going on - very little funding to NASA etc...You do realize that Obama's budget increases NASA funding by a significant amount, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468688</id>
	<title>Re:Why so expensive?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1268490480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?<br><br>No, see, now we have the internet, so there'll be thousands of people pointing out all the (real and imagined) flaws in the photo-editing job.<br><br>Then there's the other side of the internet coin: the blog postings featuring six-time-recompressed JPEGs of a fuzzy blob^H^H^H^Hrocket in the sky near the tower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper ? No , see , now we have the internet , so there 'll be thousands of people pointing out all the ( real and imagined ) flaws in the photo-editing job.Then there 's the other side of the internet coin : the blog postings featuring six-time-recompressed JPEGs of a fuzzy blob ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hrocket in the sky near the tower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?No, see, now we have the internet, so there'll be thousands of people pointing out all the (real and imagined) flaws in the photo-editing job.Then there's the other side of the internet coin: the blog postings featuring six-time-recompressed JPEGs of a fuzzy blob^H^H^H^Hrocket in the sky near the tower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470236</id>
	<title>needs to be a concrete return on the investment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268507940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In all the talk about space exploration, I've not heard any of the so-called experts speak to the need for a concrete return on the multi-billion (trillion?) $$ investment required. As in mining the planets, moons, comets and asteroids of the solar system for the incredibly abundant mineral and chemical resources that most assuredly are out there. By now, the US as well as other nations should have a long-term intelligent plan developed that would bring this reality about.</p><p>This, and not the pissing away of vast amounts of blood and treasure to conduct catastrophically destructive limited-resource wars here on Earth, should be the goal. Ultimately, all such activity could of course become commercialized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In all the talk about space exploration , I 've not heard any of the so-called experts speak to the need for a concrete return on the multi-billion ( trillion ?
) $ $ investment required .
As in mining the planets , moons , comets and asteroids of the solar system for the incredibly abundant mineral and chemical resources that most assuredly are out there .
By now , the US as well as other nations should have a long-term intelligent plan developed that would bring this reality about.This , and not the pissing away of vast amounts of blood and treasure to conduct catastrophically destructive limited-resource wars here on Earth , should be the goal .
Ultimately , all such activity could of course become commercialized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all the talk about space exploration, I've not heard any of the so-called experts speak to the need for a concrete return on the multi-billion (trillion?
) $$ investment required.
As in mining the planets, moons, comets and asteroids of the solar system for the incredibly abundant mineral and chemical resources that most assuredly are out there.
By now, the US as well as other nations should have a long-term intelligent plan developed that would bring this reality about.This, and not the pissing away of vast amounts of blood and treasure to conduct catastrophically destructive limited-resource wars here on Earth, should be the goal.
Ultimately, all such activity could of course become commercialized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470226</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz Aldrin has a different view</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268507700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a great editorial.  To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA, you're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.</p><p>I'm not a big 'open market' down with government person.  I'm exactly the opposite.  I think the government needs to invest lots of money into areas where the private sector is failing.  But there IS a commercial interest in launch vehicles now.  There IS private investment.    NASA's budget is pathetic compared to someone like Intel.  NASA is really good for seed money.   Even the new promising Bloom Energy server stated as a NASA project.  But there is a lot more money in the private sector once there is a demand.</p><p>There's no private investment in Mars exploration so we'll need to fund that through tax dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a great editorial .
To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA , you 're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.I 'm not a big 'open market ' down with government person .
I 'm exactly the opposite .
I think the government needs to invest lots of money into areas where the private sector is failing .
But there IS a commercial interest in launch vehicles now .
There IS private investment .
NASA 's budget is pathetic compared to someone like Intel .
NASA is really good for seed money .
Even the new promising Bloom Energy server stated as a NASA project .
But there is a lot more money in the private sector once there is a demand.There 's no private investment in Mars exploration so we 'll need to fund that through tax dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a great editorial.
To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA, you're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.I'm not a big 'open market' down with government person.
I'm exactly the opposite.
I think the government needs to invest lots of money into areas where the private sector is failing.
But there IS a commercial interest in launch vehicles now.
There IS private investment.
NASA's budget is pathetic compared to someone like Intel.
NASA is really good for seed money.
Even the new promising Bloom Energy server stated as a NASA project.
But there is a lot more money in the private sector once there is a demand.There's no private investment in Mars exploration so we'll need to fund that through tax dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467692</id>
	<title>Not exactly the last</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268482680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the last person to land on the moon</p></div><p>Gene Cernan was the last person to <b>walk</b> on the moon. He was one of the two last people to <b>land</b> on the moon.</p><p>Though if you think about it. If landing on the moon inside a vehicle counts then walking on the moon inside a vehicle should also count, so he is still one of the two last people to walk on the moon.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Neil Armstrong, who was also at the event, avoided commenting on the subject.</p></div><p>True to form.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the last person to land on the moonGene Cernan was the last person to walk on the moon .
He was one of the two last people to land on the moon.Though if you think about it .
If landing on the moon inside a vehicle counts then walking on the moon inside a vehicle should also count , so he is still one of the two last people to walk on the moon.Neil Armstrong , who was also at the event , avoided commenting on the subject.True to form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the last person to land on the moonGene Cernan was the last person to walk on the moon.
He was one of the two last people to land on the moon.Though if you think about it.
If landing on the moon inside a vehicle counts then walking on the moon inside a vehicle should also count, so he is still one of the two last people to walk on the moon.Neil Armstrong, who was also at the event, avoided commenting on the subject.True to form.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492</id>
	<title>Why so expensive?</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1268481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With modern CGI techniques, surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With modern CGI techniques , surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With modern CGI techniques, surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471124</id>
	<title>Finally...</title>
	<author>terraplane</author>
	<datestamp>1268566800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama makes the right decision. Space exploration has no practical purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama makes the right decision .
Space exploration has no practical purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama makes the right decision.
Space exploration has no practical purpose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467570</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>Jon Abbott</author>
	<datestamp>1268481780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with you that cuts are necessary, it must be said that Obama is <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/01/president-obamas-nasa-budget-unveiled/" title="discovermagazine.com">increasing NASA's funding</a> [discovermagazine.com] despite canceling Project Constellation.  The cancellation seems more politically driven than anything relating to the federal budget.  Even if NASA's $18 billion budget were left the same, it would still be only 0.5\% of the total federal budget.  The <a href="http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/" title="wallstats.com">real pork</a> [wallstats.com] can be found in the $901 billion defense budget and the $696 billion social security program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you that cuts are necessary , it must be said that Obama is increasing NASA 's funding [ discovermagazine.com ] despite canceling Project Constellation .
The cancellation seems more politically driven than anything relating to the federal budget .
Even if NASA 's $ 18 billion budget were left the same , it would still be only 0.5 \ % of the total federal budget .
The real pork [ wallstats.com ] can be found in the $ 901 billion defense budget and the $ 696 billion social security program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you that cuts are necessary, it must be said that Obama is increasing NASA's funding [discovermagazine.com] despite canceling Project Constellation.
The cancellation seems more politically driven than anything relating to the federal budget.
Even if NASA's $18 billion budget were left the same, it would still be only 0.5\% of the total federal budget.
The real pork [wallstats.com] can be found in the $901 billion defense budget and the $696 billion social security program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31479618</id>
	<title>Leadership?</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1268650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Hmm, yeah, right. Here's a few thoughts:</p><p>I think the US abandoned moral leadership a long time ago in search of profit; let's talk no more about that.</p><p>Technology: There is no doubt that it would be a good idea to strive for the best you can achieve in the areas of science. It has become modern in recent years to replace the word "science" with "technology" and "research" with "engineering"; because technology and engineering sound like something that can make you money, whereas science ans research tend to make people think too much for themselves and become unruly. It seems perfectly possibly for people to work with technology and not question the irrational dogmas of religion and establishment, but it is hard to believe in the myth of the infallible truth of the Bible, when you are a scientist schooled in critical thought.</p><p>The snag here, of course, is that techology and engineering won't go very far without heavy investments in science and research.</p><p>Responsibility: Who do you owe your responsibility to? Big money? Religious tradition? The nations of the world? Or perhaps yourself? It is not for me to tell others how to live their lives, but isn't it worth considering, that while the rest of the world can continue progressing with or without America's participation, no single nation can achieve a lot on its own. The Romans became great by assimilating the knowledge of the Greeks, Egyptians and others, European nations built on the achievements of the Arabs as well as the Romans, America harvested the best scientists and knowledge of Europe and Russia after WWII, and now the Chinese are doing the same.</p><p>Talking about responsibility, leadership and morality like he does, sounds overly pompous. It is still not unachievable for America to assume the leadership, given that the right decisions are made; and keeping in mind that leadership isn't quite the same as "being first" - it also implies that you have followers. As far as I can see, America is at the moment engaged in a game of blaming others for everything and not wanting to play; if you want to be leaders, you can't afford to sulk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ...Hmm , yeah , right .
Here 's a few thoughts : I think the US abandoned moral leadership a long time ago in search of profit ; let 's talk no more about that.Technology : There is no doubt that it would be a good idea to strive for the best you can achieve in the areas of science .
It has become modern in recent years to replace the word " science " with " technology " and " research " with " engineering " ; because technology and engineering sound like something that can make you money , whereas science ans research tend to make people think too much for themselves and become unruly .
It seems perfectly possibly for people to work with technology and not question the irrational dogmas of religion and establishment , but it is hard to believe in the myth of the infallible truth of the Bible , when you are a scientist schooled in critical thought.The snag here , of course , is that techology and engineering wo n't go very far without heavy investments in science and research.Responsibility : Who do you owe your responsibility to ?
Big money ?
Religious tradition ?
The nations of the world ?
Or perhaps yourself ?
It is not for me to tell others how to live their lives , but is n't it worth considering , that while the rest of the world can continue progressing with or without America 's participation , no single nation can achieve a lot on its own .
The Romans became great by assimilating the knowledge of the Greeks , Egyptians and others , European nations built on the achievements of the Arabs as well as the Romans , America harvested the best scientists and knowledge of Europe and Russia after WWII , and now the Chinese are doing the same.Talking about responsibility , leadership and morality like he does , sounds overly pompous .
It is still not unachievable for America to assume the leadership , given that the right decisions are made ; and keeping in mind that leadership is n't quite the same as " being first " - it also implies that you have followers .
As far as I can see , America is at the moment engaged in a game of blaming others for everything and not wanting to play ; if you want to be leaders , you ca n't afford to sulk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ...Hmm, yeah, right.
Here's a few thoughts:I think the US abandoned moral leadership a long time ago in search of profit; let's talk no more about that.Technology: There is no doubt that it would be a good idea to strive for the best you can achieve in the areas of science.
It has become modern in recent years to replace the word "science" with "technology" and "research" with "engineering"; because technology and engineering sound like something that can make you money, whereas science ans research tend to make people think too much for themselves and become unruly.
It seems perfectly possibly for people to work with technology and not question the irrational dogmas of religion and establishment, but it is hard to believe in the myth of the infallible truth of the Bible, when you are a scientist schooled in critical thought.The snag here, of course, is that techology and engineering won't go very far without heavy investments in science and research.Responsibility: Who do you owe your responsibility to?
Big money?
Religious tradition?
The nations of the world?
Or perhaps yourself?
It is not for me to tell others how to live their lives, but isn't it worth considering, that while the rest of the world can continue progressing with or without America's participation, no single nation can achieve a lot on its own.
The Romans became great by assimilating the knowledge of the Greeks, Egyptians and others, European nations built on the achievements of the Arabs as well as the Romans, America harvested the best scientists and knowledge of Europe and Russia after WWII, and now the Chinese are doing the same.Talking about responsibility, leadership and morality like he does, sounds overly pompous.
It is still not unachievable for America to assume the leadership, given that the right decisions are made; and keeping in mind that leadership isn't quite the same as "being first" - it also implies that you have followers.
As far as I can see, America is at the moment engaged in a game of blaming others for everything and not wanting to play; if you want to be leaders, you can't afford to sulk.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472150</id>
	<title>Re:The sad thing is that</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1268582460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, yes.<br>Previous president made big statements...without funding.</p><p>Previous president ^2 made big statement...without funding.</p><p>This president...defunding.</p><p>(Shrug) I fail to see the actual difference, except that the current president might be interpreted to be more honest - unless one recognizes his policy choices less as motivated by honesty than as simply pandering to a DIFFERENT voter block.</p><p>Neither party has any core value that actually understands space science, nor has the political balls to fund something that is a GUARANTEED benefit for our country (and all of humanity, for that matter) because its reward is too many election cycles away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , yes.Previous president made big statements...without funding.Previous president ^ 2 made big statement...without funding.This president...defunding .
( Shrug ) I fail to see the actual difference , except that the current president might be interpreted to be more honest - unless one recognizes his policy choices less as motivated by honesty than as simply pandering to a DIFFERENT voter block.Neither party has any core value that actually understands space science , nor has the political balls to fund something that is a GUARANTEED benefit for our country ( and all of humanity , for that matter ) because its reward is too many election cycles away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, yes.Previous president made big statements...without funding.Previous president ^2 made big statement...without funding.This president...defunding.
(Shrug) I fail to see the actual difference, except that the current president might be interpreted to be more honest - unless one recognizes his policy choices less as motivated by honesty than as simply pandering to a DIFFERENT voter block.Neither party has any core value that actually understands space science, nor has the political balls to fund something that is a GUARANTEED benefit for our country (and all of humanity, for that matter) because its reward is too many election cycles away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468152</id>
	<title>Spending money when there's none to be spent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268486220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the economy is in the toilet, we're throwing all sorts of money at fighting a non-military enemy, we're in massive national debt. Clearly we should also be dumping millions and billions into sending men to a god forsaken rock so they can bounce around, stick flags in the ground, and piss down their pants legs.</p><p>Great idea!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the economy is in the toilet , we 're throwing all sorts of money at fighting a non-military enemy , we 're in massive national debt .
Clearly we should also be dumping millions and billions into sending men to a god forsaken rock so they can bounce around , stick flags in the ground , and piss down their pants legs.Great idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the economy is in the toilet, we're throwing all sorts of money at fighting a non-military enemy, we're in massive national debt.
Clearly we should also be dumping millions and billions into sending men to a god forsaken rock so they can bounce around, stick flags in the ground, and piss down their pants legs.Great idea!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467566</id>
	<title>They just hate him because he is black!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268481780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only possible explanation for an opposition to Obama is racism!!!<br>Just ask Jimmy Carter, Chris Matthews, or Janeane Garofalo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only possible explanation for an opposition to Obama is racism ! !
! Just ask Jimmy Carter , Chris Matthews , or Janeane Garofalo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only possible explanation for an opposition to Obama is racism!!
!Just ask Jimmy Carter, Chris Matthews, or Janeane Garofalo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468046</id>
	<title>If forced to choose . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll just come out and say I really believe money spent of government programs that are supposed to help people is mostly smoke and mirrors and ends up doing very little real long term good.

I grew up in the NASA era, I saw the first moon landing in first grade on a black and white television and it was easily the most memorable moment for me until I saw breasts.

So I say screw almost every other budget item. Pour money into space exploration. Hell, split the difference and call them 'shovel ready jobs'. I don't care. The return on investment is so much greater investing in space related technologies then studying the 'reproductive traits of prairie dogs' or other uninspiring tripe.

To boldly go where no man has gone before. That's the ticket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just come out and say I really believe money spent of government programs that are supposed to help people is mostly smoke and mirrors and ends up doing very little real long term good .
I grew up in the NASA era , I saw the first moon landing in first grade on a black and white television and it was easily the most memorable moment for me until I saw breasts .
So I say screw almost every other budget item .
Pour money into space exploration .
Hell , split the difference and call them 'shovel ready jobs' .
I do n't care .
The return on investment is so much greater investing in space related technologies then studying the 'reproductive traits of prairie dogs ' or other uninspiring tripe .
To boldly go where no man has gone before .
That 's the ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just come out and say I really believe money spent of government programs that are supposed to help people is mostly smoke and mirrors and ends up doing very little real long term good.
I grew up in the NASA era, I saw the first moon landing in first grade on a black and white television and it was easily the most memorable moment for me until I saw breasts.
So I say screw almost every other budget item.
Pour money into space exploration.
Hell, split the difference and call them 'shovel ready jobs'.
I don't care.
The return on investment is so much greater investing in space related technologies then studying the 'reproductive traits of prairie dogs' or other uninspiring tripe.
To boldly go where no man has gone before.
That's the ticket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468564</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268489520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spend the "money" on cleaning up the existing spacejunk.  You other privileged orbiters will just have to be content with your highspeed mansion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spend the " money " on cleaning up the existing spacejunk .
You other privileged orbiters will just have to be content with your highspeed mansion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spend the "money" on cleaning up the existing spacejunk.
You other privileged orbiters will just have to be content with your highspeed mansion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467356</id>
	<title>Children are our future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>American can, should, must and will <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">blow up the moon</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>American can , should , must and will blow up the moon [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American can, should, must and will blow up the moon [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472260</id>
	<title>Maybe if NASA focused on something useful...</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1268583840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of this "Our Moon!, Our Mars!" "First!" crap, then they might be taken more seriously than a bunch of footballers trying to win the championship.</p><p>Near earth orbit living environment for hospitals, enhanced communication satellite networks, space-based solar power, zero-g industries. The list goes on. If NASA was engaged in these useful and profitable activities, nobody would think of shutting them down. Their job is done. Let private industry take over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of this " Our Moon ! , Our Mars !
" " First !
" crap , then they might be taken more seriously than a bunch of footballers trying to win the championship.Near earth orbit living environment for hospitals , enhanced communication satellite networks , space-based solar power , zero-g industries .
The list goes on .
If NASA was engaged in these useful and profitable activities , nobody would think of shutting them down .
Their job is done .
Let private industry take over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of this "Our Moon!, Our Mars!
" "First!
" crap, then they might be taken more seriously than a bunch of footballers trying to win the championship.Near earth orbit living environment for hospitals, enhanced communication satellite networks, space-based solar power, zero-g industries.
The list goes on.
If NASA was engaged in these useful and profitable activities, nobody would think of shutting them down.
Their job is done.
Let private industry take over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467556</id>
	<title>Re:Why so expensive?</title>
	<author>NEDHead</author>
	<datestamp>1268481720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you might think so.  However people's expectations for the detail and quality of such has been driven so high by video games and movies that the actual cost not only trends up, but each sequel needs more and more effects to retain interest.  Besides, trying to imagine how the monolith will actually work is beyond most screenwriters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you might think so .
However people 's expectations for the detail and quality of such has been driven so high by video games and movies that the actual cost not only trends up , but each sequel needs more and more effects to retain interest .
Besides , trying to imagine how the monolith will actually work is beyond most screenwriters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you might think so.
However people's expectations for the detail and quality of such has been driven so high by video games and movies that the actual cost not only trends up, but each sequel needs more and more effects to retain interest.
Besides, trying to imagine how the monolith will actually work is beyond most screenwriters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469732</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz Aldrin has a different view</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1268501160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>-that's American space vehicles.</p></div><p>All parts made in Taiwan!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>-that 's American space vehicles.All parts made in Taiwan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-that's American space vehicles.All parts made in Taiwan!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622</id>
	<title>The sad thing is that</title>
	<author>Rooked\_One</author>
	<datestamp>1268482080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>if the republicans got elected the same thing would be going on - very little funding to NASA etc...  Now, I can't help but wonder if both sides are really just one side...  The all have two things in common.  They got elected, and they want to stay elected.  That's politics 101.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if the republicans got elected the same thing would be going on - very little funding to NASA etc... Now , I ca n't help but wonder if both sides are really just one side... The all have two things in common .
They got elected , and they want to stay elected .
That 's politics 101 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the republicans got elected the same thing would be going on - very little funding to NASA etc...  Now, I can't help but wonder if both sides are really just one side...  The all have two things in common.
They got elected, and they want to stay elected.
That's politics 101.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472426</id>
	<title>For those of you screaming that we do not have ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a plan. Let me point out that Bolden and Obama have said all along that the W moon plan is dead along with CONstellation. They have not said that we are not going to the moon.<br> <br>
 CONstellation was a disaster in the making. It would count on ONE arch to get us to the moon and loads of money to keep us on the moon. We have already seen massive shutoffs and stumble over and over in NASA's goals. For starters. Nixon killed Apollo and then he started the shuttled by underfunded it. As such, it got off the ground late. What was the consequence of that? We lost SKYLAB. Skylab was to be our ISS that the shuttle docked to. Because Nixon kept cutting Shuttle funding, it was late to the game. Too late. We lost skylab, and it would be another 20 years before we had our lab in the sky.<br>
When Challenger was lost, we were grounded for two years while we sorted it out.<br>
When Columba was lost, we were grounded for two years while we sorted it out. again. We put the ISS on hold during that time.<br>
Now, W and the neo-con congress killed the shuttle, and underfunded the CONstellation. Where are we today? Well, we are about to lose the shuttle and up to two years of not launching humans.<br> <br> So what is wrong with this pix?  We would do the SAME THING had we continued with CONstellation. Instead, with the approach of building multiple launchers AND private space, we will gain the ability to NEVER lose space access again. We also gain having private money going into this. L-Mart, Boeing, ULA, USA, etc have all been nothing but bleeders of money. Now, we are going to ask them to put it on the line and invest in space. We see that already in SpaceX. And Bigelow has absolutely been doing that.
IF America invests into the private space, we can get to the moon BEFORE 2020. WIth CONstellation, we would not be there before 2025, and more likely 2030.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a plan .
Let me point out that Bolden and Obama have said all along that the W moon plan is dead along with CONstellation .
They have not said that we are not going to the moon .
CONstellation was a disaster in the making .
It would count on ONE arch to get us to the moon and loads of money to keep us on the moon .
We have already seen massive shutoffs and stumble over and over in NASA 's goals .
For starters .
Nixon killed Apollo and then he started the shuttled by underfunded it .
As such , it got off the ground late .
What was the consequence of that ?
We lost SKYLAB .
Skylab was to be our ISS that the shuttle docked to .
Because Nixon kept cutting Shuttle funding , it was late to the game .
Too late .
We lost skylab , and it would be another 20 years before we had our lab in the sky .
When Challenger was lost , we were grounded for two years while we sorted it out .
When Columba was lost , we were grounded for two years while we sorted it out .
again. We put the ISS on hold during that time .
Now , W and the neo-con congress killed the shuttle , and underfunded the CONstellation .
Where are we today ?
Well , we are about to lose the shuttle and up to two years of not launching humans .
So what is wrong with this pix ?
We would do the SAME THING had we continued with CONstellation .
Instead , with the approach of building multiple launchers AND private space , we will gain the ability to NEVER lose space access again .
We also gain having private money going into this .
L-Mart , Boeing , ULA , USA , etc have all been nothing but bleeders of money .
Now , we are going to ask them to put it on the line and invest in space .
We see that already in SpaceX .
And Bigelow has absolutely been doing that .
IF America invests into the private space , we can get to the moon BEFORE 2020 .
WIth CONstellation , we would not be there before 2025 , and more likely 2030 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a plan.
Let me point out that Bolden and Obama have said all along that the W moon plan is dead along with CONstellation.
They have not said that we are not going to the moon.
CONstellation was a disaster in the making.
It would count on ONE arch to get us to the moon and loads of money to keep us on the moon.
We have already seen massive shutoffs and stumble over and over in NASA's goals.
For starters.
Nixon killed Apollo and then he started the shuttled by underfunded it.
As such, it got off the ground late.
What was the consequence of that?
We lost SKYLAB.
Skylab was to be our ISS that the shuttle docked to.
Because Nixon kept cutting Shuttle funding, it was late to the game.
Too late.
We lost skylab, and it would be another 20 years before we had our lab in the sky.
When Challenger was lost, we were grounded for two years while we sorted it out.
When Columba was lost, we were grounded for two years while we sorted it out.
again. We put the ISS on hold during that time.
Now, W and the neo-con congress killed the shuttle, and underfunded the CONstellation.
Where are we today?
Well, we are about to lose the shuttle and up to two years of not launching humans.
So what is wrong with this pix?
We would do the SAME THING had we continued with CONstellation.
Instead, with the approach of building multiple launchers AND private space, we will gain the ability to NEVER lose space access again.
We also gain having private money going into this.
L-Mart, Boeing, ULA, USA, etc have all been nothing but bleeders of money.
Now, we are going to ask them to put it on the line and invest in space.
We see that already in SpaceX.
And Bigelow has absolutely been doing that.
IF America invests into the private space, we can get to the moon BEFORE 2020.
WIth CONstellation, we would not be there before 2025, and more likely 2030.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469442</id>
	<title>We don't have the whole picture.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268497800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ares I was a piece of pork which should have long since been canceled. I'm glad it's gone. Everyone knows there are currently two US boosters (three soon enough) in the same weight and performance category and part of Obama's plan is to use those to go into LEO. This makes sense.</p><p>What no one has discussed, either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against, is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path. I'd like to see some of the ideas behind DIRECT refined so we end up with a moderately economical, scalable launch architecture for really heavy payloads. COTS is not likely to develop this on their own, they're happy at 25 tons to LEO and under. It's where their profit is. Note, I'm choosing to be optimistic on Flexible path being funded and implemented.</p><p>It looks like Orion Lite from Bigelow/Boeing/Lockheed is the front runner for crew transport. I'm not sure how much commonality is possible between it and a future Orion Heavy used for lunar or martian missions. Hopefully building one makes it easier to build the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ares I was a piece of pork which should have long since been canceled .
I 'm glad it 's gone .
Everyone knows there are currently two US boosters ( three soon enough ) in the same weight and performance category and part of Obama 's plan is to use those to go into LEO .
This makes sense.What no one has discussed , either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against , is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path .
I 'd like to see some of the ideas behind DIRECT refined so we end up with a moderately economical , scalable launch architecture for really heavy payloads .
COTS is not likely to develop this on their own , they 're happy at 25 tons to LEO and under .
It 's where their profit is .
Note , I 'm choosing to be optimistic on Flexible path being funded and implemented.It looks like Orion Lite from Bigelow/Boeing/Lockheed is the front runner for crew transport .
I 'm not sure how much commonality is possible between it and a future Orion Heavy used for lunar or martian missions .
Hopefully building one makes it easier to build the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ares I was a piece of pork which should have long since been canceled.
I'm glad it's gone.
Everyone knows there are currently two US boosters (three soon enough) in the same weight and performance category and part of Obama's plan is to use those to go into LEO.
This makes sense.What no one has discussed, either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against, is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path.
I'd like to see some of the ideas behind DIRECT refined so we end up with a moderately economical, scalable launch architecture for really heavy payloads.
COTS is not likely to develop this on their own, they're happy at 25 tons to LEO and under.
It's where their profit is.
Note, I'm choosing to be optimistic on Flexible path being funded and implemented.It looks like Orion Lite from Bigelow/Boeing/Lockheed is the front runner for crew transport.
I'm not sure how much commonality is possible between it and a future Orion Heavy used for lunar or martian missions.
Hopefully building one makes it easier to build the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467896</id>
	<title>Another moon landing?</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1268484240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon.</p></div><p>
I'm sure they could fake another one. The sfx these days are much better than 1969. Avatar looked stunning!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed ' to have been the last person to land on the moon .
I 'm sure they could fake another one .
The sfx these days are much better than 1969 .
Avatar looked stunning !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon.
I'm sure they could fake another one.
The sfx these days are much better than 1969.
Avatar looked stunning!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469700</id>
	<title>Re:The sad thing is that</title>
	<author>nadaou</author>
	<datestamp>1268500740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, I can't help but wonder if both sides are really just one side...</p></div></blockquote><p>I hear this all the time and the generalization is ridiculous. The two dominant parties are obviously not the black and white "polar" opposites the news always talks about, but do you really think the world would be in the position it is today if the SCOUS had seated Gore instead of Bush jr?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I ca n't help but wonder if both sides are really just one side...I hear this all the time and the generalization is ridiculous .
The two dominant parties are obviously not the black and white " polar " opposites the news always talks about , but do you really think the world would be in the position it is today if the SCOUS had seated Gore instead of Bush jr ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I can't help but wonder if both sides are really just one side...I hear this all the time and the generalization is ridiculous.
The two dominant parties are obviously not the black and white "polar" opposites the news always talks about, but do you really think the world would be in the position it is today if the SCOUS had seated Gore instead of Bush jr?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468992</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz Aldrin has a different view</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1268493300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One more reason to love Buzz Aldrin! He is exactly right, again!</htmltext>
<tokenext>One more reason to love Buzz Aldrin !
He is exactly right , again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more reason to love Buzz Aldrin!
He is exactly right, again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471964</id>
	<title>Re:Why does it have to be socialized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268580000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why don't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions?</i> </p><p>Because, as usual, they want the government (read -- taxpayer) to do all the expensive, fundamental research, then hand it over to private corporations to patent and make unimaginable profits off of. Just like big pharma has been doing for decades.</p><p>Shit, pay attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions ?
Because , as usual , they want the government ( read -- taxpayer ) to do all the expensive , fundamental research , then hand it over to private corporations to patent and make unimaginable profits off of .
Just like big pharma has been doing for decades.Shit , pay attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't more private rich guys step up and fund moon missions?
Because, as usual, they want the government (read -- taxpayer) to do all the expensive, fundamental research, then hand it over to private corporations to patent and make unimaginable profits off of.
Just like big pharma has been doing for decades.Shit, pay attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469612</id>
	<title>Priorities shmiorities...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand.. look at all the computational power, design automation and advancements in basic materials science since 1969.  We should be able to send care packages to the moon via FedEx today.</p><p>Personally I would rather see better space based telescopes and remote probes than manned missions in the near term.  For the money its just more interesting and provides the highest cost/benefit returns in terms of research/knowledge.</p><p>At some point mass production, machine intelligence and less global availability of cheap labor will rapidly start to push more and more people out of the workforce as production becomes more and more automated.</p><p>Forget the manned missions to mars... hows about an attempt at something impossible like building a large (&gt;1million ppl) city on mars or terraforming the whole planet.  No new tech needs to be invented to get people to mars and back so whats the point in shooting that low?  Maybe I watch too much star trek and expect too much or maybe you can't empty a lake with a bucket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand.. look at all the computational power , design automation and advancements in basic materials science since 1969 .
We should be able to send care packages to the moon via FedEx today.Personally I would rather see better space based telescopes and remote probes than manned missions in the near term .
For the money its just more interesting and provides the highest cost/benefit returns in terms of research/knowledge.At some point mass production , machine intelligence and less global availability of cheap labor will rapidly start to push more and more people out of the workforce as production becomes more and more automated.Forget the manned missions to mars... hows about an attempt at something impossible like building a large ( &gt; 1million ppl ) city on mars or terraforming the whole planet .
No new tech needs to be invented to get people to mars and back so whats the point in shooting that low ?
Maybe I watch too much star trek and expect too much or maybe you ca n't empty a lake with a bucket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand.. look at all the computational power, design automation and advancements in basic materials science since 1969.
We should be able to send care packages to the moon via FedEx today.Personally I would rather see better space based telescopes and remote probes than manned missions in the near term.
For the money its just more interesting and provides the highest cost/benefit returns in terms of research/knowledge.At some point mass production, machine intelligence and less global availability of cheap labor will rapidly start to push more and more people out of the workforce as production becomes more and more automated.Forget the manned missions to mars... hows about an attempt at something impossible like building a large (&gt;1million ppl) city on mars or terraforming the whole planet.
No new tech needs to be invented to get people to mars and back so whats the point in shooting that low?
Maybe I watch too much star trek and expect too much or maybe you can't empty a lake with a bucket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468118</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1268485860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You people who try to portray it as nothing more than "sending tourists to a dry barren rock" are idiots. The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today, including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts.</p></div><p>You're the "ignorant idiot" here. The microprocessor was developed for a Japanese desk calculator; it had nothing to do with any space program. You might be thinking of the integrated circuit. However, in that case you'd have what seems to be a common misconception. The IC was developed for ICBM guidance, not for any manned space program.</p><p>If you want to develop a bunch of technology, go ahead and fund it directly. There's no reason to put on an expensive dog-and-pony show to get technology as a side effect. That's just inefficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You people who try to portray it as nothing more than " sending tourists to a dry barren rock " are idiots .
The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today , including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts.You 're the " ignorant idiot " here .
The microprocessor was developed for a Japanese desk calculator ; it had nothing to do with any space program .
You might be thinking of the integrated circuit .
However , in that case you 'd have what seems to be a common misconception .
The IC was developed for ICBM guidance , not for any manned space program.If you want to develop a bunch of technology , go ahead and fund it directly .
There 's no reason to put on an expensive dog-and-pony show to get technology as a side effect .
That 's just inefficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people who try to portray it as nothing more than "sending tourists to a dry barren rock" are idiots.
The space program gave us so much of the technology we take for granted today, including the microprocessor you used to type your ignorant posts.You're the "ignorant idiot" here.
The microprocessor was developed for a Japanese desk calculator; it had nothing to do with any space program.
You might be thinking of the integrated circuit.
However, in that case you'd have what seems to be a common misconception.
The IC was developed for ICBM guidance, not for any manned space program.If you want to develop a bunch of technology, go ahead and fund it directly.
There's no reason to put on an expensive dog-and-pony show to get technology as a side effect.
That's just inefficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467504</id>
	<title>lots of things we'd like to do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268481420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we had an unlimited budget, the US could have the world's biggest functioning high-energy particle accelerator running by now.</p><p>Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we had an unlimited budget , the US could have the world 's biggest functioning high-energy particle accelerator running by now.Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we had an unlimited budget, the US could have the world's biggest functioning high-energy particle accelerator running by now.Oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467958</id>
	<title>Re:maned space travel = not just now</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1268484720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is amazing how many times "not just now" turns into "never" in practice. There will be always an emergency, something with more priority at the eyes of the public opinion or at least that will be what the mass media will say... put a precedent, and the people expending the money will manage to find another priority every time.<br><br>How we could expend on space if we have to save the banks, sustain the war on iraq?  stop terrorists, or maintain peace on middle east, stop communism and so on till you get even before the invention of airplanes,<br><br>Probably we will realize how essential would have been doing something on this when is already too late. For once, "think on the children" would be the appropiate reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is amazing how many times " not just now " turns into " never " in practice .
There will be always an emergency , something with more priority at the eyes of the public opinion or at least that will be what the mass media will say... put a precedent , and the people expending the money will manage to find another priority every time.How we could expend on space if we have to save the banks , sustain the war on iraq ?
stop terrorists , or maintain peace on middle east , stop communism and so on till you get even before the invention of airplanes,Probably we will realize how essential would have been doing something on this when is already too late .
For once , " think on the children " would be the appropiate reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is amazing how many times "not just now" turns into "never" in practice.
There will be always an emergency, something with more priority at the eyes of the public opinion or at least that will be what the mass media will say... put a precedent, and the people expending the money will manage to find another priority every time.How we could expend on space if we have to save the banks, sustain the war on iraq?
stop terrorists, or maintain peace on middle east, stop communism and so on till you get even before the invention of airplanes,Probably we will realize how essential would have been doing something on this when is already too late.
For once, "think on the children" would be the appropiate reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467578</id>
	<title>We need to work on mineing the moon / other places</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1268481840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to work on mineing the moon / other places and not just sending people there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to work on mineing the moon / other places and not just sending people there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to work on mineing the moon / other places and not just sending people there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467540</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>J3TP4CKKN1GHT5</author>
	<datestamp>1268481660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dry? Haven't you heard?

<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/24/0212221/Unambiguous-Evidence-of-Water-On-the-Moon" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/24/0212221/Unambiguous-Evidence-of-Water-On-the-Moon</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dry ?
Have n't you heard ?
http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/24/0212221/Unambiguous-Evidence-of-Water-On-the-Moon [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dry?
Haven't you heard?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/24/0212221/Unambiguous-Evidence-of-Water-On-the-Moon [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31504840</id>
	<title>he had to do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obama had to postpone those missions to the moon, "They" do't want us back there just yet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obama had to postpone those missions to the moon , " They " do't want us back there just yet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obama had to postpone those missions to the moon, "They" do't want us back there just yet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468802</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1268491680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, the amazing Mars rovers (by far the greatest NASA success since Hubble) were designed and built at JPL by NASA scientists. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars\_Exploration\_Rover" title="wikipedia.org">wiki</a> [wikipedia.org]) And it's exactly projects like this that will get breathing room when the vanity missions about "getting a man to x" get shelved. Compare this mission to the far more expensive ISS when you're wondering about the best way for NASA to add to scientific knowledge.</p><p>

I admit that there is great value in evenutally establishing human settlements off the Earth, but these will have to be huge, in order to be self-sufficient. Robots will have to build them before the humans arrive. This is what we should be aiming at. Until we get to that point, it makes little sense to be sending humans to the moon or Mars. What I want is a good robotic sample-return mission to/from Mars. After that, we should resume artificial biosphere research, because that's what Mars needs if anyone serious is to go there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the amazing Mars rovers ( by far the greatest NASA success since Hubble ) were designed and built at JPL by NASA scientists .
( wiki [ wikipedia.org ] ) And it 's exactly projects like this that will get breathing room when the vanity missions about " getting a man to x " get shelved .
Compare this mission to the far more expensive ISS when you 're wondering about the best way for NASA to add to scientific knowledge .
I admit that there is great value in evenutally establishing human settlements off the Earth , but these will have to be huge , in order to be self-sufficient .
Robots will have to build them before the humans arrive .
This is what we should be aiming at .
Until we get to that point , it makes little sense to be sending humans to the moon or Mars .
What I want is a good robotic sample-return mission to/from Mars .
After that , we should resume artificial biosphere research , because that 's what Mars needs if anyone serious is to go there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the amazing Mars rovers (by far the greatest NASA success since Hubble) were designed and built at JPL by NASA scientists.
(wiki [wikipedia.org]) And it's exactly projects like this that will get breathing room when the vanity missions about "getting a man to x" get shelved.
Compare this mission to the far more expensive ISS when you're wondering about the best way for NASA to add to scientific knowledge.
I admit that there is great value in evenutally establishing human settlements off the Earth, but these will have to be huge, in order to be self-sufficient.
Robots will have to build them before the humans arrive.
This is what we should be aiming at.
Until we get to that point, it makes little sense to be sending humans to the moon or Mars.
What I want is a good robotic sample-return mission to/from Mars.
After that, we should resume artificial biosphere research, because that's what Mars needs if anyone serious is to go there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31476856</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz Aldrin has a different view</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268576700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA, you're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.</p></div><p>Actually I think the ICBM program and especially the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-17B" title="wikipedia.org">Minuteman computer</a> [wikipedia.org] had a bit more to do with it than NASA. But it's politically inconvenient to point out that the USA's so-called 'civilian' space program extensively dual-used technology whose real bread-and-butter purpose was Cold War weapons of very mass destruction. And even '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRAB" title="wikipedia.org">pure science</a> [wikipedia.org]' missions were about as pure as a dirty snowball.</p><p>Not to put too fine a point on it, the United States government via its many-tentacled agencies outright point-blank bare-faced lied about the true purpose of much of the space hardware launched during the Cold War, some of which is still up there. That's nice and all, times of war, Sun Tsu etc, but unfortunately now... how much do you trust your government to <i>ever again</i> tell you the truth?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA , you 're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.Actually I think the ICBM program and especially the Minuteman computer [ wikipedia.org ] had a bit more to do with it than NASA .
But it 's politically inconvenient to point out that the USA 's so-called 'civilian ' space program extensively dual-used technology whose real bread-and-butter purpose was Cold War weapons of very mass destruction .
And even 'pure science [ wikipedia.org ] ' missions were about as pure as a dirty snowball.Not to put too fine a point on it , the United States government via its many-tentacled agencies outright point-blank bare-faced lied about the true purpose of much of the space hardware launched during the Cold War , some of which is still up there .
That 's nice and all , times of war , Sun Tsu etc , but unfortunately now... how much do you trust your government to ever again tell you the truth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To everyone who says we owe the computer industry to NASA, you're partly right but much more so over the last 30 years to Intel and AMD.Actually I think the ICBM program and especially the Minuteman computer [wikipedia.org] had a bit more to do with it than NASA.
But it's politically inconvenient to point out that the USA's so-called 'civilian' space program extensively dual-used technology whose real bread-and-butter purpose was Cold War weapons of very mass destruction.
And even 'pure science [wikipedia.org]' missions were about as pure as a dirty snowball.Not to put too fine a point on it, the United States government via its many-tentacled agencies outright point-blank bare-faced lied about the true purpose of much of the space hardware launched during the Cold War, some of which is still up there.
That's nice and all, times of war, Sun Tsu etc, but unfortunately now... how much do you trust your government to ever again tell you the truth?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31482418</id>
	<title>LeaderWhatNow??</title>
	<author>Nabbler</author>
	<datestamp>1268670360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership"
<br>
Haha, The whole world knows america is morally bankrupt, and that a large part of the stuff NASA did was done using russian rockets for many many years now.
<br>
But that doesn't mean I think america should not try though, but perhaps moonmission can be put on the backburner, I don't know, the counterargument is that the moon has certain economical and practical potential rather than only expanding knowledge like probes do, the planned moon stuff was for 'building infrastructure to power the future', something obama likes to push back on earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership " Haha , The whole world knows america is morally bankrupt , and that a large part of the stuff NASA did was done using russian rockets for many many years now .
But that does n't mean I think america should not try though , but perhaps moonmission can be put on the backburner , I do n't know , the counterargument is that the moon has certain economical and practical potential rather than only expanding knowledge like probes do , the planned moon stuff was for 'building infrastructure to power the future ' , something obama likes to push back on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership"

Haha, The whole world knows america is morally bankrupt, and that a large part of the stuff NASA did was done using russian rockets for many many years now.
But that doesn't mean I think america should not try though, but perhaps moonmission can be put on the backburner, I don't know, the counterargument is that the moon has certain economical and practical potential rather than only expanding knowledge like probes do, the planned moon stuff was for 'building infrastructure to power the future', something obama likes to push back on earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468038</id>
	<title>Yay to NASA, Nay to Constellation</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1268485200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news for sure is an increase of $6 billion over the next five years. It stresses new technology and innovation (to the tune of over $1.5 billion), which is also good. A lot of NASA&rsquo;s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done. It also stresses Earth science, which isn&rsquo;t surprising at all; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact, including global warming. So that&rsquo;s still good news.

</p><p>The very very good news is that half that money &mdash; half, folks, 3.2 billion dollars &mdash; is going to science. Yeehaw! The release specifically notes telescopes and missions to the Moon and planets. That, my friends, sounds fantastic.

</p><p>NASA&rsquo;s Constellation program &ndash; based largely on existing technologies &ndash; was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA&rsquo;s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA&rsquo;s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President&rsquo;s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news for sure is an increase of $ 6 billion over the next five years .
It stresses new technology and innovation ( to the tune of over $ 1.5 billion ) , which is also good .
A lot of NASA    s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done .
It also stresses Earth science , which isn    t surprising at all ; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact , including global warming .
So that    s still good news .
The very very good news is that half that money    half , folks , 3.2 billion dollars    is going to science .
Yeehaw ! The release specifically notes telescopes and missions to the Moon and planets .
That , my friends , sounds fantastic .
NASA    s Constellation program    based largely on existing technologies    was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 .
However , the program was over budget , behind schedule , and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies .
Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded , NASA    s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era , 50 years later , was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives .
Furthermore , NASA    s attempts to pursue its moon goals , while inadequate to that task , had drawn funding away from other NASA programs , including robotic space exploration , science , and Earth observations .
The President    s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news for sure is an increase of $6 billion over the next five years.
It stresses new technology and innovation (to the tune of over $1.5 billion), which is also good.
A lot of NASA’s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done.
It also stresses Earth science, which isn’t surprising at all; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact, including global warming.
So that’s still good news.
The very very good news is that half that money — half, folks, 3.2 billion dollars — is going to science.
Yeehaw! The release specifically notes telescopes and missions to the Moon and planets.
That, my friends, sounds fantastic.
NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020.
However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies.
Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives.
Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations.
The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468486</id>
	<title>The moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268488800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, it's just a rock. Let the Chinks and the Ruskies have it. Mars too. Then, once they finally get off the planet, and take all the niggers and spics with 'em, we can sit back and have a Coke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , it 's just a rock .
Let the Chinks and the Ruskies have it .
Mars too .
Then , once they finally get off the planet , and take all the niggers and spics with 'em , we can sit back and have a Coke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, it's just a rock.
Let the Chinks and the Ruskies have it.
Mars too.
Then, once they finally get off the planet, and take all the niggers and spics with 'em, we can sit back and have a Coke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468454</id>
	<title>Obvious bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268488620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether you're a health care protester, a supreme court judge or an astronaut, saying "no" to Obama simply shows that you are part of an industry-funded AstroTurf protester for hire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you 're a health care protester , a supreme court judge or an astronaut , saying " no " to Obama simply shows that you are part of an industry-funded AstroTurf protester for hire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you're a health care protester, a supreme court judge or an astronaut, saying "no" to Obama simply shows that you are part of an industry-funded AstroTurf protester for hire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31493380</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz Aldrin has a different view</title>
	<author>mauhiz</author>
	<datestamp>1268740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, he already went there, so he cares less than us who have not yet stepped on the moon! No fair!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Joke aside, I find his analysis insightful and lucid. I hope his point of view will be heard...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , he already went there , so he cares less than us who have not yet stepped on the moon !
No fair !
: ) Joke aside , I find his analysis insightful and lucid .
I hope his point of view will be heard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, he already went there, so he cares less than us who have not yet stepped on the moon!
No fair!
:)Joke aside, I find his analysis insightful and lucid.
I hope his point of view will be heard...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471392</id>
	<title>Mars, our ultimate destination in space = NOT TRUE</title>
	<author>kgettys</author>
	<datestamp>1268571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mars is not and should not be at all considered "our ultimate destination in space". That is too short sighted. Interglatic, multigenterationalMars is not and should not be at all considered "our ultimate destination in space". That is too short sighted. Instead of the Moon (been there, done that) or onto Mars (just a longer trip), we should focus on building Intergalactic and multigenerational space craft.
We can start doing that research and construction in low then high Earth orbit. And using robots instead of astronauts is much less expensive than just putting humans on Mars. Times are tight and the space industry should adjust along with the rest of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mars is not and should not be at all considered " our ultimate destination in space " .
That is too short sighted .
Interglatic , multigenterationalMars is not and should not be at all considered " our ultimate destination in space " .
That is too short sighted .
Instead of the Moon ( been there , done that ) or onto Mars ( just a longer trip ) , we should focus on building Intergalactic and multigenerational space craft .
We can start doing that research and construction in low then high Earth orbit .
And using robots instead of astronauts is much less expensive than just putting humans on Mars .
Times are tight and the space industry should adjust along with the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mars is not and should not be at all considered "our ultimate destination in space".
That is too short sighted.
Interglatic, multigenterationalMars is not and should not be at all considered "our ultimate destination in space".
That is too short sighted.
Instead of the Moon (been there, done that) or onto Mars (just a longer trip), we should focus on building Intergalactic and multigenerational space craft.
We can start doing that research and construction in low then high Earth orbit.
And using robots instead of astronauts is much less expensive than just putting humans on Mars.
Times are tight and the space industry should adjust along with the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31477988</id>
	<title>Jupiter and Europa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that the Jupiter projects would be of more benefit, there is not enough effort spent or dedicated effort to see what is happening on the oceans below the Europa Ice. 2030 is too long for flyby's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the Jupiter projects would be of more benefit , there is not enough effort spent or dedicated effort to see what is happening on the oceans below the Europa Ice .
2030 is too long for flyby 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the Jupiter projects would be of more benefit, there is not enough effort spent or dedicated effort to see what is happening on the oceans below the Europa Ice.
2030 is too long for flyby's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467738</id>
	<title>There's no money... it is wasted elsewhere</title>
	<author>Erinnys Tisiphone</author>
	<datestamp>1268482980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Granted, there are a *lot* of wastes in government I would like to see go away before government-funded manned spaceflight, but the US deficit is growing *dangerously* large. If the partisan divide is too great to eliminate anything else, something has to go, at least temporarily, before our social services go completely by the wayside, or much, much worse. I'm not saying that this is anywhere near the best choice. But these days, our country is divided that nothing else can be agreed on. Our politicians are at one another's throats instead of making compromises we need to survive as a nation.

In addition, heroism aside, I think that the unmanned and orbital space programs like Hubble, rovers, and the ISS are much more critical for scientific discovery than manned missions. While less of a symbol, they produce immense amounts of useful scientific data. The Bush administration's Mars plans would likely have occurred at the expense of these programs.

So there is no good answer. If civilian agencies take up the slack and begin performing the exploration, then there may be some hope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted , there are a * lot * of wastes in government I would like to see go away before government-funded manned spaceflight , but the US deficit is growing * dangerously * large .
If the partisan divide is too great to eliminate anything else , something has to go , at least temporarily , before our social services go completely by the wayside , or much , much worse .
I 'm not saying that this is anywhere near the best choice .
But these days , our country is divided that nothing else can be agreed on .
Our politicians are at one another 's throats instead of making compromises we need to survive as a nation .
In addition , heroism aside , I think that the unmanned and orbital space programs like Hubble , rovers , and the ISS are much more critical for scientific discovery than manned missions .
While less of a symbol , they produce immense amounts of useful scientific data .
The Bush administration 's Mars plans would likely have occurred at the expense of these programs .
So there is no good answer .
If civilian agencies take up the slack and begin performing the exploration , then there may be some hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted, there are a *lot* of wastes in government I would like to see go away before government-funded manned spaceflight, but the US deficit is growing *dangerously* large.
If the partisan divide is too great to eliminate anything else, something has to go, at least temporarily, before our social services go completely by the wayside, or much, much worse.
I'm not saying that this is anywhere near the best choice.
But these days, our country is divided that nothing else can be agreed on.
Our politicians are at one another's throats instead of making compromises we need to survive as a nation.
In addition, heroism aside, I think that the unmanned and orbital space programs like Hubble, rovers, and the ISS are much more critical for scientific discovery than manned missions.
While less of a symbol, they produce immense amounts of useful scientific data.
The Bush administration's Mars plans would likely have occurred at the expense of these programs.
So there is no good answer.
If civilian agencies take up the slack and begin performing the exploration, then there may be some hope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468340</id>
	<title>In the year 2137:</title>
	<author>Hartree</author>
	<datestamp>1268487540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A child on the Ghanaian Space Agency base on Europa asks her father, "Almost every nation on Earth has built outposts and colonies in the Solar system except America. What happened to them, Daddy?".</p><p>"Oh, they decided to stay home and play Dark Orbit instead."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A child on the Ghanaian Space Agency base on Europa asks her father , " Almost every nation on Earth has built outposts and colonies in the Solar system except America .
What happened to them , Daddy ? " .
" Oh , they decided to stay home and play Dark Orbit instead .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A child on the Ghanaian Space Agency base on Europa asks her father, "Almost every nation on Earth has built outposts and colonies in the Solar system except America.
What happened to them, Daddy?".
"Oh, they decided to stay home and play Dark Orbit instead.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467714</id>
	<title>Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too</title>
	<author>bogasity</author>
	<datestamp>1268482800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better go look at the budget. Obama's budget *increases* NASA spending while removing its most visible mission. Basically, he plans on creating the next Lockheed or Boeing at taxpayer expense.

<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main\_FY\_201\_\%20Budget\_Overview\_1\_Feb\_2010.pdf" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main\_FY\_201\_\%20Budget\_Overview\_1\_Feb\_2010.pdf</a> [nasa.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better go look at the budget .
Obama 's budget * increases * NASA spending while removing its most visible mission .
Basically , he plans on creating the next Lockheed or Boeing at taxpayer expense .
http : //www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main \ _FY \ _201 \ _ \ % 20Budget \ _Overview \ _1 \ _Feb \ _2010.pdf [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better go look at the budget.
Obama's budget *increases* NASA spending while removing its most visible mission.
Basically, he plans on creating the next Lockheed or Boeing at taxpayer expense.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main\_FY\_201\_\%20Budget\_Overview\_1\_Feb\_2010.pdf [nasa.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469558</id>
	<title>Re:The sad thing is that</title>
	<author>Garrett Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1268499180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Under Bush and a Republican Congress, we had a specific plan to get back to the Moon and on to Mars. Now under Obama and a Democratic Congress, we don't. It wasn't a very <i>good</i> plan, but there's still a difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under Bush and a Republican Congress , we had a specific plan to get back to the Moon and on to Mars .
Now under Obama and a Democratic Congress , we do n't .
It was n't a very good plan , but there 's still a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under Bush and a Republican Congress, we had a specific plan to get back to the Moon and on to Mars.
Now under Obama and a Democratic Congress, we don't.
It wasn't a very good plan, but there's still a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467422</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people.




Maybe if we hadn't squandered a trillion dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq we could afford things like going to the moon again.</p></div><p>This.<br> <br>A big portion of our bleeding economy is flowing out the giant bullet hole labeled "War against terror." and if we just stopped a \_single\_ \_war\_ that we're involved with we'd have a ton of money to put towards all sorts of stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people .
Maybe if we had n't squandered a trillion dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq we could afford things like going to the moon again.This .
A big portion of our bleeding economy is flowing out the giant bullet hole labeled " War against terror .
" and if we just stopped a \ _single \ _ \ _war \ _ that we 're involved with we 'd have a ton of money to put towards all sorts of stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people.
Maybe if we hadn't squandered a trillion dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq we could afford things like going to the moon again.This.
A big portion of our bleeding economy is flowing out the giant bullet hole labeled "War against terror.
" and if we just stopped a \_single\_ \_war\_ that we're involved with we'd have a ton of money to put towards all sorts of stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469648</id>
	<title>Re:manned space travel has been catastrophic</title>
	<author>strack</author>
	<datestamp>1268500080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not gonna happen. for one, the speed of light is a pretty insurmountable barrier to practical remote operation. you just cant operate things in real time when the signal takes 5 minutes to get there. so it ends up that theres no substitute for a actual person there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not gon na happen .
for one , the speed of light is a pretty insurmountable barrier to practical remote operation .
you just cant operate things in real time when the signal takes 5 minutes to get there .
so it ends up that theres no substitute for a actual person there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not gonna happen.
for one, the speed of light is a pretty insurmountable barrier to practical remote operation.
you just cant operate things in real time when the signal takes 5 minutes to get there.
so it ends up that theres no substitute for a actual person there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526</id>
	<title>maned space travel = not just now</title>
	<author>gumbi west</author>
	<datestamp>1268481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like it is not now time to launch a rocket to a nearby star, now is not the time for maned space travel. The cost is ridiculous, and the value of Hubble has been exponentially larger. I'd be all for launching larger, more, or different versions of Hubble because the amount of science that has been done with  the telescope is amazing. But manned space travel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like it is not now time to launch a rocket to a nearby star , now is not the time for maned space travel .
The cost is ridiculous , and the value of Hubble has been exponentially larger .
I 'd be all for launching larger , more , or different versions of Hubble because the amount of science that has been done with the telescope is amazing .
But manned space travel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like it is not now time to launch a rocket to a nearby star, now is not the time for maned space travel.
The cost is ridiculous, and the value of Hubble has been exponentially larger.
I'd be all for launching larger, more, or different versions of Hubble because the amount of science that has been done with  the telescope is amazing.
But manned space travel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470254</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz Aldrin has a different view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree with Aldrin and simply don't understand that anybody is willing to put this story up on the news. When Bush introduced the new plan 6 years ago a lot of people at NASA were rightly protesting against it. Rightly so. We don't need to go to Mars, nor need we go to the moon without a good reason. That money better spent elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with Aldrin and simply do n't understand that anybody is willing to put this story up on the news .
When Bush introduced the new plan 6 years ago a lot of people at NASA were rightly protesting against it .
Rightly so .
We do n't need to go to Mars , nor need we go to the moon without a good reason .
That money better spent elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with Aldrin and simply don't understand that anybody is willing to put this story up on the news.
When Bush introduced the new plan 6 years ago a lot of people at NASA were rightly protesting against it.
Rightly so.
We don't need to go to Mars, nor need we go to the moon without a good reason.
That money better spent elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31493380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31476734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31473302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31473602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31476856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_2214208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31473602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31473302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31472150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31471858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31470226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31476856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31493380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31476734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31467858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31469648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_2214208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_2214208.31468038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
