<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_14_1241209</id>
	<title>Air Force Spaceplane Readying For Launch</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268576760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FleaPlus writes <i>"The US Air Force is currently <a href="http://www.space.com/news/air-force-secret-space-plane-sfn-100313.html">preparing for the launch of the secretive X-37B OTV-1 (Orbital Test Vehicle 1) spaceplane</a>, which was transferred from NASA to DARPA back in 2004 when NASA opted to focus its budget on lunar exploration. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_X-37">reusable unmanned spaceplane</a> is set to launch in April on top of a commercial Atlas V rocket, orbit for up to 270 days while testing a number of new technologies, reenter the atmosphere, then land on auto-pilot in California."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FleaPlus writes " The US Air Force is currently preparing for the launch of the secretive X-37B OTV-1 ( Orbital Test Vehicle 1 ) spaceplane , which was transferred from NASA to DARPA back in 2004 when NASA opted to focus its budget on lunar exploration .
The reusable unmanned spaceplane is set to launch in April on top of a commercial Atlas V rocket , orbit for up to 270 days while testing a number of new technologies , reenter the atmosphere , then land on auto-pilot in California .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FleaPlus writes "The US Air Force is currently preparing for the launch of the secretive X-37B OTV-1 (Orbital Test Vehicle 1) spaceplane, which was transferred from NASA to DARPA back in 2004 when NASA opted to focus its budget on lunar exploration.
The reusable unmanned spaceplane is set to launch in April on top of a commercial Atlas V rocket, orbit for up to 270 days while testing a number of new technologies, reenter the atmosphere, then land on auto-pilot in California.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31479562</id>
	<title>Soyuz NOT cheap!</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1268649720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, at $20 million (more now I think) per passenger to orbit, I don't think Soyuz capsules are THAT cheap.  We really need one of the technologies discussed before to lower costs a factor of ten (ideally a factor of a hundred).</p><p>I still think just getting to orbit cheaply is THE main hurdle.  Once you're there (and again, if getting there is cheap enough so you don't have to sweat every last ounce/gram), there are lots of things you can try.  Like VASIMIR or magnetic "bubbles" being pushed by the solar wind (not the same thing as a solar sail) or nuclear thermal.  If getting to orbit was cheap enough so you could build life support with 2x (or more) redundancy or just bring up SCUBA tanks maybe it would make designing/building space craft easier.  Cheap orbital access?  Okay then we can protect ourselves against cosmic rays by shielding our spaceships with WATER (and give the astronauts a really fun zero-g pool to use on the trip).</p><p>Think how much easier space travel would be if the costs were something like that to resupply our base in Antarctica.  I mean they have ATMs and (I think) a McDonalds!  (Okay I'm dreaming now, maybe that won't come about until we had a space elevator).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , at $ 20 million ( more now I think ) per passenger to orbit , I do n't think Soyuz capsules are THAT cheap .
We really need one of the technologies discussed before to lower costs a factor of ten ( ideally a factor of a hundred ) .I still think just getting to orbit cheaply is THE main hurdle .
Once you 're there ( and again , if getting there is cheap enough so you do n't have to sweat every last ounce/gram ) , there are lots of things you can try .
Like VASIMIR or magnetic " bubbles " being pushed by the solar wind ( not the same thing as a solar sail ) or nuclear thermal .
If getting to orbit was cheap enough so you could build life support with 2x ( or more ) redundancy or just bring up SCUBA tanks maybe it would make designing/building space craft easier .
Cheap orbital access ?
Okay then we can protect ourselves against cosmic rays by shielding our spaceships with WATER ( and give the astronauts a really fun zero-g pool to use on the trip ) .Think how much easier space travel would be if the costs were something like that to resupply our base in Antarctica .
I mean they have ATMs and ( I think ) a McDonalds !
( Okay I 'm dreaming now , maybe that wo n't come about until we had a space elevator ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, at $20 million (more now I think) per passenger to orbit, I don't think Soyuz capsules are THAT cheap.
We really need one of the technologies discussed before to lower costs a factor of ten (ideally a factor of a hundred).I still think just getting to orbit cheaply is THE main hurdle.
Once you're there (and again, if getting there is cheap enough so you don't have to sweat every last ounce/gram), there are lots of things you can try.
Like VASIMIR or magnetic "bubbles" being pushed by the solar wind (not the same thing as a solar sail) or nuclear thermal.
If getting to orbit was cheap enough so you could build life support with 2x (or more) redundancy or just bring up SCUBA tanks maybe it would make designing/building space craft easier.
Cheap orbital access?
Okay then we can protect ourselves against cosmic rays by shielding our spaceships with WATER (and give the astronauts a really fun zero-g pool to use on the trip).Think how much easier space travel would be if the costs were something like that to resupply our base in Antarctica.
I mean they have ATMs and (I think) a McDonalds!
(Okay I'm dreaming now, maybe that won't come about until we had a space elevator).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472180</id>
	<title>pl0s 3, Troll)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268582820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Surveys show 7hat endless conflict Current core were from now on or eyes on the real to them...then one common goal - [idge.net]</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surveys show 7hat endless conflict Current core were from now on or eyes on the real to them...then one common goal - [ idge.net ] [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surveys show 7hat endless conflict Current core were from now on or eyes on the real to them...then one common goal - [idge.net] [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472522</id>
	<title>Re:Cool!</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1268586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Closer to what?  Something smarter than a rocket? lol.  Why use tons of fuel to accelerate really quickly and clear the atmosphere that fast?  That's about as fuel efficient as flooring it at a red light.  And I don't know who pulled the escape velocity numbers out of their ass but you don't "need" to be going whatever ridiculous speed they said.  You "need" to be going any positive number.  Like if you're going 1 MPH upward, you'll eventually be a hundred miles away from Earth.  So anyway, rockets suck and they need to make more space planes.  If it can take off like a normal plane using a normal amount of fuel and use air to lift it really high then use boosters or whatever to get it the rest of the way into space, that sounds 100x less expensive and less complicated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Closer to what ?
Something smarter than a rocket ?
lol. Why use tons of fuel to accelerate really quickly and clear the atmosphere that fast ?
That 's about as fuel efficient as flooring it at a red light .
And I do n't know who pulled the escape velocity numbers out of their ass but you do n't " need " to be going whatever ridiculous speed they said .
You " need " to be going any positive number .
Like if you 're going 1 MPH upward , you 'll eventually be a hundred miles away from Earth .
So anyway , rockets suck and they need to make more space planes .
If it can take off like a normal plane using a normal amount of fuel and use air to lift it really high then use boosters or whatever to get it the rest of the way into space , that sounds 100x less expensive and less complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Closer to what?
Something smarter than a rocket?
lol.  Why use tons of fuel to accelerate really quickly and clear the atmosphere that fast?
That's about as fuel efficient as flooring it at a red light.
And I don't know who pulled the escape velocity numbers out of their ass but you don't "need" to be going whatever ridiculous speed they said.
You "need" to be going any positive number.
Like if you're going 1 MPH upward, you'll eventually be a hundred miles away from Earth.
So anyway, rockets suck and they need to make more space planes.
If it can take off like a normal plane using a normal amount of fuel and use air to lift it really high then use boosters or whatever to get it the rest of the way into space, that sounds 100x less expensive and less complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472720</id>
	<title>Re:THIS is where our space program went</title>
	<author>M1FCJ</author>
	<datestamp>1268588100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the Gemini project. A lot of people conveniently forget that the Gemini project was born out of USAF's manned space programme and was inserted into NASA's plans. That's why it flew on Titans. Originally there was no spacecraft between Apollo and Mercury projects. Gemini was the most successful projects of all manned flights where a huge number of firsts were established.</p><p>In the end MOL got cancelled, Military space programme was cancelled and NASA's budget was cut and eventually most of the Apollo projects were cancelled even before Apollo 11, more after that. Don't blame Obama for NASA's state, blame Bush with his lofty targets and no additional budget for the named targets... The result was a useless spacecraft - does anyone remember the original spec of 7 astronauts? It couldn't hardly do four as its last design, decades after Apollo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the Gemini project .
A lot of people conveniently forget that the Gemini project was born out of USAF 's manned space programme and was inserted into NASA 's plans .
That 's why it flew on Titans .
Originally there was no spacecraft between Apollo and Mercury projects .
Gemini was the most successful projects of all manned flights where a huge number of firsts were established.In the end MOL got cancelled , Military space programme was cancelled and NASA 's budget was cut and eventually most of the Apollo projects were cancelled even before Apollo 11 , more after that .
Do n't blame Obama for NASA 's state , blame Bush with his lofty targets and no additional budget for the named targets... The result was a useless spacecraft - does anyone remember the original spec of 7 astronauts ?
It could n't hardly do four as its last design , decades after Apollo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the Gemini project.
A lot of people conveniently forget that the Gemini project was born out of USAF's manned space programme and was inserted into NASA's plans.
That's why it flew on Titans.
Originally there was no spacecraft between Apollo and Mercury projects.
Gemini was the most successful projects of all manned flights where a huge number of firsts were established.In the end MOL got cancelled, Military space programme was cancelled and NASA's budget was cut and eventually most of the Apollo projects were cancelled even before Apollo 11, more after that.
Don't blame Obama for NASA's state, blame Bush with his lofty targets and no additional budget for the named targets... The result was a useless spacecraft - does anyone remember the original spec of 7 astronauts?
It couldn't hardly do four as its last design, decades after Apollo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472248</id>
	<title>a number of new technologies</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1268583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, that captured alien craft is being used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , that captured alien craft is being used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, that captured alien craft is being used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472004</id>
	<title>Cool!</title>
	<author>Pikoro</author>
	<datestamp>1268580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every little step gets us closer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every little step gets us closer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every little step gets us closer...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072</id>
	<title>270 days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm, an autonomous space vehicle capable of remaining in orbit for 270 days and then re-entering the atmosphere and performing a precision landing anywhere on the globe.  I wonder what they're going to put in that 7 foot by 4 foot cargo hold?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , an autonomous space vehicle capable of remaining in orbit for 270 days and then re-entering the atmosphere and performing a precision landing anywhere on the globe .
I wonder what they 're going to put in that 7 foot by 4 foot cargo hold ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, an autonomous space vehicle capable of remaining in orbit for 270 days and then re-entering the atmosphere and performing a precision landing anywhere on the globe.
I wonder what they're going to put in that 7 foot by 4 foot cargo hold?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472378</id>
	<title>Re:270 days</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1268585100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the recon idea, they can of course losslessly compress the data significantly.<br> <br>

Instead, I think there's a better reason. Being able to move around in space would increase their unpredictability. For example, current recon satellites are apparently relatively predictable in their orbits (they need to stay up for a decade or more so their ability to maneuver is limited by the need for a longer life). Something that can completely shift it's orbit frequently has a better chance of surprising someone in the act of doing something sneaky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the recon idea , they can of course losslessly compress the data significantly .
Instead , I think there 's a better reason .
Being able to move around in space would increase their unpredictability .
For example , current recon satellites are apparently relatively predictable in their orbits ( they need to stay up for a decade or more so their ability to maneuver is limited by the need for a longer life ) .
Something that can completely shift it 's orbit frequently has a better chance of surprising someone in the act of doing something sneaky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the recon idea, they can of course losslessly compress the data significantly.
Instead, I think there's a better reason.
Being able to move around in space would increase their unpredictability.
For example, current recon satellites are apparently relatively predictable in their orbits (they need to stay up for a decade or more so their ability to maneuver is limited by the need for a longer life).
Something that can completely shift it's orbit frequently has a better chance of surprising someone in the act of doing something sneaky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473000</id>
	<title>Re:THIS is where our space program went</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268590500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have it backwards. The USAF X-20 Dyna-Soar and X-15 programs were well underway until Gemini and Apollo came along and took all the funding and personnel. Now 50 years later they're trying to complete what the X-20 program started.</p><p>The X-15 program spent 2.5 billion and made 199 flights.<br>The X-20 program spent 1.5 billion before it was canceled.<br>Apollo cost 22.5 billion.</p><p>Note that NASA used much of the data gathered from these two programs and as such did not have to incur those costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have it backwards .
The USAF X-20 Dyna-Soar and X-15 programs were well underway until Gemini and Apollo came along and took all the funding and personnel .
Now 50 years later they 're trying to complete what the X-20 program started.The X-15 program spent 2.5 billion and made 199 flights.The X-20 program spent 1.5 billion before it was canceled.Apollo cost 22.5 billion.Note that NASA used much of the data gathered from these two programs and as such did not have to incur those costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have it backwards.
The USAF X-20 Dyna-Soar and X-15 programs were well underway until Gemini and Apollo came along and took all the funding and personnel.
Now 50 years later they're trying to complete what the X-20 program started.The X-15 program spent 2.5 billion and made 199 flights.The X-20 program spent 1.5 billion before it was canceled.Apollo cost 22.5 billion.Note that NASA used much of the data gathered from these two programs and as such did not have to incur those costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472324</id>
	<title>Re:270 days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268584620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, that would be 7 kiloGRAMS, not 7 kilotons. It's far cheaper to just drop 7 kg of TNT out of an airplane.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=(.5*1kg*(8km\%2Fs)\%5E2)+\%2F+(4.184+gigajoules+\%2F+ton)" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?q=\%28.5*1kg*\%288km\%2Fs\%29^2\%29+\%2F+\%284.184+gigajoules+\%2F+ton\%29</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , that would be 7 kiloGRAMS , not 7 kilotons .
It 's far cheaper to just drop 7 kg of TNT out of an airplane .
http : //www.google.com/search ? q = \ % 28.5 * 1kg * \ % 288km \ % 2Fs \ % 29 ^ 2 \ % 29 + \ % 2F + \ % 284.184 + gigajoules + \ % 2F + ton \ % 29 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, that would be 7 kiloGRAMS, not 7 kilotons.
It's far cheaper to just drop 7 kg of TNT out of an airplane.
http://www.google.com/search?q=\%28.5*1kg*\%288km\%2Fs\%29^2\%29+\%2F+\%284.184+gigajoules+\%2F+ton\%29 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472080</id>
	<title>Re:Secretive Space Plane?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268581800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shh! Don't tell anyone you saw this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shh !
Do n't tell anyone you saw this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shh!
Don't tell anyone you saw this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31475816</id>
	<title>Re:270 days</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268569260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wonder what they're going to put in that 7 foot by 4 foot cargo hold?</i></p><p>Well, 7 feet tall leaves open the option to put humans in there, probably two in space suits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what they 're going to put in that 7 foot by 4 foot cargo hold ? Well , 7 feet tall leaves open the option to put humans in there , probably two in space suits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what they're going to put in that 7 foot by 4 foot cargo hold?Well, 7 feet tall leaves open the option to put humans in there, probably two in space suits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473210</id>
	<title>Crowbar from orbit!</title>
	<author>YouDoNotWantToKnow</author>
	<datestamp>1268592180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic\_bombardment" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic\_bombardment</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic \ _bombardment [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic\_bombardment [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31479858</id>
	<title>Re:Secretive Space Plane?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1268652540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it *used* to be secret, during earlier stages of development?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it * used * to be secret , during earlier stages of development ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it *used* to be secret, during earlier stages of development?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31478944</id>
	<title>Air force finally free of Shuttle?</title>
	<author>AaronLawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1268686020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, it looks like the USAF is finally getting free of the shuttle boondoggle they got caught up in. Also interesting, it seems like they still want return from orbit capabilities (which vastly complicated the shuttle in many ways).<br>More rationally they are making it unmanned instead of shackling it with people.<br>Unfortunately being purely military we will hear a lot less about it's real capabilities....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , it looks like the USAF is finally getting free of the shuttle boondoggle they got caught up in .
Also interesting , it seems like they still want return from orbit capabilities ( which vastly complicated the shuttle in many ways ) .More rationally they are making it unmanned instead of shackling it with people.Unfortunately being purely military we will hear a lot less about it 's real capabilities... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, it looks like the USAF is finally getting free of the shuttle boondoggle they got caught up in.
Also interesting, it seems like they still want return from orbit capabilities (which vastly complicated the shuttle in many ways).More rationally they are making it unmanned instead of shackling it with people.Unfortunately being purely military we will hear a lot less about it's real capabilities....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994</id>
	<title>Secretive Space Plane?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How secretive can it be if the launch is posted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How secretive can it be if the launch is posted on / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How secretive can it be if the launch is posted on /.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472056</id>
	<title>How</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you talk about space planes when twitter is currently down??????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you talk about space planes when twitter is currently down ? ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you talk about space planes when twitter is currently down?????
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31474366</id>
	<title>Autopilot?!?!?</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1268559240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does that mean that the USA have finally caught up with the Buran?</p><p>The Russian Buran project may not have made it into production but at least the first test launch was not manned and the craft was able to take of and land with no crew on board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does that mean that the USA have finally caught up with the Buran ? The Russian Buran project may not have made it into production but at least the first test launch was not manned and the craft was able to take of and land with no crew on board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does that mean that the USA have finally caught up with the Buran?The Russian Buran project may not have made it into production but at least the first test launch was not manned and the craft was able to take of and land with no crew on board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472276</id>
	<title>Re:Secretive Space Plane?</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1268583960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Managed by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, the OTV program is shrouded in secrecy, but military officials occasionally release information on the the spaceplane's progress.</p> </div><p>TFA is there for a reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Managed by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office , the OTV program is shrouded in secrecy , but military officials occasionally release information on the the spaceplane 's progress .
TFA is there for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managed by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, the OTV program is shrouded in secrecy, but military officials occasionally release information on the the spaceplane's progress.
TFA is there for a reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31477004</id>
	<title>Re:The big secret is the re-entry ablative spike</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1268577660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it is an air data boom used in atmospheric testing.  I have been following the X-37B too and I do not recall ever seeing mention about a re-entry ablative spike a.k.a an aerospike.  The following is from <a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5364.msg560226;topicseen#new" title="nasaspaceflight.com" rel="nofollow">http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5364.msg560226;topicseen#new</a> [nasaspaceflight.com] discussing your post:

 Re: X-37 to fly on a Atlas V in 2010


 Reply #472 on: 03/14/2010 08:30 PM 



I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an "ablative spike" (which seems to be in the WK2 photos). Anybody know anything more about this, if the comment below is nonsense, or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past?

<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1582228&amp;cid=31473292" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1582228&amp;cid=31473292</a> [slashdot.org]


Logged
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3869
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport


Re: X-37 to fly on a Atlas V in 2010

 Reply #473 on: 03/14/2010 09:03 PM 


Quote from: neilh on 03/14/2010 08:30 PM


    I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an "ablative spike" (which seems to be in the WK2 photos). Anybody know anything more about this, if the comment below is nonsense, or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past?


There is no such thing on X-37.  It is just some B S by someone incorrect

Does the shuttle have one?

Yes it did, it is a air data boom.  Very common on new aircraft configs undergoing flight test.

<a href="http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&amp;keywords=enterprise&amp;textsearch=Go&amp;hitsperpage=30&amp;pageno=2&amp;photoId=S77-28140" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&amp;keywords=enterprise&amp;textsearch=Go&amp;hitsperpage=30&amp;pageno=2&amp;photoId=S77-28140</a> [nasa.gov]</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is an air data boom used in atmospheric testing .
I have been following the X-37B too and I do not recall ever seeing mention about a re-entry ablative spike a.k.a an aerospike .
The following is from http : //forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php ? topic = 5364.msg560226 ; topicseen # new [ nasaspaceflight.com ] discussing your post : Re : X-37 to fly on a Atlas V in 2010 Reply # 472 on : 03/14/2010 08 : 30 PM I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an " ablative spike " ( which seems to be in the WK2 photos ) .
Anybody know anything more about this , if the comment below is nonsense , or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past ?
http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1582228&amp;cid = 31473292 [ slashdot.org ] Logged Jim Night Gator Full Member * * * * * Offline Posts : 3869 Location : Cape Canaveral Spaceport Re : X-37 to fly on a Atlas V in 2010 Reply # 473 on : 03/14/2010 09 : 03 PM Quote from : neilh on 03/14/2010 08 : 30 PM I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an " ablative spike " ( which seems to be in the WK2 photos ) .
Anybody know anything more about this , if the comment below is nonsense , or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past ?
There is no such thing on X-37 .
It is just some B S by someone incorrect Does the shuttle have one ?
Yes it did , it is a air data boom .
Very common on new aircraft configs undergoing flight test .
http : //images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp ? searchpage = true&amp;keywords = enterprise&amp;textsearch = Go&amp;hitsperpage = 30&amp;pageno = 2&amp;photoId = S77-28140 [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it is an air data boom used in atmospheric testing.
I have been following the X-37B too and I do not recall ever seeing mention about a re-entry ablative spike a.k.a an aerospike.
The following is from http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5364.msg560226;topicseen#new [nasaspaceflight.com] discussing your post:

 Re: X-37 to fly on a Atlas V in 2010


 Reply #472 on: 03/14/2010 08:30 PM 



I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an "ablative spike" (which seems to be in the WK2 photos).
Anybody know anything more about this, if the comment below is nonsense, or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1582228&amp;cid=31473292 [slashdot.org]


Logged
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3869
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport


Re: X-37 to fly on a Atlas V in 2010

 Reply #473 on: 03/14/2010 09:03 PM 


Quote from: neilh on 03/14/2010 08:30 PM


    I came across the following slashdot comment about the X-37 having an "ablative spike" (which seems to be in the WK2 photos).
Anybody know anything more about this, if the comment below is nonsense, or if ablative reentry spikes have been tested in the past?
There is no such thing on X-37.
It is just some B S by someone incorrect

Does the shuttle have one?
Yes it did, it is a air data boom.
Very common on new aircraft configs undergoing flight test.
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?searchpage=true&amp;keywords=enterprise&amp;textsearch=Go&amp;hitsperpage=30&amp;pageno=2&amp;photoId=S77-28140 [nasa.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473544</id>
	<title>Re:Nice but nowhere near enough</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1268595300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember when you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere (I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true).</p></div><p>Well, that really depends on where/when you want to go, and whether or not you want to get back.  Orbital mechanics is <b>not</b> as simple as escaping earth's gravitational field, and pointing in the right direction.</p><p>Mind you, it *is* a big obstacle that we have yet to overcome effectively, although it's hardly the only one.  Think of how massive the Saturn V rockets were in comparison to the tiny spacecraft on top.  Heck -- the US still hasn't mastered getting humans into LEO cheaply, safely, or effectively, while the Russians seem to have proved that Soyuz capsules are cheap and indestructible (albeit only good for a single use).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when you 're in LEO , you 're halfway to anywhere ( I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true ) .Well , that really depends on where/when you want to go , and whether or not you want to get back .
Orbital mechanics is not as simple as escaping earth 's gravitational field , and pointing in the right direction.Mind you , it * is * a big obstacle that we have yet to overcome effectively , although it 's hardly the only one .
Think of how massive the Saturn V rockets were in comparison to the tiny spacecraft on top .
Heck -- the US still has n't mastered getting humans into LEO cheaply , safely , or effectively , while the Russians seem to have proved that Soyuz capsules are cheap and indestructible ( albeit only good for a single use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere (I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true).Well, that really depends on where/when you want to go, and whether or not you want to get back.
Orbital mechanics is not as simple as escaping earth's gravitational field, and pointing in the right direction.Mind you, it *is* a big obstacle that we have yet to overcome effectively, although it's hardly the only one.
Think of how massive the Saturn V rockets were in comparison to the tiny spacecraft on top.
Heck -- the US still hasn't mastered getting humans into LEO cheaply, safely, or effectively, while the Russians seem to have proved that Soyuz capsules are cheap and indestructible (albeit only good for a single use).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572</id>
	<title>THIS is where our space program went</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268586600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It saddens me deeply to see the Air Force space program advancing at the expense of our civil space program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It saddens me deeply to see the Air Force space program advancing at the expense of our civil space program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It saddens me deeply to see the Air Force space program advancing at the expense of our civil space program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472170</id>
	<title>Militarization of space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268582700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happened to all the international conventions on leaving the space unmilitarized?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to all the international conventions on leaving the space unmilitarized ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to all the international conventions on leaving the space unmilitarized?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31474024</id>
	<title>Re:270 days</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1268599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you can get a rod to hit with it's orbital velocity (8 km/s), that would be roughly 7 kilotons (TNT) of energy per kilogram of rod.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a big if: you ignore atmospheric drag here (terminal velocity). An object dropped from orbit will de-accelerate the closer it comes to the surface (falls through thicker atmosphere). Your rod would hit the ground with around 200-2000 mph depending on the aerodynamics and some other factors.. that is, if it has a heat shield and don't burn up while crossing the upper atmosphere.</p><p>You would have to drop an insanely big and massive object to counter drag (think of a mountain). Not practical at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can get a rod to hit with it 's orbital velocity ( 8 km/s ) , that would be roughly 7 kilotons ( TNT ) of energy per kilogram of rod.That 's a big if : you ignore atmospheric drag here ( terminal velocity ) .
An object dropped from orbit will de-accelerate the closer it comes to the surface ( falls through thicker atmosphere ) .
Your rod would hit the ground with around 200-2000 mph depending on the aerodynamics and some other factors.. that is , if it has a heat shield and do n't burn up while crossing the upper atmosphere.You would have to drop an insanely big and massive object to counter drag ( think of a mountain ) .
Not practical at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can get a rod to hit with it's orbital velocity (8 km/s), that would be roughly 7 kilotons (TNT) of energy per kilogram of rod.That's a big if: you ignore atmospheric drag here (terminal velocity).
An object dropped from orbit will de-accelerate the closer it comes to the surface (falls through thicker atmosphere).
Your rod would hit the ground with around 200-2000 mph depending on the aerodynamics and some other factors.. that is, if it has a heat shield and don't burn up while crossing the upper atmosphere.You would have to drop an insanely big and massive object to counter drag (think of a mountain).
Not practical at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31476190</id>
	<title>Re:270 days</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1268572380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it would be cheaper. It would also be EASY to pick that up and unable to adjust easily.<br> <br>
OTH, a SMALL SMALL crowbar sized rod with fins and a chip, will be undetectable. In addition, being able to send them one after another will allow a site to be decimated piece after piece. Such as taking out a nuclear sub base that is buried under ground.  Or taking out a nuclear warhead  manufacturing site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it would be cheaper .
It would also be EASY to pick that up and unable to adjust easily .
OTH , a SMALL SMALL crowbar sized rod with fins and a chip , will be undetectable .
In addition , being able to send them one after another will allow a site to be decimated piece after piece .
Such as taking out a nuclear sub base that is buried under ground .
Or taking out a nuclear warhead manufacturing site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it would be cheaper.
It would also be EASY to pick that up and unable to adjust easily.
OTH, a SMALL SMALL crowbar sized rod with fins and a chip, will be undetectable.
In addition, being able to send them one after another will allow a site to be decimated piece after piece.
Such as taking out a nuclear sub base that is buried under ground.
Or taking out a nuclear warhead  manufacturing site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204</id>
	<title>Re:270 days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268583060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a lot of unpleasant stuff you can put in there. My guess is "rods from god", that is, a payload of tungsten or depleted uranium rods that you can drop on a target. If you can get a rod to hit with it's orbital velocity (8 km/s), that would be roughly 7 kilotons (TNT) of energy per kilogram of rod. Halving the velocity of impact (which to me seems achievable and more viable than my first number) would still result in almost 2 kilotons of energy per kg of rod. My view is that this would be more effective than a few nuclear bombs (perhaps the most unpleasant payload you can put in there) since you aren't restricted (ok, less restricted since there's at least one treaty (Outer Space Treaty?)that prohibits any weaponization of space) by treaty, you don't cross an arms-race threshold, and you get similar delivery energies.<br> <br>

They also can have more flexibility to launch recon and spy technology. Maybe they're looking at retrieving satellites in order to get more data out of them. Remember physically moving data is still the fastest way to move data. You are restricted in how much data you can transfer from space to ground via radio. Maybe they're planning satellites that can generate petabytes or more of data (1,000 terabytes) and return it to Earth. For example, multispectral scans of the Earth at 1 meter resolution. A single byte of information per square meter would be roughly 150 terabytes of data. A single byte of information per 10 cm (decimeter) square would be 15 petabytes of information.<br> <br>

The vehicle could act as a spy satellite (it could beam some of them down in real time) while archiving everything it sees. The DoD gets both a 270 day satellite with latest technology and a massive, comprehensive archive which it can dig through at its leisure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot of unpleasant stuff you can put in there .
My guess is " rods from god " , that is , a payload of tungsten or depleted uranium rods that you can drop on a target .
If you can get a rod to hit with it 's orbital velocity ( 8 km/s ) , that would be roughly 7 kilotons ( TNT ) of energy per kilogram of rod .
Halving the velocity of impact ( which to me seems achievable and more viable than my first number ) would still result in almost 2 kilotons of energy per kg of rod .
My view is that this would be more effective than a few nuclear bombs ( perhaps the most unpleasant payload you can put in there ) since you are n't restricted ( ok , less restricted since there 's at least one treaty ( Outer Space Treaty ?
) that prohibits any weaponization of space ) by treaty , you do n't cross an arms-race threshold , and you get similar delivery energies .
They also can have more flexibility to launch recon and spy technology .
Maybe they 're looking at retrieving satellites in order to get more data out of them .
Remember physically moving data is still the fastest way to move data .
You are restricted in how much data you can transfer from space to ground via radio .
Maybe they 're planning satellites that can generate petabytes or more of data ( 1,000 terabytes ) and return it to Earth .
For example , multispectral scans of the Earth at 1 meter resolution .
A single byte of information per square meter would be roughly 150 terabytes of data .
A single byte of information per 10 cm ( decimeter ) square would be 15 petabytes of information .
The vehicle could act as a spy satellite ( it could beam some of them down in real time ) while archiving everything it sees .
The DoD gets both a 270 day satellite with latest technology and a massive , comprehensive archive which it can dig through at its leisure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot of unpleasant stuff you can put in there.
My guess is "rods from god", that is, a payload of tungsten or depleted uranium rods that you can drop on a target.
If you can get a rod to hit with it's orbital velocity (8 km/s), that would be roughly 7 kilotons (TNT) of energy per kilogram of rod.
Halving the velocity of impact (which to me seems achievable and more viable than my first number) would still result in almost 2 kilotons of energy per kg of rod.
My view is that this would be more effective than a few nuclear bombs (perhaps the most unpleasant payload you can put in there) since you aren't restricted (ok, less restricted since there's at least one treaty (Outer Space Treaty?
)that prohibits any weaponization of space) by treaty, you don't cross an arms-race threshold, and you get similar delivery energies.
They also can have more flexibility to launch recon and spy technology.
Maybe they're looking at retrieving satellites in order to get more data out of them.
Remember physically moving data is still the fastest way to move data.
You are restricted in how much data you can transfer from space to ground via radio.
Maybe they're planning satellites that can generate petabytes or more of data (1,000 terabytes) and return it to Earth.
For example, multispectral scans of the Earth at 1 meter resolution.
A single byte of information per square meter would be roughly 150 terabytes of data.
A single byte of information per 10 cm (decimeter) square would be 15 petabytes of information.
The vehicle could act as a spy satellite (it could beam some of them down in real time) while archiving everything it sees.
The DoD gets both a 270 day satellite with latest technology and a massive, comprehensive archive which it can dig through at its leisure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31480480</id>
	<title>Re:Secretive Space Plane?</title>
	<author>PhaseChange</author>
	<datestamp>1268659140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar\_(spaceplane)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> this </a> [wikipedia.org] is more secretive.  Maybe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But this [ wikipedia.org ] is more secretive .
Maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But  this  [wikipedia.org] is more secretive.
Maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473112</id>
	<title>Re:THIS is where our space program went</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1268591460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a side project to keep eyes off of project Prometheus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a side project to keep eyes off of project Prometheus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a side project to keep eyes off of project Prometheus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31485318</id>
	<title>That's kind of the point...</title>
	<author>mbessey</author>
	<datestamp>1268681880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not an orbital WMD platform, that would be against the treaty. It's just a plane..which can stay in orbit for most of a year...and drop a nuke anywhere in the world, at any time. <em>Totally different thing</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not an orbital WMD platform , that would be against the treaty .
It 's just a plane..which can stay in orbit for most of a year...and drop a nuke anywhere in the world , at any time .
Totally different thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not an orbital WMD platform, that would be against the treaty.
It's just a plane..which can stay in orbit for most of a year...and drop a nuke anywhere in the world, at any time.
Totally different thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31474306</id>
	<title>Re:The big secret is the re-entry ablative spike</title>
	<author>TwineLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268558700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, there don't seem to be photos of the spike on Wikipedia.  Here is a list of links:<br>

<a href="http://rocketry.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/x37-whiteknight.jpg" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">Here is an in-flight photo of the spike.</a> [wordpress.com] <br>
<a href="http://img15.nnm.ru/6/b/f/9/1/6c6eb1a548dba6d5dd48a8b6d8a.jpg" title="img15.nnm.ru" rel="nofollow">Here is a photo (on a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ru site!) of the X-37B hull with the structural opening for the spike.</a> [img15.nnm.ru] <br>
<a href="http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/091021-x37b-nose-02.jpg" title="centurychina.com" rel="nofollow">Another photo of the composite fuselage and load-bearing structure.</a> [centurychina.com] <br>
<a href="http://proj.moeaidb.gov.tw/casid/mediafile/368/news\_editor/420/pic/10272.jpg" title="moeaidb.gov.tw" rel="nofollow">Similar photo on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tw site.</a> [moeaidb.gov.tw] <br>
<a href="http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-40a.jpg" title="designation-systems.net" rel="nofollow">The X-40A precursor vehicle to X-37B, landing with spike extended.</a> [designation-systems.net] <br>
<br>
Photos and drawings which do not show the spike:<br>
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/X-37B\_prelaunch.jpg/250px-X-37B\_prelaunch.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">This official USAF photo seems to chop the interesting area out of the frame.</a> [wikimedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://news.wuhan.net.cn/n\_pic/200911/03/\_200911031300441092232242.jpg" title="wuhan.net.cn" rel="nofollow">A drawing used all over the web, but I'm not sure of the source.</a> [wuhan.net.cn]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there do n't seem to be photos of the spike on Wikipedia .
Here is a list of links : Here is an in-flight photo of the spike .
[ wordpress.com ] Here is a photo ( on a .ru site !
) of the X-37B hull with the structural opening for the spike .
[ img15.nnm.ru ] Another photo of the composite fuselage and load-bearing structure .
[ centurychina.com ] Similar photo on .tw site .
[ moeaidb.gov.tw ] The X-40A precursor vehicle to X-37B , landing with spike extended .
[ designation-systems.net ] Photos and drawings which do not show the spike : This official USAF photo seems to chop the interesting area out of the frame .
[ wikimedia.org ] A drawing used all over the web , but I 'm not sure of the source .
[ wuhan.net.cn ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there don't seem to be photos of the spike on Wikipedia.
Here is a list of links:

Here is an in-flight photo of the spike.
[wordpress.com] 
Here is a photo (on a .ru site!
) of the X-37B hull with the structural opening for the spike.
[img15.nnm.ru] 
Another photo of the composite fuselage and load-bearing structure.
[centurychina.com] 
Similar photo on .tw site.
[moeaidb.gov.tw] 
The X-40A precursor vehicle to X-37B, landing with spike extended.
[designation-systems.net] 

Photos and drawings which do not show the spike:
This official USAF photo seems to chop the interesting area out of the frame.
[wikimedia.org] 
A drawing used all over the web, but I'm not sure of the source.
[wuhan.net.cn]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473368</id>
	<title>Re:270 days</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1268593740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I made a bad error with the velocity, multiply it by a factor of 1,000 and then squaring it. I should have known better since I've discussed energy content of getting to orbit before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I made a bad error with the velocity , multiply it by a factor of 1,000 and then squaring it .
I should have known better since I 've discussed energy content of getting to orbit before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I made a bad error with the velocity, multiply it by a factor of 1,000 and then squaring it.
I should have known better since I've discussed energy content of getting to orbit before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472282</id>
	<title>Nice but nowhere near enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268584020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it is nice that this will give the Air Force a means of getting an expensive payload up into orbit and back down again quickly and safely (like onto a runway as opposed to a parachute landing on the ground or at sea) it really doesn't help the overall problem of making access to LEO significantly cheaper.  Remember when you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere (I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true).</p><p>Now that the Obama administration has (hopefully) set us on the right course by FIRST developing the technologies to get us into space, THEN trying to get somewhere, now maybe would be a time to revisit some abandoned ideas.  Like the X-34 (I think it was called "Venture Star") using a deltoid lifting body with an aerospike engine it promised to make SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) possible.  Or the "Delta Clipper" a vertical takeoff and vertical landing rocket, I think they got to 1/4 scale.</p><p>While I don't know if the "Delta Clipper" was fatally flawed (I think one of its landing struts collapsed), I heard that the problem with the "Venture Star" was they simply couldn't make the (then) state of the art composite fuel tanks work.  So has material science improved enough to make it feasible?  Or do we have to wait until "magic" carbon nano-tubes can make eggshells seem like horribly efficient containers?</p><p>An Air Force General once said: "A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible, a new engine makes a new plane possible."  That's why the aerospike engine had such promise because it automatically adapted to the changing surrounding air pressure to keep the "nozzle" shape efficient.  That (with new and improved) fuel tanks, just might make SSTO possible which, aside from space elevators or air breathing hypersonic space planes, is the only way we'll REALLY bring down the cost of getting into orbit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is nice that this will give the Air Force a means of getting an expensive payload up into orbit and back down again quickly and safely ( like onto a runway as opposed to a parachute landing on the ground or at sea ) it really does n't help the overall problem of making access to LEO significantly cheaper .
Remember when you 're in LEO , you 're halfway to anywhere ( I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true ) .Now that the Obama administration has ( hopefully ) set us on the right course by FIRST developing the technologies to get us into space , THEN trying to get somewhere , now maybe would be a time to revisit some abandoned ideas .
Like the X-34 ( I think it was called " Venture Star " ) using a deltoid lifting body with an aerospike engine it promised to make SSTO ( Single Stage to Orbit ) possible .
Or the " Delta Clipper " a vertical takeoff and vertical landing rocket , I think they got to 1/4 scale.While I do n't know if the " Delta Clipper " was fatally flawed ( I think one of its landing struts collapsed ) , I heard that the problem with the " Venture Star " was they simply could n't make the ( then ) state of the art composite fuel tanks work .
So has material science improved enough to make it feasible ?
Or do we have to wait until " magic " carbon nano-tubes can make eggshells seem like horribly efficient containers ? An Air Force General once said : " A new plane does n't make a new engine possible , a new engine makes a new plane possible .
" That 's why the aerospike engine had such promise because it automatically adapted to the changing surrounding air pressure to keep the " nozzle " shape efficient .
That ( with new and improved ) fuel tanks , just might make SSTO possible which , aside from space elevators or air breathing hypersonic space planes , is the only way we 'll REALLY bring down the cost of getting into orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is nice that this will give the Air Force a means of getting an expensive payload up into orbit and back down again quickly and safely (like onto a runway as opposed to a parachute landing on the ground or at sea) it really doesn't help the overall problem of making access to LEO significantly cheaper.
Remember when you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere (I forget who said that quote but from the viewpoint of orbital energistics it is true).Now that the Obama administration has (hopefully) set us on the right course by FIRST developing the technologies to get us into space, THEN trying to get somewhere, now maybe would be a time to revisit some abandoned ideas.
Like the X-34 (I think it was called "Venture Star") using a deltoid lifting body with an aerospike engine it promised to make SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) possible.
Or the "Delta Clipper" a vertical takeoff and vertical landing rocket, I think they got to 1/4 scale.While I don't know if the "Delta Clipper" was fatally flawed (I think one of its landing struts collapsed), I heard that the problem with the "Venture Star" was they simply couldn't make the (then) state of the art composite fuel tanks work.
So has material science improved enough to make it feasible?
Or do we have to wait until "magic" carbon nano-tubes can make eggshells seem like horribly efficient containers?An Air Force General once said: "A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible, a new engine makes a new plane possible.
"  That's why the aerospike engine had such promise because it automatically adapted to the changing surrounding air pressure to keep the "nozzle" shape efficient.
That (with new and improved) fuel tanks, just might make SSTO possible which, aside from space elevators or air breathing hypersonic space planes, is the only way we'll REALLY bring down the cost of getting into orbit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473292</id>
	<title>The big secret is the re-entry ablative spike</title>
	<author>TwineLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268593140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you check out the photos on Wikipedia of X-37B underneath the Rutan lift vehicle, you can see what looks like a flagpole sticking out of the nose.  This spike is retracted at launch and extended prior to re-entry.  The purpose of the spike is to create the leading sonic boom (hypersonic bow wave) and transonic region during re-entry -- well in front of the vehicle itself.  The atmosphere reaching the wings and thermal protection surfaces is much slower than the hypersonic bow wave -- thus less heating occurs on the fuselage than on the spike.<br>
<br>
The retractable/extensible spike absorbs such an enormous amount of energy and transforms it into heat, yet the spike is not very massive.  In order to dissipate the heat without transferring it to the fuselage or melting in an uncontrolled manner, the spike is designed to ablate like many heat shields have (e.g. Apollo).  "Ablate" means that the spike flakes apart in a controlled manner which leaves behind useful which continues to be the interface between the craft and the hypersonic flow.<br>
<br>
The spike is shown extended in the re-entry test photo because the vehicle was configured for re-entry.<br>
<br>
Before GWB scuttled Al Gore's X-38 ISS re-entry vehicle, there had been some talk of incorporating the ablative re-entry spike into ISS return craft.  It appeared from the outside (I'm not an insider) that the military community in the US was getting paranoid that revealing the secret ablative spike technology to the foreign competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you check out the photos on Wikipedia of X-37B underneath the Rutan lift vehicle , you can see what looks like a flagpole sticking out of the nose .
This spike is retracted at launch and extended prior to re-entry .
The purpose of the spike is to create the leading sonic boom ( hypersonic bow wave ) and transonic region during re-entry -- well in front of the vehicle itself .
The atmosphere reaching the wings and thermal protection surfaces is much slower than the hypersonic bow wave -- thus less heating occurs on the fuselage than on the spike .
The retractable/extensible spike absorbs such an enormous amount of energy and transforms it into heat , yet the spike is not very massive .
In order to dissipate the heat without transferring it to the fuselage or melting in an uncontrolled manner , the spike is designed to ablate like many heat shields have ( e.g .
Apollo ) . " Ablate " means that the spike flakes apart in a controlled manner which leaves behind useful which continues to be the interface between the craft and the hypersonic flow .
The spike is shown extended in the re-entry test photo because the vehicle was configured for re-entry .
Before GWB scuttled Al Gore 's X-38 ISS re-entry vehicle , there had been some talk of incorporating the ablative re-entry spike into ISS return craft .
It appeared from the outside ( I 'm not an insider ) that the military community in the US was getting paranoid that revealing the secret ablative spike technology to the foreign competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you check out the photos on Wikipedia of X-37B underneath the Rutan lift vehicle, you can see what looks like a flagpole sticking out of the nose.
This spike is retracted at launch and extended prior to re-entry.
The purpose of the spike is to create the leading sonic boom (hypersonic bow wave) and transonic region during re-entry -- well in front of the vehicle itself.
The atmosphere reaching the wings and thermal protection surfaces is much slower than the hypersonic bow wave -- thus less heating occurs on the fuselage than on the spike.
The retractable/extensible spike absorbs such an enormous amount of energy and transforms it into heat, yet the spike is not very massive.
In order to dissipate the heat without transferring it to the fuselage or melting in an uncontrolled manner, the spike is designed to ablate like many heat shields have (e.g.
Apollo).  "Ablate" means that the spike flakes apart in a controlled manner which leaves behind useful which continues to be the interface between the craft and the hypersonic flow.
The spike is shown extended in the re-entry test photo because the vehicle was configured for re-entry.
Before GWB scuttled Al Gore's X-38 ISS re-entry vehicle, there had been some talk of incorporating the ablative re-entry spike into ISS return craft.
It appeared from the outside (I'm not an insider) that the military community in the US was getting paranoid that revealing the secret ablative spike technology to the foreign competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31477004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31485318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31476190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31480480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31475816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31479562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31474024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31479858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31474306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_14_1241209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473368
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31476190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31474024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31475816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31471994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31480480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31479858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31477004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31474306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31485318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_14_1241209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31472282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31473544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_14_1241209.31479562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
