<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_13_1330220</id>
	<title>NASA Plans To De-Orbit ISS In 2016</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1247493600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:victorabrahamsen@gmaiTWAINl.comminusauthor" rel="nofollow">NewbieV</a> writes <i>"The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings. Circling the Earth every 90 minutes, it often passes over North America and is visible from the ground when night has fallen but the station, up high, is still bathed in sunlight.
After more than a decade of construction, it is nearing completion and finally has a full crew of six astronauts. The last components should be installed by the end of next year. And then? 'In the first quarter of  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201977.html?hpid=topnews">2016, we'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft</a>,' says NASA's space station program manager, Michael T. Suffredini."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewbieV writes " The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings .
Circling the Earth every 90 minutes , it often passes over North America and is visible from the ground when night has fallen but the station , up high , is still bathed in sunlight .
After more than a decade of construction , it is nearing completion and finally has a full crew of six astronauts .
The last components should be installed by the end of next year .
And then ?
'In the first quarter of 2016 , we 'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft, ' says NASA 's space station program manager , Michael T .
Suffredini. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewbieV writes "The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings.
Circling the Earth every 90 minutes, it often passes over North America and is visible from the ground when night has fallen but the station, up high, is still bathed in sunlight.
After more than a decade of construction, it is nearing completion and finally has a full crew of six astronauts.
The last components should be installed by the end of next year.
And then?
'In the first quarter of  2016, we'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft,' says NASA's space station program manager, Michael T.
Suffredini."</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677069</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247502540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ISS was initially intended to function as a starting point for further exploration, and was going to be built in a high orbit to facilitate this. Then the Russians came on board. They could not get a Soyuz craft into a high enough orbit for our plans, so we brought the station down to them. We gained an international partner but we lost capability. Since then its been restricted to performing experiments in microgravity and perfecting human habitation in space/hazardous environments. Lots of knowledge has been developed about space construction techniques and many countries have begun contributing and building their own space programs. I think its been a very successful part of our program and after its finished being built we might deorbit it and start anew on the moon or decide that even more can be gained from continued operation and get more funding. Having private companies develop space capability for resupply and crew changes would make the second option more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISS was initially intended to function as a starting point for further exploration , and was going to be built in a high orbit to facilitate this .
Then the Russians came on board .
They could not get a Soyuz craft into a high enough orbit for our plans , so we brought the station down to them .
We gained an international partner but we lost capability .
Since then its been restricted to performing experiments in microgravity and perfecting human habitation in space/hazardous environments .
Lots of knowledge has been developed about space construction techniques and many countries have begun contributing and building their own space programs .
I think its been a very successful part of our program and after its finished being built we might deorbit it and start anew on the moon or decide that even more can be gained from continued operation and get more funding .
Having private companies develop space capability for resupply and crew changes would make the second option more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISS was initially intended to function as a starting point for further exploration, and was going to be built in a high orbit to facilitate this.
Then the Russians came on board.
They could not get a Soyuz craft into a high enough orbit for our plans, so we brought the station down to them.
We gained an international partner but we lost capability.
Since then its been restricted to performing experiments in microgravity and perfecting human habitation in space/hazardous environments.
Lots of knowledge has been developed about space construction techniques and many countries have begun contributing and building their own space programs.
I think its been a very successful part of our program and after its finished being built we might deorbit it and start anew on the moon or decide that even more can be gained from continued operation and get more funding.
Having private companies develop space capability for resupply and crew changes would make the second option more likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677233</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone understand economics?</title>
	<author>Skreems</author>
	<datestamp>1247503080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call me crazy, but it seems that calling something a "sunken cost" is a justification for abandoning it only if there's really nothing useful to be done with the thing. When there really are some benefits to be had, using a position you're in thanks to money already spent is not unjustified.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me crazy , but it seems that calling something a " sunken cost " is a justification for abandoning it only if there 's really nothing useful to be done with the thing .
When there really are some benefits to be had , using a position you 're in thanks to money already spent is not unjustified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me crazy, but it seems that calling something a "sunken cost" is a justification for abandoning it only if there's really nothing useful to be done with the thing.
When there really are some benefits to be had, using a position you're in thanks to money already spent is not unjustified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676583</id>
	<title>Re:3drealms of science?</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1247500980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the lead times for experiments on ISS are at least five years, they are effectively saying, as you want, that it is "scientifically unnecessary". If there were useful work for it to do in 2016, outline planning for that useful work would be starting round about now - and it isn't. We know what we want the Mars rovers to do - more of the same. And the incremental cost for keeping them going is minute compared to the original cost. The cost to keep ISS going is billions per year, with regular resupply, refuelling, and crew change flights. That cost needs to deliver value. Show that value, and I am sure that minds will be changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the lead times for experiments on ISS are at least five years , they are effectively saying , as you want , that it is " scientifically unnecessary " .
If there were useful work for it to do in 2016 , outline planning for that useful work would be starting round about now - and it is n't .
We know what we want the Mars rovers to do - more of the same .
And the incremental cost for keeping them going is minute compared to the original cost .
The cost to keep ISS going is billions per year , with regular resupply , refuelling , and crew change flights .
That cost needs to deliver value .
Show that value , and I am sure that minds will be changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the lead times for experiments on ISS are at least five years, they are effectively saying, as you want, that it is "scientifically unnecessary".
If there were useful work for it to do in 2016, outline planning for that useful work would be starting round about now - and it isn't.
We know what we want the Mars rovers to do - more of the same.
And the incremental cost for keeping them going is minute compared to the original cost.
The cost to keep ISS going is billions per year, with regular resupply, refuelling, and crew change flights.
That cost needs to deliver value.
Show that value, and I am sure that minds will be changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678521</id>
	<title>Re:Space politics</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247507460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if simulating earth gravity in zero-gravity would have been one of the most important modules.. Also it'd probably cost more to get it up there than it cost to build it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if simulating earth gravity in zero-gravity would have been one of the most important modules.. Also it 'd probably cost more to get it up there than it cost to build it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if simulating earth gravity in zero-gravity would have been one of the most important modules.. Also it'd probably cost more to get it up there than it cost to build it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677131</id>
	<title>not so much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247502720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ISS Launches First Permanent Node of "Interplanetary Internet"</p></div><p>Not so much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISS Launches First Permanent Node of " Interplanetary Internet " Not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISS Launches First Permanent Node of "Interplanetary Internet"Not so much.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676691</id>
	<title>Seeing as NASA put a value of $0 on it...</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1247501340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about selling it to the Russians for $1. Use the cash windfall to send a postcard to a random taxpayer saying "Sorry we fucked up".</p><p>The Russians kept Mir in orbit for ever, so I'm sure they can keep ISS up on a fraction of what NASA was pissing away on it, and can no doubt make a healthy profit keeping it full of space tourists. Maybe they can occasionally sell a spot to a NASA scientist if NASA can remember why they wanted to build it in the first place, and can figure anything useful to do up there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about selling it to the Russians for $ 1 .
Use the cash windfall to send a postcard to a random taxpayer saying " Sorry we fucked up " .The Russians kept Mir in orbit for ever , so I 'm sure they can keep ISS up on a fraction of what NASA was pissing away on it , and can no doubt make a healthy profit keeping it full of space tourists .
Maybe they can occasionally sell a spot to a NASA scientist if NASA can remember why they wanted to build it in the first place , and can figure anything useful to do up there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about selling it to the Russians for $1.
Use the cash windfall to send a postcard to a random taxpayer saying "Sorry we fucked up".The Russians kept Mir in orbit for ever, so I'm sure they can keep ISS up on a fraction of what NASA was pissing away on it, and can no doubt make a healthy profit keeping it full of space tourists.
Maybe they can occasionally sell a spot to a NASA scientist if NASA can remember why they wanted to build it in the first place, and can figure anything useful to do up there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676793</id>
	<title>or do they? Here's another view of statements made</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247501640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000804.html" title="collectspace.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000804.html</a> [collectspace.com]</p><p>I promise it's not Goatse.  Read the post there by Robert Pearlman.  Here's his key conclusion:</p><blockquote><div><p>I think it is clear that Suffredini wasn't stating the de-orbit of the ISS as a point of fact, but rather a point of history -- what the plan had been and now we are considering ways -- post-space shuttle -- to keep the ISS tended, in regards to both its crew and supplies.</p><p>But if you believe my conclusion is incorrect, Alan Ladwig, senior advisor to the NASA Administrator, speaking at this past weekend's Apollo/Saturn reunion at the U.S. Space &amp; Rocket Center, said that it is both the current administration's and (assuming he is confirmed) Charlie Bolden's plan to fully utilize the space station. In fact, he spoke strongly against those who work for NASA who have criticized the ISS, reminding them that the American public has paid for its launch -- its now time to take full use of that investment.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000804.html [ collectspace.com ] I promise it 's not Goatse .
Read the post there by Robert Pearlman .
Here 's his key conclusion : I think it is clear that Suffredini was n't stating the de-orbit of the ISS as a point of fact , but rather a point of history -- what the plan had been and now we are considering ways -- post-space shuttle -- to keep the ISS tended , in regards to both its crew and supplies.But if you believe my conclusion is incorrect , Alan Ladwig , senior advisor to the NASA Administrator , speaking at this past weekend 's Apollo/Saturn reunion at the U.S. Space &amp; Rocket Center , said that it is both the current administration 's and ( assuming he is confirmed ) Charlie Bolden 's plan to fully utilize the space station .
In fact , he spoke strongly against those who work for NASA who have criticized the ISS , reminding them that the American public has paid for its launch -- its now time to take full use of that investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000804.html [collectspace.com]I promise it's not Goatse.
Read the post there by Robert Pearlman.
Here's his key conclusion:I think it is clear that Suffredini wasn't stating the de-orbit of the ISS as a point of fact, but rather a point of history -- what the plan had been and now we are considering ways -- post-space shuttle -- to keep the ISS tended, in regards to both its crew and supplies.But if you believe my conclusion is incorrect, Alan Ladwig, senior advisor to the NASA Administrator, speaking at this past weekend's Apollo/Saturn reunion at the U.S. Space &amp; Rocket Center, said that it is both the current administration's and (assuming he is confirmed) Charlie Bolden's plan to fully utilize the space station.
In fact, he spoke strongly against those who work for NASA who have criticized the ISS, reminding them that the American public has paid for its launch -- its now time to take full use of that investment.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961</id>
	<title>I'm guessing their bluffing</title>
	<author>nobodyman</author>
	<datestamp>1247498700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the article, it sounds more like this is a game of chicken that NASA intends to play in order to secure more funding, either from congress or elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the article , it sounds more like this is a game of chicken that NASA intends to play in order to secure more funding , either from congress or elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the article, it sounds more like this is a game of chicken that NASA intends to play in order to secure more funding, either from congress or elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676493</id>
	<title>International</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1247500740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've threatened this before...  And Russia, Japan and the ESA have all said they will oppose any attempt to shut it down in 2016.  If you want to throw away (i.e. kill) the international partnership we've created, shutting down the ISS in 2016 would be a good way to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've threatened this before... And Russia , Japan and the ESA have all said they will oppose any attempt to shut it down in 2016 .
If you want to throw away ( i.e .
kill ) the international partnership we 've created , shutting down the ISS in 2016 would be a good way to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've threatened this before...  And Russia, Japan and the ESA have all said they will oppose any attempt to shut it down in 2016.
If you want to throw away (i.e.
kill) the international partnership we've created, shutting down the ISS in 2016 would be a good way to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677811</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing their bluffing</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247505180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It costs money to keep something that heavy in orbit, at that height there is still friction, and that's just one of the maintenance costs.<br> <br>

If you understand the value of the ISS and don't think it's worth it then fine, but don't think you can cut off NASA and have it continue to function.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It costs money to keep something that heavy in orbit , at that height there is still friction , and that 's just one of the maintenance costs .
If you understand the value of the ISS and do n't think it 's worth it then fine , but do n't think you can cut off NASA and have it continue to function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It costs money to keep something that heavy in orbit, at that height there is still friction, and that's just one of the maintenance costs.
If you understand the value of the ISS and don't think it's worth it then fine, but don't think you can cut off NASA and have it continue to function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678829</id>
	<title>Alternate plan</title>
	<author>RealErmine</author>
	<datestamp>1247508360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't NASA just scuttle the ISS in orbit to create an artificial space reef?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't NASA just scuttle the ISS in orbit to create an artificial space reef ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't NASA just scuttle the ISS in orbit to create an artificial space reef?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677995</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1247505720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days? They've been at it for years now. The date will be pushed back over and over again."</p><p>Unmanned systems can be used as long as they still function.</p><p>Manned systems are primitive, arguably not necessary at this early stage of space exploration (don't confuse the Cold War Space Race with anything but ideological competition), and sap resources we could use to build robot systems whose short development lifecycle will allow rapid evolution.</p><p>When humans and ships were expendable and inexpensive, using them to explore made sense. Now, humans are a burden on the exploration process unless they stay on the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days ?
They 've been at it for years now .
The date will be pushed back over and over again .
" Unmanned systems can be used as long as they still function.Manned systems are primitive , arguably not necessary at this early stage of space exploration ( do n't confuse the Cold War Space Race with anything but ideological competition ) , and sap resources we could use to build robot systems whose short development lifecycle will allow rapid evolution.When humans and ships were expendable and inexpensive , using them to explore made sense .
Now , humans are a burden on the exploration process unless they stay on the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days?
They've been at it for years now.
The date will be pushed back over and over again.
"Unmanned systems can be used as long as they still function.Manned systems are primitive, arguably not necessary at this early stage of space exploration (don't confuse the Cold War Space Race with anything but ideological competition), and sap resources we could use to build robot systems whose short development lifecycle will allow rapid evolution.When humans and ships were expendable and inexpensive, using them to explore made sense.
Now, humans are a burden on the exploration process unless they stay on the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683917</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>Paua Fritter</author>
	<datestamp>1247486040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hohmann orbit too mechanically stressful and expensive? Use a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann\_transfer\_orbit#Interplanetary\_Transport\_Network" title="wikipedia.org">cheaper and slower transfer orbit</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Lumpy gravitational field? Orbit a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian\_point" title="wikipedia.org">Lagrange point</a> [wikipedia.org] instead of the Moon itself.</p><p>Too much radiation? Use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinfoil\_hat" title="wikipedia.org">supplementary radiation shielding</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hohmann orbit too mechanically stressful and expensive ?
Use a cheaper and slower transfer orbit [ wikipedia.org ] .Lumpy gravitational field ?
Orbit a Lagrange point [ wikipedia.org ] instead of the Moon itself.Too much radiation ?
Use supplementary radiation shielding [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hohmann orbit too mechanically stressful and expensive?
Use a cheaper and slower transfer orbit [wikipedia.org].Lumpy gravitational field?
Orbit a Lagrange point [wikipedia.org] instead of the Moon itself.Too much radiation?
Use supplementary radiation shielding [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676621</id>
	<title>Low Earth Orbit problems</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1247501100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's constantly needing a burn to keep in the correct orbit why don't they either:<p>1) Move it further out, above the current orbital debris region (you might keep it for an emergency "safe haven" or supply station for manned missions to the Moon or Mars)  </p><p>2) Fit it with those experimental "Ion" engines they have been testing (They only have a few grams of push) but have 10 of them around the ISS constantly pushing will keep it in a stable orbit and the ION propellant is more compact and easier to store then the current propellant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's constantly needing a burn to keep in the correct orbit why do n't they either : 1 ) Move it further out , above the current orbital debris region ( you might keep it for an emergency " safe haven " or supply station for manned missions to the Moon or Mars ) 2 ) Fit it with those experimental " Ion " engines they have been testing ( They only have a few grams of push ) but have 10 of them around the ISS constantly pushing will keep it in a stable orbit and the ION propellant is more compact and easier to store then the current propellant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's constantly needing a burn to keep in the correct orbit why don't they either:1) Move it further out, above the current orbital debris region (you might keep it for an emergency "safe haven" or supply station for manned missions to the Moon or Mars)  2) Fit it with those experimental "Ion" engines they have been testing (They only have a few grams of push) but have 10 of them around the ISS constantly pushing will keep it in a stable orbit and the ION propellant is more compact and easier to store then the current propellant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678721</id>
	<title>spaceshisps aren't expensive, people are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't we found out by now that we get a much greater return on investment (in terms of knowledge gained) with un-manned devices (hubble, rovers, voyager etc.), than with stations and craft keeping people alive in space? maybe NASA wants to think more about exploring space in an intellectual way than in a Lewis &amp; Clark sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't we found out by now that we get a much greater return on investment ( in terms of knowledge gained ) with un-manned devices ( hubble , rovers , voyager etc .
) , than with stations and craft keeping people alive in space ?
maybe NASA wants to think more about exploring space in an intellectual way than in a Lewis &amp; Clark sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't we found out by now that we get a much greater return on investment (in terms of knowledge gained) with un-manned devices (hubble, rovers, voyager etc.
), than with stations and craft keeping people alive in space?
maybe NASA wants to think more about exploring space in an intellectual way than in a Lewis &amp; Clark sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681545</id>
	<title>Re:Think outside the box</title>
	<author>forkazoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247518380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you're going to deorbit it, why waste it on the ocean? At least drop it on a country we don't like. Or on Kenny.</p></div></blockquote><p>Can we at least use the toilet to take out a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348913/" title="imdb.com">blonde</a> [imdb.com]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to deorbit it , why waste it on the ocean ?
At least drop it on a country we do n't like .
Or on Kenny.Can we at least use the toilet to take out a blonde [ imdb.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to deorbit it, why waste it on the ocean?
At least drop it on a country we don't like.
Or on Kenny.Can we at least use the toilet to take out a blonde [imdb.com]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675835</id>
	<title>Sounds like a negotiation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247498220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like the first move in a series of negotiations.

</p><p>"Give us more money, or we drop it in the ocean".

</p><p>This is not the last article on the subject that we will see...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like the first move in a series of negotiations .
" Give us more money , or we drop it in the ocean " .
This is not the last article on the subject that we will see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like the first move in a series of negotiations.
"Give us more money, or we drop it in the ocean".
This is not the last article on the subject that we will see...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678745</id>
	<title>Re:Think outside the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah sure, risk having part of a space stations tech go to a hostile country intact. That's smart.<br>It would be better if it could be changed into an orbital weapons platform. Perhaps equipped with a Mass Driver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah sure , risk having part of a space stations tech go to a hostile country intact .
That 's smart.It would be better if it could be changed into an orbital weapons platform .
Perhaps equipped with a Mass Driver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah sure, risk having part of a space stations tech go to a hostile country intact.
That's smart.It would be better if it could be changed into an orbital weapons platform.
Perhaps equipped with a Mass Driver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676641</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1247501220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>without the ISS as a destination, what does the CEV do between the deorbit of the ISS and any planned moon or mars mission in the early 2020s?</p></div><p>Nothing?</p><p>I can just hear the next bureaucratic speech "Due to forseen circumstances, that no one could have predicted, the CEV program unfortunately no longer has a mission, and is therefore rightsized."</p><p>Then a month after the CEV program is unalterably terminated, we can continue the ISS mission as planned.</p><p>Basically an elaborate way to cancel the CEV program, to shift the business to space-X or maybe just plain ole get out of the manned launches business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>without the ISS as a destination , what does the CEV do between the deorbit of the ISS and any planned moon or mars mission in the early 2020s ? Nothing ? I can just hear the next bureaucratic speech " Due to forseen circumstances , that no one could have predicted , the CEV program unfortunately no longer has a mission , and is therefore rightsized .
" Then a month after the CEV program is unalterably terminated , we can continue the ISS mission as planned.Basically an elaborate way to cancel the CEV program , to shift the business to space-X or maybe just plain ole get out of the manned launches business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without the ISS as a destination, what does the CEV do between the deorbit of the ISS and any planned moon or mars mission in the early 2020s?Nothing?I can just hear the next bureaucratic speech "Due to forseen circumstances, that no one could have predicted, the CEV program unfortunately no longer has a mission, and is therefore rightsized.
"Then a month after the CEV program is unalterably terminated, we can continue the ISS mission as planned.Basically an elaborate way to cancel the CEV program, to shift the business to space-X or maybe just plain ole get out of the manned launches business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677265</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247503200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>maybe the ISS has taught us everything it set out to teach...</p></div><p>What stops us from setting a new goal? If you made it up to the largest mountain in your state, will you just stop and never climb a mountain again? No. You will already plan for the next mountain when you are at the top of that first one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>And with all the knowledge that we gained, I bet even more questions popped up. And many people can't wait to solve them.</p><p>I don't think there is ever an excuse for deorbiting that thing before it blows up like the Mir in Armageddon. ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe the ISS has taught us everything it set out to teach...What stops us from setting a new goal ?
If you made it up to the largest mountain in your state , will you just stop and never climb a mountain again ?
No. You will already plan for the next mountain when you are at the top of that first one .
: ) And with all the knowledge that we gained , I bet even more questions popped up .
And many people ca n't wait to solve them.I do n't think there is ever an excuse for deorbiting that thing before it blows up like the Mir in Armageddon .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe the ISS has taught us everything it set out to teach...What stops us from setting a new goal?
If you made it up to the largest mountain in your state, will you just stop and never climb a mountain again?
No. You will already plan for the next mountain when you are at the top of that first one.
:)And with all the knowledge that we gained, I bet even more questions popped up.
And many people can't wait to solve them.I don't think there is ever an excuse for deorbiting that thing before it blows up like the Mir in Armageddon.
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677619</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1247504460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>almost...<br> <br>

1. Build ISS<br>
2. State plans for De-Orbit<br>
3. Receive additional funding<br>
4. Profit!<br>
5. GOTO 2</htmltext>
<tokenext>almost.. . 1. Build ISS 2 .
State plans for De-Orbit 3 .
Receive additional funding 4 .
Profit ! 5 .
GOTO 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>almost... 

1. Build ISS
2.
State plans for De-Orbit
3.
Receive additional funding
4.
Profit!
5.
GOTO 2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684745</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1247491320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever. So why did we put it up there in the first place?</p></div><p>That's the interesting part.  Originally the thing was intended to enable a fair bit of "real science" and not just be an expensive engineering play toy and tourist attraction.  Unfortunately the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge\_Accommodations\_Module" title="wikipedia.org">modules</a> [wikipedia.org]
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhab" title="wikipedia.org">intended</a> [wikipedia.org] to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Research\_Module" title="wikipedia.org">enable</a> [wikipedia.org] this were never launched.  I guess putting craters in the desert and violating pregnant women at the airport were greater priorities.  How can they expect science to be carried out if the preoccupied astronauts can't even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation\_extension\_module" title="wikipedia.org">perform acts of a personal nature</a> [wikipedia.org].  In all seriousness though, I am heartened to see that the U.S. congress put <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha\_Magnetic\_Spectrometer" title="wikipedia.org">AMS</a> [wikipedia.org] back on the launch manifest albeit delayed.  <a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12560.0#M269666" title="nasaspaceflight.com">CAM</a> [nasaspaceflight.com] certainly deserved better though.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Critics say it 's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever .
So why did we put it up there in the first place ? That 's the interesting part .
Originally the thing was intended to enable a fair bit of " real science " and not just be an expensive engineering play toy and tourist attraction .
Unfortunately the modules [ wikipedia.org ] intended [ wikipedia.org ] to enable [ wikipedia.org ] this were never launched .
I guess putting craters in the desert and violating pregnant women at the airport were greater priorities .
How can they expect science to be carried out if the preoccupied astronauts ca n't even perform acts of a personal nature [ wikipedia.org ] .
In all seriousness though , I am heartened to see that the U.S. congress put AMS [ wikipedia.org ] back on the launch manifest albeit delayed .
CAM [ nasaspaceflight.com ] certainly deserved better though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever.
So why did we put it up there in the first place?That's the interesting part.
Originally the thing was intended to enable a fair bit of "real science" and not just be an expensive engineering play toy and tourist attraction.
Unfortunately the modules [wikipedia.org]
intended [wikipedia.org] to enable [wikipedia.org] this were never launched.
I guess putting craters in the desert and violating pregnant women at the airport were greater priorities.
How can they expect science to be carried out if the preoccupied astronauts can't even perform acts of a personal nature [wikipedia.org].
In all seriousness though, I am heartened to see that the U.S. congress put AMS [wikipedia.org] back on the launch manifest albeit delayed.
CAM [nasaspaceflight.com] certainly deserved better though.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679317</id>
	<title>How many of those complaining about this...</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247510100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many of those complaining about this realize they're adding a new module to it tomorrow, to get more scientific research done?<br> <br>

In 2016 will the module they're adding today still be yielding useful data? No. Does that mean it wasn't worth adding it?<br> <br>

Experiments finish, all good things come to an end, I wish more people here would stop focusing on when it'll be dismanted and start focusing on what's going on there now.. Why is this the story we hear today, and yet there's no story about the new module?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of those complaining about this realize they 're adding a new module to it tomorrow , to get more scientific research done ?
In 2016 will the module they 're adding today still be yielding useful data ?
No. Does that mean it was n't worth adding it ?
Experiments finish , all good things come to an end , I wish more people here would stop focusing on when it 'll be dismanted and start focusing on what 's going on there now.. Why is this the story we hear today , and yet there 's no story about the new module ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of those complaining about this realize they're adding a new module to it tomorrow, to get more scientific research done?
In 2016 will the module they're adding today still be yielding useful data?
No. Does that mean it wasn't worth adding it?
Experiments finish, all good things come to an end, I wish more people here would stop focusing on when it'll be dismanted and start focusing on what's going on there now.. Why is this the story we hear today, and yet there's no story about the new module?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677289</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1247503260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISS is modular, short of a major problem (like modules breaking in 1/2 there is no reason to deorbit the whole damn thing.  This is not like the one-big-chunk (tm) that skylab was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISS is modular , short of a major problem ( like modules breaking in 1/2 there is no reason to deorbit the whole damn thing .
This is not like the one-big-chunk ( tm ) that skylab was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISS is modular, short of a major problem (like modules breaking in 1/2 there is no reason to deorbit the whole damn thing.
This is not like the one-big-chunk (tm) that skylab was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677217</id>
	<title>Not a big surprise, the ISS was always a waste.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247503020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone paying attention knows that the ISS was just corporate welfare. The station was too close to Earth's gravity for any real science and having humans on board meant plenty of vibration and movement to disrupt experiments. Also having humans on board made the cost much higher.</p><p>A more useful and far less expensive solution would have been manless stations further out run by robots. Robots would also create innovation in areas that matter. But NASA has become purely about corprorate welfare so I wouldn't expect much from them anymore.</p><p>Until we get corporate welfare out of the equation NASA will produce little in the way of useful science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone paying attention knows that the ISS was just corporate welfare .
The station was too close to Earth 's gravity for any real science and having humans on board meant plenty of vibration and movement to disrupt experiments .
Also having humans on board made the cost much higher.A more useful and far less expensive solution would have been manless stations further out run by robots .
Robots would also create innovation in areas that matter .
But NASA has become purely about corprorate welfare so I would n't expect much from them anymore.Until we get corporate welfare out of the equation NASA will produce little in the way of useful science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone paying attention knows that the ISS was just corporate welfare.
The station was too close to Earth's gravity for any real science and having humans on board meant plenty of vibration and movement to disrupt experiments.
Also having humans on board made the cost much higher.A more useful and far less expensive solution would have been manless stations further out run by robots.
Robots would also create innovation in areas that matter.
But NASA has become purely about corprorate welfare so I wouldn't expect much from them anymore.Until we get corporate welfare out of the equation NASA will produce little in the way of useful science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677547</id>
	<title>Why don't they ISS to mars?</title>
	<author>Uzull</author>
	<datestamp>1247504220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course I would send it empty to orbit mars. It would be a first base for arriving mars expeditions. Would do you think about that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course I would send it empty to orbit mars .
It would be a first base for arriving mars expeditions .
Would do you think about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course I would send it empty to orbit mars.
It would be a first base for arriving mars expeditions.
Would do you think about that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678665</id>
	<title>Re:It's Skylab all over again!</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247507940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is the ISS a big reason for building Orion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is the ISS a big reason for building Orion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is the ISS a big reason for building Orion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681645</id>
	<title>B5 reference</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1247518620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't this remind you of 'Sleeping in thwe light' where JMS gets a cameo role in turning off the lights?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this remind you of 'Sleeping in thwe light ' where JMS gets a cameo role in turning off the lights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this remind you of 'Sleeping in thwe light' where JMS gets a cameo role in turning off the lights?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679327</id>
	<title>Not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I am not surprised, USA just likes to blow up money, war on Iraq, bail outs to inefficient and poorly managed car makers, de-orbit the ISS after it's finally finish.</p><p>And then they wonder why they are in financial troubles...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I am not surprised , USA just likes to blow up money , war on Iraq , bail outs to inefficient and poorly managed car makers , de-orbit the ISS after it 's finally finish.And then they wonder why they are in financial troubles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I am not surprised, USA just likes to blow up money, war on Iraq, bail outs to inefficient and poorly managed car makers, de-orbit the ISS after it's finally finish.And then they wonder why they are in financial troubles...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676319</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>jafiwam</author>
	<datestamp>1247500200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Escape velocity is approximately twice orbital velocity. *  So, the ISS would need to have the booster equivalent of all the stuff they have up there COMBINED times two to get into Solar orbit as opposed to Earth orbit.<br><br>Even then, you aren't getting too far out of Earth orbit and run the risk of dropping the thing back from an unpredictable orbit some time over the next centuries.<br><br>So, no, it's not economical in any way shape or form to escape them, and it could be dangerous.<br><br>Deorbiting into the Pacific (which is usually where they target) is much safer and easier and can be done with a fraction of the fuel (they probably have enough on board).<br><br>*Extremely rough terms</htmltext>
<tokenext>Escape velocity is approximately twice orbital velocity .
* So , the ISS would need to have the booster equivalent of all the stuff they have up there COMBINED times two to get into Solar orbit as opposed to Earth orbit.Even then , you are n't getting too far out of Earth orbit and run the risk of dropping the thing back from an unpredictable orbit some time over the next centuries.So , no , it 's not economical in any way shape or form to escape them , and it could be dangerous.Deorbiting into the Pacific ( which is usually where they target ) is much safer and easier and can be done with a fraction of the fuel ( they probably have enough on board ) .
* Extremely rough terms</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Escape velocity is approximately twice orbital velocity.
*  So, the ISS would need to have the booster equivalent of all the stuff they have up there COMBINED times two to get into Solar orbit as opposed to Earth orbit.Even then, you aren't getting too far out of Earth orbit and run the risk of dropping the thing back from an unpredictable orbit some time over the next centuries.So, no, it's not economical in any way shape or form to escape them, and it could be dangerous.Deorbiting into the Pacific (which is usually where they target) is much safer and easier and can be done with a fraction of the fuel (they probably have enough on board).
*Extremely rough terms</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676619</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing their bluffing</title>
	<author>timster</author>
	<datestamp>1247501100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Game of chicken"?  That seems like a somewhat sensational interpretation of a plan that basically says "if someone doesn't fund this project, it will end"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Game of chicken " ?
That seems like a somewhat sensational interpretation of a plan that basically says " if someone does n't fund this project , it will end "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Game of chicken"?
That seems like a somewhat sensational interpretation of a plan that basically says "if someone doesn't fund this project, it will end"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676315</id>
	<title>If true, NASA funding will be even harder to find</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247500200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now.  As a kid, I was fed a constant stream of news that indicated we were planning a permanent space station that would orbit the earth.  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.  If they do scuttle it (something, imo, not likely to happen as early as 2016 given the international nature of the project), they'll simply be telling the world that they're great as throwing money into holes.  Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way.  NASA requests for funding will be met with more and more resistance.  Money will dry up faster than a spilled gallon of water in the desert.<br> <br>I guess I might hold out hope that one of the private space flight ventures might pony-up and put in a bid to buy the ISS.  They could monetize it, by leasing compartments or general access to both space tourists and to scientific endeavors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now .
As a kid , I was fed a constant stream of news that indicated we were planning a permanent space station that would orbit the earth .
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you .
If they do scuttle it ( something , imo , not likely to happen as early as 2016 given the international nature of the project ) , they 'll simply be telling the world that they 're great as throwing money into holes .
Sure , we 've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we 've had there , but the US taxpayer wo n't think of it that way .
NASA requests for funding will be met with more and more resistance .
Money will dry up faster than a spilled gallon of water in the desert .
I guess I might hold out hope that one of the private space flight ventures might pony-up and put in a bid to buy the ISS .
They could monetize it , by leasing compartments or general access to both space tourists and to scientific endeavors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now.
As a kid, I was fed a constant stream of news that indicated we were planning a permanent space station that would orbit the earth.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
If they do scuttle it (something, imo, not likely to happen as early as 2016 given the international nature of the project), they'll simply be telling the world that they're great as throwing money into holes.
Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way.
NASA requests for funding will be met with more and more resistance.
Money will dry up faster than a spilled gallon of water in the desert.
I guess I might hold out hope that one of the private space flight ventures might pony-up and put in a bid to buy the ISS.
They could monetize it, by leasing compartments or general access to both space tourists and to scientific endeavors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678071</id>
	<title>Re:What gives them the right</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247505900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're not "crashing it into the sea" out of spite. It takes massive maintenance costs to keep it up there!

Honestly do you think if other countries decided to absorb NASA's costs NASA would still be de-orbiting it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not " crashing it into the sea " out of spite .
It takes massive maintenance costs to keep it up there !
Honestly do you think if other countries decided to absorb NASA 's costs NASA would still be de-orbiting it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not "crashing it into the sea" out of spite.
It takes massive maintenance costs to keep it up there!
Honestly do you think if other countries decided to absorb NASA's costs NASA would still be de-orbiting it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28682067</id>
	<title>Re:luckily for us</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1247477220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh the irony. I guess when they lost the "c" in Naca they
lost their cojones too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh the irony .
I guess when they lost the " c " in Naca they lost their cojones too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh the irony.
I guess when they lost the "c" in Naca they
lost their cojones too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it...</p><p>1. Build ISS<br>2. Deorbit...<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>X. Profit?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it...1 .
Build ISS2 .
Deorbit......X. Profit ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it...1.
Build ISS2.
Deorbit......X. Profit?!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676673</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247501280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines"</i> <br>
<br>
I think I should just politely point out, surely you're missing the main part of the news?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I mean, you can't think NASA's deadline accountancy errors are the biggest part of this potentially huge news event?<br>
<br>
For example, from the main summary:<br>
<i>"The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings"</i> <br>
<br>
I mean come on, hold the front page or what, call the joint chiefs now!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there are spacecraft bigger than we make up there!?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... UMMM??!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! [inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale] AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! cool or what!!?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines " I think I should just politely point out , surely you 're missing the main part of the news ?
... I mean , you ca n't think NASA 's deadline accountancy errors are the biggest part of this potentially huge news event ?
For example , from the main summary : " The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings " I mean come on , hold the front page or what , call the joint chiefs now !
... there are spacecraft bigger than we make up there ! ? !
... UMMM ? ? ! !
.... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ! ! ! ! ! !
[ inhale , exhale , inhale , exhale ] AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ! ! ! ! !
cool or what ! ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines" 

I think I should just politely point out, surely you're missing the main part of the news?
... I mean, you can't think NASA's deadline accountancy errors are the biggest part of this potentially huge news event?
For example, from the main summary:
"The international space station is by far the largest spacecraft ever built by earthlings" 

I mean come on, hold the front page or what, call the joint chiefs now!
... there are spacecraft bigger than we make up there!?!
... UMMM??!!
.... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
[inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale] AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
cool or what!!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676153</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247499480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you boost it into a higher orbit, you need a bigger rocket to get there, making the station less useful. Boosting something the size of ISS completely out of a low orbit would take a huge amount of fuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you boost it into a higher orbit , you need a bigger rocket to get there , making the station less useful .
Boosting something the size of ISS completely out of a low orbit would take a huge amount of fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you boost it into a higher orbit, you need a bigger rocket to get there, making the station less useful.
Boosting something the size of ISS completely out of a low orbit would take a huge amount of fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676419</id>
	<title>Sell it on eBay</title>
	<author>Alcoholist</author>
	<datestamp>1247500560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe not on eBay, but the ISS is already up there, I'm pretty sure it was designed to last longer than 16 years, why not sell it to at least cover some of the costs?  I personally don't think it would be a good investment, but people pay lots of money for the weirdest stuff.</p><p>I know!  The Chinese.  They've got money.  If we sold it to them cheap, they would be ever so grateful.  They might even keep letting us use it from time to time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe not on eBay , but the ISS is already up there , I 'm pretty sure it was designed to last longer than 16 years , why not sell it to at least cover some of the costs ?
I personally do n't think it would be a good investment , but people pay lots of money for the weirdest stuff.I know !
The Chinese .
They 've got money .
If we sold it to them cheap , they would be ever so grateful .
They might even keep letting us use it from time to time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe not on eBay, but the ISS is already up there, I'm pretty sure it was designed to last longer than 16 years, why not sell it to at least cover some of the costs?
I personally don't think it would be a good investment, but people pay lots of money for the weirdest stuff.I know!
The Chinese.
They've got money.
If we sold it to them cheap, they would be ever so grateful.
They might even keep letting us use it from time to time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678095</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1247505960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever. So why did we put it up there in the first place?</p></div></blockquote><p>So that at election time, congress critters could go back to their districts and brag about all the new local jobs they've created in the federally subsidized white elephant industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Critics say it 's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever .
So why did we put it up there in the first place ? So that at election time , congress critters could go back to their districts and brag about all the new local jobs they 've created in the federally subsidized white elephant industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever.
So why did we put it up there in the first place?So that at election time, congress critters could go back to their districts and brag about all the new local jobs they've created in the federally subsidized white elephant industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676051</id>
	<title>Re:What gives them the right</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247499000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, someone has to pay for the orbital boosts it needs on a regular basis or it will de-orbit all on its own, and NASA is probably the most on the hook if it crashes into something, so if NASA doesn't feel like paying and no one else steps up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , someone has to pay for the orbital boosts it needs on a regular basis or it will de-orbit all on its own , and NASA is probably the most on the hook if it crashes into something , so if NASA does n't feel like paying and no one else steps up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, someone has to pay for the orbital boosts it needs on a regular basis or it will de-orbit all on its own, and NASA is probably the most on the hook if it crashes into something, so if NASA doesn't feel like paying and no one else steps up...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679999</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1247512140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>That's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it.</em> </p><p>you are correct. there is a lot of pointless killing that could be done with that money. let's not blow the opportunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it .
you are correct .
there is a lot of pointless killing that could be done with that money .
let 's not blow the opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it.
you are correct.
there is a lot of pointless killing that could be done with that money.
let's not blow the opportunity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339</id>
	<title>It's Skylab all over again!</title>
	<author>Painted</author>
	<datestamp>1247500320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just as we get to the first flights of Orion, which will almost certainly slip past 1Q2016, we'll deorbit one of the primary reasons we're building Orion.
<br> <br>

I always thought that the 5 year gap of no manned craft for the US sounded dumb, I guess they always had this at the back of their minds and just want to get rid of the thing. I'd get Ares V on tap, send up a big (ion?) booster, and either move it to a more equatorial orbit, so it can be used as an assembly point for lunar/martian missions, or let it go on autopilot through the Van Allen belts and push it into high earth orbit for future use. Hell at that point you could zip it out to a Lagrange point for storage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as we get to the first flights of Orion , which will almost certainly slip past 1Q2016 , we 'll deorbit one of the primary reasons we 're building Orion .
I always thought that the 5 year gap of no manned craft for the US sounded dumb , I guess they always had this at the back of their minds and just want to get rid of the thing .
I 'd get Ares V on tap , send up a big ( ion ?
) booster , and either move it to a more equatorial orbit , so it can be used as an assembly point for lunar/martian missions , or let it go on autopilot through the Van Allen belts and push it into high earth orbit for future use .
Hell at that point you could zip it out to a Lagrange point for storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as we get to the first flights of Orion, which will almost certainly slip past 1Q2016, we'll deorbit one of the primary reasons we're building Orion.
I always thought that the 5 year gap of no manned craft for the US sounded dumb, I guess they always had this at the back of their minds and just want to get rid of the thing.
I'd get Ares V on tap, send up a big (ion?
) booster, and either move it to a more equatorial orbit, so it can be used as an assembly point for lunar/martian missions, or let it go on autopilot through the Van Allen belts and push it into high earth orbit for future use.
Hell at that point you could zip it out to a Lagrange point for storage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677407</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing their bluffing</title>
	<author>ari wins</author>
	<datestamp>1247503740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a smart move by NASA too. Opponents like physicist Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland who said "..putting astronauts on the space station is akin to "flagpole-sitting."" make the idea of junking it seem silly. Instead of wasting his vast mental ability arguing, why doesn't he come up with a mission that would contribute to society? Instead, his brilliant conclusion to the article is "Give it to China. Let them support the damn thing." <br> <br>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the absurdity of his argument. We need to squeeze every last bit of scientific data we can out of what we have up there, while we have it. It's served multiple purposes already, as stated in the article. It's advanced our views and available technologies in space. It served as posturing during the 80's, provided jobs during the following space boon, and has provided a stage for international unity. We can't back down now when we're just about to reach what we've been striving for.<br> <br>But what do I know, IANAAP, I just stock food at the local grocery store.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a smart move by NASA too .
Opponents like physicist Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland who said " ..putting astronauts on the space station is akin to " flagpole-sitting .
" " make the idea of junking it seem silly .
Instead of wasting his vast mental ability arguing , why does n't he come up with a mission that would contribute to society ?
Instead , his brilliant conclusion to the article is " Give it to China .
Let them support the damn thing .
" It does n't take a rocket scientist to see the absurdity of his argument .
We need to squeeze every last bit of scientific data we can out of what we have up there , while we have it .
It 's served multiple purposes already , as stated in the article .
It 's advanced our views and available technologies in space .
It served as posturing during the 80 's , provided jobs during the following space boon , and has provided a stage for international unity .
We ca n't back down now when we 're just about to reach what we 've been striving for .
But what do I know , IANAAP , I just stock food at the local grocery store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a smart move by NASA too.
Opponents like physicist Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland who said "..putting astronauts on the space station is akin to "flagpole-sitting.
"" make the idea of junking it seem silly.
Instead of wasting his vast mental ability arguing, why doesn't he come up with a mission that would contribute to society?
Instead, his brilliant conclusion to the article is "Give it to China.
Let them support the damn thing.
"  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the absurdity of his argument.
We need to squeeze every last bit of scientific data we can out of what we have up there, while we have it.
It's served multiple purposes already, as stated in the article.
It's advanced our views and available technologies in space.
It served as posturing during the 80's, provided jobs during the following space boon, and has provided a stage for international unity.
We can't back down now when we're just about to reach what we've been striving for.
But what do I know, IANAAP, I just stock food at the local grocery store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676177</id>
	<title>You gotta be kidding me!</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1247499600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bill Clinton killed the United States supercollider to fund this piece of shit. Twenty years later, we will have neither.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Clinton killed the United States supercollider to fund this piece of shit .
Twenty years later , we will have neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Clinton killed the United States supercollider to fund this piece of shit.
Twenty years later, we will have neither.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677193</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247502960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is, whey it has no scientific value. Then <em>create some experiments that give it value</em>. After all the money that got pumped into it, it should last at least 30 years! And I don't care if it looks like the Mir afterwards. Looks are irrelevant when you still can do research on it.</p><p>Seriously. I bet someone will come up with some valuable experiments for it in this very thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is , whey it has no scientific value .
Then create some experiments that give it value .
After all the money that got pumped into it , it should last at least 30 years !
And I do n't care if it looks like the Mir afterwards .
Looks are irrelevant when you still can do research on it.Seriously .
I bet someone will come up with some valuable experiments for it in this very thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is, whey it has no scientific value.
Then create some experiments that give it value.
After all the money that got pumped into it, it should last at least 30 years!
And I don't care if it looks like the Mir afterwards.
Looks are irrelevant when you still can do research on it.Seriously.
I bet someone will come up with some valuable experiments for it in this very thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676061</id>
	<title>Why does this sound like the Monty Python bit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247499060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one about building a castle in the swamp?  How many more of these space station things do we have to build before they don't sink back into the swamp?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one about building a castle in the swamp ?
How many more of these space station things do we have to build before they do n't sink back into the swamp ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one about building a castle in the swamp?
How many more of these space station things do we have to build before they don't sink back into the swamp?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676599</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1247501040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the sunk costs fallacy applies to the ISS.</p><p>If for instance, a software migration is being worked on that's clearly not going to be successful, then throwing more money on it is clearly pointless. Since the old system can be kept, the decision is "waste more money on the non-working new system, and at some later point return to the old one" vs "return to the other one". Keeping spending money on the migration is clearly a complete waste and achieves nothing useful.</p><p>But the ISS isn't like that. It's already in orbit, and it's already producing results. If anything useful at all still gets done on it, then deorbiting it will have negative consequences, and if later they want to change their mind they can't just go and put it back in orbit. They'll have to make a new one, or go without whatever research it could have enabled. And making a new one will almost certainly cost a lot more than to keep the current one working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the sunk costs fallacy applies to the ISS.If for instance , a software migration is being worked on that 's clearly not going to be successful , then throwing more money on it is clearly pointless .
Since the old system can be kept , the decision is " waste more money on the non-working new system , and at some later point return to the old one " vs " return to the other one " .
Keeping spending money on the migration is clearly a complete waste and achieves nothing useful.But the ISS is n't like that .
It 's already in orbit , and it 's already producing results .
If anything useful at all still gets done on it , then deorbiting it will have negative consequences , and if later they want to change their mind they ca n't just go and put it back in orbit .
They 'll have to make a new one , or go without whatever research it could have enabled .
And making a new one will almost certainly cost a lot more than to keep the current one working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the sunk costs fallacy applies to the ISS.If for instance, a software migration is being worked on that's clearly not going to be successful, then throwing more money on it is clearly pointless.
Since the old system can be kept, the decision is "waste more money on the non-working new system, and at some later point return to the old one" vs "return to the other one".
Keeping spending money on the migration is clearly a complete waste and achieves nothing useful.But the ISS isn't like that.
It's already in orbit, and it's already producing results.
If anything useful at all still gets done on it, then deorbiting it will have negative consequences, and if later they want to change their mind they can't just go and put it back in orbit.
They'll have to make a new one, or go without whatever research it could have enabled.
And making a new one will almost certainly cost a lot more than to keep the current one working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676425</id>
	<title>Botany bay it!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247500560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's send convicted criminals to the ISS then send it to Mars.  Maybe they can tell us about Mars and stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's send convicted criminals to the ISS then send it to Mars .
Maybe they can tell us about Mars and stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's send convicted criminals to the ISS then send it to Mars.
Maybe they can tell us about Mars and stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684717</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1247491080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov\_loworbit.htm" title="nasa.gov">Yep, it's lumpy.</a> [nasa.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , it 's lumpy .
[ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, it's lumpy.
[nasa.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685623</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste</title>
	<author>rossy</author>
	<datestamp>1247499300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sum of all pussy equals zero.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sum of all pussy equals zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sum of all pussy equals zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247498700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question becomes - without the ISS as a destination, what does the CEV do between the deorbit of the ISS and any planned moon or mars mission in the early 2020s?  Does NASA just launch this new expensive vehicle to orbit with no destination?  What capacity does the CEV have for independent science while in orbit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question becomes - without the ISS as a destination , what does the CEV do between the deorbit of the ISS and any planned moon or mars mission in the early 2020s ?
Does NASA just launch this new expensive vehicle to orbit with no destination ?
What capacity does the CEV have for independent science while in orbit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question becomes - without the ISS as a destination, what does the CEV do between the deorbit of the ISS and any planned moon or mars mission in the early 2020s?
Does NASA just launch this new expensive vehicle to orbit with no destination?
What capacity does the CEV have for independent science while in orbit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681127</id>
	<title>Move the Space Station to a Lagrange Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The low-earth orbit position of the space station was dictated by the range of the space shuttle.  The larger and more massive the space station is, the more energy is required to keep it there.  Even a geo-synchronous orbit requires energy, and that fuel would not have to be transported 26k miles instead of 300 miles.  Another option would be to move the space station even further out, to L4 or L5, the Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system where the space station would orbit in a small region of stability.  This would require no fuel to be used for station keeping.  It is approximately the same distance from Earth as the Moon.</p><p>If some components of the Space Station prove to be no longer useful they should be re-used for either lunar habitats, space tourism destinations or a Mars spacecraft.  Given the cost of getting any material into space it seems wasteful to let it fall back down and burn up.  Even if you're only reusing trusses, solar panels, supply modules, and docking modules, those are all useful for other purposes.</p><p>I do agree though that this is just posturing by NASA, but at the same time maybe they should be looking at where the space station is, and whether something so massive is still necessary for the purpose it serves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The low-earth orbit position of the space station was dictated by the range of the space shuttle .
The larger and more massive the space station is , the more energy is required to keep it there .
Even a geo-synchronous orbit requires energy , and that fuel would not have to be transported 26k miles instead of 300 miles .
Another option would be to move the space station even further out , to L4 or L5 , the Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system where the space station would orbit in a small region of stability .
This would require no fuel to be used for station keeping .
It is approximately the same distance from Earth as the Moon.If some components of the Space Station prove to be no longer useful they should be re-used for either lunar habitats , space tourism destinations or a Mars spacecraft .
Given the cost of getting any material into space it seems wasteful to let it fall back down and burn up .
Even if you 're only reusing trusses , solar panels , supply modules , and docking modules , those are all useful for other purposes.I do agree though that this is just posturing by NASA , but at the same time maybe they should be looking at where the space station is , and whether something so massive is still necessary for the purpose it serves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The low-earth orbit position of the space station was dictated by the range of the space shuttle.
The larger and more massive the space station is, the more energy is required to keep it there.
Even a geo-synchronous orbit requires energy, and that fuel would not have to be transported 26k miles instead of 300 miles.
Another option would be to move the space station even further out, to L4 or L5, the Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system where the space station would orbit in a small region of stability.
This would require no fuel to be used for station keeping.
It is approximately the same distance from Earth as the Moon.If some components of the Space Station prove to be no longer useful they should be re-used for either lunar habitats, space tourism destinations or a Mars spacecraft.
Given the cost of getting any material into space it seems wasteful to let it fall back down and burn up.
Even if you're only reusing trusses, solar panels, supply modules, and docking modules, those are all useful for other purposes.I do agree though that this is just posturing by NASA, but at the same time maybe they should be looking at where the space station is, and whether something so massive is still necessary for the purpose it serves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679423</id>
	<title>Re:What gives them the right</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1247510400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>International? I suppose the ISS is slightly more international than the international coalition that invaded and defeated Iraq. Slightly. The US has always been behind most of the engineering, construction, funding and maintenance of the ISS, you know. I suppose if the ESA wanted to take it over we'd chuckle and let them handle the problems, but that isn't going to happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>International ?
I suppose the ISS is slightly more international than the international coalition that invaded and defeated Iraq .
Slightly. The US has always been behind most of the engineering , construction , funding and maintenance of the ISS , you know .
I suppose if the ESA wanted to take it over we 'd chuckle and let them handle the problems , but that is n't going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>International?
I suppose the ISS is slightly more international than the international coalition that invaded and defeated Iraq.
Slightly. The US has always been behind most of the engineering, construction, funding and maintenance of the ISS, you know.
I suppose if the ESA wanted to take it over we'd chuckle and let them handle the problems, but that isn't going to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676967</id>
	<title>Compare it to your car</title>
	<author>CDS</author>
	<datestamp>1247502180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's compare the ISS to a car, for a moment.<br><br>Think about your 20 year old vehicle and the shape it's in.  It's got, what?  150,000 miles on it?  It's starting to rust out, the trunk leaks when it rains, the radio only works out of 2 speakers, the air conditioner works great in the winter time, the right-front door won't lock and the left-rear window won't roll down any more.  Not to mention the big ole dent in the front fender where you misjudged a turn coming out of that parking ramp...<br><br>Now, compare it to the ISS.  by 2016 it'll be 18 years old, and have traveled approximately 2.7 BILLION MILES!  What would your old beater look like after 2,700,000,000 miles?????</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's compare the ISS to a car , for a moment.Think about your 20 year old vehicle and the shape it 's in .
It 's got , what ?
150,000 miles on it ?
It 's starting to rust out , the trunk leaks when it rains , the radio only works out of 2 speakers , the air conditioner works great in the winter time , the right-front door wo n't lock and the left-rear window wo n't roll down any more .
Not to mention the big ole dent in the front fender where you misjudged a turn coming out of that parking ramp...Now , compare it to the ISS .
by 2016 it 'll be 18 years old , and have traveled approximately 2.7 BILLION MILES !
What would your old beater look like after 2,700,000,000 miles ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's compare the ISS to a car, for a moment.Think about your 20 year old vehicle and the shape it's in.
It's got, what?
150,000 miles on it?
It's starting to rust out, the trunk leaks when it rains, the radio only works out of 2 speakers, the air conditioner works great in the winter time, the right-front door won't lock and the left-rear window won't roll down any more.
Not to mention the big ole dent in the front fender where you misjudged a turn coming out of that parking ramp...Now, compare it to the ISS.
by 2016 it'll be 18 years old, and have traveled approximately 2.7 BILLION MILES!
What would your old beater look like after 2,700,000,000 miles????
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681603</id>
	<title>Does the US own the whole ISS?</title>
	<author>stonewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247518500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so.</p><p>I see it now, early 2016, the order is given to de-orbit the ISS. A US CEV shows up to pick up the rest of the crew and to provide de-orbit thrust. The International crew passes the US crew, bound with duck tape, through the hatch into the CEV. They then slam and lock the door. The Japanese government sends a message to the US saying that further cooperation with the US on ISS operations will be "very difficult". The EU sends 27 diplomats to the US and the UN to explain at great length in 27 different languages that they are repossessing their contributions to the ISS. The Russian crew members send a brief message to the CEV saying, basically, "Kiss My Asski". Behind the scenes China is offering pennies on the dollar for the US modules and hint, so politely, that if the US doesn't sell the dollar will lose 80\% of its value tomorrow when the Chinese start selling dollars at an 80\% discount.</p><p>The CEV commander notices a rather large number of manned spacecraft, mostly Russian and Chinese, closing in. The CEV undocks, backs away slooowly and returns to KSC. The name of ISS is changed to the United Low Orbit Science and Technology International Testbed (U-LOST-IT) and they start doing real science on the thing.</p><p>Stonewolf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so.I see it now , early 2016 , the order is given to de-orbit the ISS .
A US CEV shows up to pick up the rest of the crew and to provide de-orbit thrust .
The International crew passes the US crew , bound with duck tape , through the hatch into the CEV .
They then slam and lock the door .
The Japanese government sends a message to the US saying that further cooperation with the US on ISS operations will be " very difficult " .
The EU sends 27 diplomats to the US and the UN to explain at great length in 27 different languages that they are repossessing their contributions to the ISS .
The Russian crew members send a brief message to the CEV saying , basically , " Kiss My Asski " .
Behind the scenes China is offering pennies on the dollar for the US modules and hint , so politely , that if the US does n't sell the dollar will lose 80 \ % of its value tomorrow when the Chinese start selling dollars at an 80 \ % discount.The CEV commander notices a rather large number of manned spacecraft , mostly Russian and Chinese , closing in .
The CEV undocks , backs away slooowly and returns to KSC .
The name of ISS is changed to the United Low Orbit Science and Technology International Testbed ( U-LOST-IT ) and they start doing real science on the thing.Stonewolf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.I see it now, early 2016, the order is given to de-orbit the ISS.
A US CEV shows up to pick up the rest of the crew and to provide de-orbit thrust.
The International crew passes the US crew, bound with duck tape, through the hatch into the CEV.
They then slam and lock the door.
The Japanese government sends a message to the US saying that further cooperation with the US on ISS operations will be "very difficult".
The EU sends 27 diplomats to the US and the UN to explain at great length in 27 different languages that they are repossessing their contributions to the ISS.
The Russian crew members send a brief message to the CEV saying, basically, "Kiss My Asski".
Behind the scenes China is offering pennies on the dollar for the US modules and hint, so politely, that if the US doesn't sell the dollar will lose 80\% of its value tomorrow when the Chinese start selling dollars at an 80\% discount.The CEV commander notices a rather large number of manned spacecraft, mostly Russian and Chinese, closing in.
The CEV undocks, backs away slooowly and returns to KSC.
The name of ISS is changed to the United Low Orbit Science and Technology International Testbed (U-LOST-IT) and they start doing real science on the thing.Stonewolf.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679925</id>
	<title>What's the Big Deal?</title>
	<author>cmseagle</author>
	<datestamp>1247511900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US spends this much in Iraq every two and a half months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US spends this much in Iraq every two and a half months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US spends this much in Iraq every two and a half months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</id>
	<title>What gives them the right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to say when or if it should be destroyed.
<p>
The first word in it's title is "International" and a lot of countries have put a lot of money into building it. Maybe they would like to start getting some returns on their payments now that it's finally almost finished, rather than having one single country decide that just because they're bored with it the whole thing should be crashed into the sea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to say when or if it should be destroyed .
The first word in it 's title is " International " and a lot of countries have put a lot of money into building it .
Maybe they would like to start getting some returns on their payments now that it 's finally almost finished , rather than having one single country decide that just because they 're bored with it the whole thing should be crashed into the sea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... to say when or if it should be destroyed.
The first word in it's title is "International" and a lot of countries have put a lot of money into building it.
Maybe they would like to start getting some returns on their payments now that it's finally almost finished, rather than having one single country decide that just because they're bored with it the whole thing should be crashed into the sea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687203</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?  Such stupidity need not be allowed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247513580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many nations collaborated on the ISS.  To 'de-orbit' it would be a crime, and many of our partners have to know this.  We should be prevented, by force if necessary, from committing this crime.  And it would be a huge crime.  I hope the Russians resist this, and enlist the support of our other partners in the ISS to take over the ISS and buy out the American 'share' so that its work can go on.  If nothing else it is a stop-over to higher orbit or to the Moon.  It was put up for a reason, probably a number of reasons;  many of them probably classified.   Classified means only secret from the gullible American public.  Those reasons are still just as valid in 2016 as they are today, so again there is no good reason to destroy what so many have labored on for so long.  In addition there are technologies coming on line that enable more efficient station keeping for less fuel from new 'electric' and VASIMR engines.  Use them!  Use the place as a construction site for assembling larger craft in orbit to use in interplanetary exploration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many nations collaborated on the ISS .
To 'de-orbit ' it would be a crime , and many of our partners have to know this .
We should be prevented , by force if necessary , from committing this crime .
And it would be a huge crime .
I hope the Russians resist this , and enlist the support of our other partners in the ISS to take over the ISS and buy out the American 'share ' so that its work can go on .
If nothing else it is a stop-over to higher orbit or to the Moon .
It was put up for a reason , probably a number of reasons ; many of them probably classified .
Classified means only secret from the gullible American public .
Those reasons are still just as valid in 2016 as they are today , so again there is no good reason to destroy what so many have labored on for so long .
In addition there are technologies coming on line that enable more efficient station keeping for less fuel from new 'electric ' and VASIMR engines .
Use them !
Use the place as a construction site for assembling larger craft in orbit to use in interplanetary exploration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many nations collaborated on the ISS.
To 'de-orbit' it would be a crime, and many of our partners have to know this.
We should be prevented, by force if necessary, from committing this crime.
And it would be a huge crime.
I hope the Russians resist this, and enlist the support of our other partners in the ISS to take over the ISS and buy out the American 'share' so that its work can go on.
If nothing else it is a stop-over to higher orbit or to the Moon.
It was put up for a reason, probably a number of reasons;  many of them probably classified.
Classified means only secret from the gullible American public.
Those reasons are still just as valid in 2016 as they are today, so again there is no good reason to destroy what so many have labored on for so long.
In addition there are technologies coming on line that enable more efficient station keeping for less fuel from new 'electric' and VASIMR engines.
Use them!
Use the place as a construction site for assembling larger craft in orbit to use in interplanetary exploration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</id>
	<title>I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247499240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much did this cost? $100 billion dollars? I expect it to be up there till at least 2050, even if it is the ratty garage of a much larger space station by then. Of course Mir was up for what 15 years beyond its expected lifespan? $100 billion dollars is a lot of money just to burn it up in less than 20 years, even if you count the annual upkeep costs. That's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much did this cost ?
$ 100 billion dollars ?
I expect it to be up there till at least 2050 , even if it is the ratty garage of a much larger space station by then .
Of course Mir was up for what 15 years beyond its expected lifespan ?
$ 100 billion dollars is a lot of money just to burn it up in less than 20 years , even if you count the annual upkeep costs .
That 's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much did this cost?
$100 billion dollars?
I expect it to be up there till at least 2050, even if it is the ratty garage of a much larger space station by then.
Of course Mir was up for what 15 years beyond its expected lifespan?
$100 billion dollars is a lot of money just to burn it up in less than 20 years, even if you count the annual upkeep costs.
That's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685087</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1247493960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of us want to romanticize the ISS as being far more than it really is.  The project has a specific design capability and that is for LEO, having a couple decade long lifespan.  It was designed to perform under a very limited role with certain expectations of serviceability and modest fail safes.  Even if we wished to spend the cash to push it to GEO, a Lagrange point, or even lunar orbit the poor thing would likely tear itself apart in the process.  Surviving that, we'd find constant component failure issues from the prolonged exposure to the harsh environs of space.  It's difficult to rebuild/remodel that which wasn't designed to be rebuild and remodeled.</p><p>I think the best thing we can do is to encourage our respective governments and private industry to plan and execute our next great step in manned space outposts.  We've learned a great deal since the ISS was conceived and engineered.  That was one of the main purposes of the ISS.  Let's take our current state-of-the-art and create an outpost for our future dreams not prolong and rehash our old ones.  I for one would love to see a permanent outpost from which we could more easily (and cheaply) launch both manned and robotic missions.  Lets learn how to harvest and process off-world resources.  Lets learn how to manufacture using those resources.  Lets learn how to maintain partial subsistence.  These things are inconceivable with the ISS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of us want to romanticize the ISS as being far more than it really is .
The project has a specific design capability and that is for LEO , having a couple decade long lifespan .
It was designed to perform under a very limited role with certain expectations of serviceability and modest fail safes .
Even if we wished to spend the cash to push it to GEO , a Lagrange point , or even lunar orbit the poor thing would likely tear itself apart in the process .
Surviving that , we 'd find constant component failure issues from the prolonged exposure to the harsh environs of space .
It 's difficult to rebuild/remodel that which was n't designed to be rebuild and remodeled.I think the best thing we can do is to encourage our respective governments and private industry to plan and execute our next great step in manned space outposts .
We 've learned a great deal since the ISS was conceived and engineered .
That was one of the main purposes of the ISS .
Let 's take our current state-of-the-art and create an outpost for our future dreams not prolong and rehash our old ones .
I for one would love to see a permanent outpost from which we could more easily ( and cheaply ) launch both manned and robotic missions .
Lets learn how to harvest and process off-world resources .
Lets learn how to manufacture using those resources .
Lets learn how to maintain partial subsistence .
These things are inconceivable with the ISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of us want to romanticize the ISS as being far more than it really is.
The project has a specific design capability and that is for LEO, having a couple decade long lifespan.
It was designed to perform under a very limited role with certain expectations of serviceability and modest fail safes.
Even if we wished to spend the cash to push it to GEO, a Lagrange point, or even lunar orbit the poor thing would likely tear itself apart in the process.
Surviving that, we'd find constant component failure issues from the prolonged exposure to the harsh environs of space.
It's difficult to rebuild/remodel that which wasn't designed to be rebuild and remodeled.I think the best thing we can do is to encourage our respective governments and private industry to plan and execute our next great step in manned space outposts.
We've learned a great deal since the ISS was conceived and engineered.
That was one of the main purposes of the ISS.
Let's take our current state-of-the-art and create an outpost for our future dreams not prolong and rehash our old ones.
I for one would love to see a permanent outpost from which we could more easily (and cheaply) launch both manned and robotic missions.
Lets learn how to harvest and process off-world resources.
Lets learn how to manufacture using those resources.
Lets learn how to maintain partial subsistence.
These things are inconceivable with the ISS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205</id>
	<title>Think outside the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247499780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to deorbit it, why waste it on the ocean?  At least drop it on a country we don't like.  Or on <a href="http://images.southparkstudios.com/crap/downloads/preview\_image\_thumbnail.php?id=1608" title="southparkstudios.com">Kenny</a> [southparkstudios.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to deorbit it , why waste it on the ocean ?
At least drop it on a country we do n't like .
Or on Kenny [ southparkstudios.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to deorbit it, why waste it on the ocean?
At least drop it on a country we don't like.
Or on Kenny [southparkstudios.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676881</id>
	<title>test version of the ringworld</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247501940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use the ISS as a platform to build a continuous ring around the earth.<br>Gravity should evenly pull on the ring, so no pesky de-orbiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use the ISS as a platform to build a continuous ring around the earth.Gravity should evenly pull on the ring , so no pesky de-orbiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use the ISS as a platform to build a continuous ring around the earth.Gravity should evenly pull on the ring, so no pesky de-orbiting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1247501460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could they move it into lunar orbit?</p><p>Having a station in orbit around the moon would be a lot cooler than having one a couple of hundred miles away and we could use it as a starting point for lunar mining.</p><p>You want to capture public imagination? Something like this would definitely do it (and it even has a "Save the Earth" angle - He3 to save us from global warming). The sooner the better, I say, before it starts falling apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could they move it into lunar orbit ? Having a station in orbit around the moon would be a lot cooler than having one a couple of hundred miles away and we could use it as a starting point for lunar mining.You want to capture public imagination ?
Something like this would definitely do it ( and it even has a " Save the Earth " angle - He3 to save us from global warming ) .
The sooner the better , I say , before it starts falling apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could they move it into lunar orbit?Having a station in orbit around the moon would be a lot cooler than having one a couple of hundred miles away and we could use it as a starting point for lunar mining.You want to capture public imagination?
Something like this would definitely do it (and it even has a "Save the Earth" angle - He3 to save us from global warming).
The sooner the better, I say, before it starts falling apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676149</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>Guysmiley777</author>
	<datestamp>1247499480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It takes a huge, huge, huge amount of energy to boost a kilogram in LEO out of the Earth's gravity well compared to how much energy it takes to deorbit that same kilogram.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes a huge , huge , huge amount of energy to boost a kilogram in LEO out of the Earth 's gravity well compared to how much energy it takes to deorbit that same kilogram .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes a huge, huge, huge amount of energy to boost a kilogram in LEO out of the Earth's gravity well compared to how much energy it takes to deorbit that same kilogram.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679299</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1247510040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that you have to feed the people on board. The moon is not so great for crops, so you'd have to create regular supply missions back and forth to lunar orbit, and as far as I know, we don't really have anything that can do that at the moment, except for wheeling out the Saturn V blueprints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that you have to feed the people on board .
The moon is not so great for crops , so you 'd have to create regular supply missions back and forth to lunar orbit , and as far as I know , we do n't really have anything that can do that at the moment , except for wheeling out the Saturn V blueprints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that you have to feed the people on board.
The moon is not so great for crops, so you'd have to create regular supply missions back and forth to lunar orbit, and as far as I know, we don't really have anything that can do that at the moment, except for wheeling out the Saturn V blueprints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679229</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much did this cost? $100 billion dollars?</p></div><p>That's a lot of dollar dollars!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much did this cost ?
$ 100 billion dollars ? That 's a lot of dollar dollars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much did this cost?
$100 billion dollars?That's a lot of dollar dollars!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</id>
	<title>So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much was invested in this thing, I wonder?
</p><p>I am aware of the "sunk cost fallacy", and maybe the ISS has taught us everything it set out to teach... but I could've sworn that we were originally sold a much larger bill of goods than NASA now intends to deliver.  Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much was invested in this thing , I wonder ?
I am aware of the " sunk cost fallacy " , and maybe the ISS has taught us everything it set out to teach... but I could 've sworn that we were originally sold a much larger bill of goods than NASA now intends to deliver .
Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much was invested in this thing, I wonder?
I am aware of the "sunk cost fallacy", and maybe the ISS has taught us everything it set out to teach... but I could've sworn that we were originally sold a much larger bill of goods than NASA now intends to deliver.
Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676057</id>
	<title>Re:Next stop...</title>
	<author>ctetc007</author>
	<datestamp>1247499000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the fuel spent would be the same (if not more) because it had to be spent to get the spacecraft components and fuel up to that altitude.  The same spacecraft mass is still going to the same place, so the same amount of energy is being expended.  It could actually be more because these components are being brought up in other launch vehicles, thus fuel is being spent on the carrier craft as well.<br>
<br>
What this does help with, though, is reliability and redundancy.  Instead of throwing all your eggs in one launch vehicle basket, you're going up to GEO in bits in and pieces, so if one of the launches fails, you don't loose the whole thing.  This same idea is the main concept for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionated\_spacecraft" title="wikipedia.org">F6 fractionated spacecraft</a> [wikipedia.org] program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the fuel spent would be the same ( if not more ) because it had to be spent to get the spacecraft components and fuel up to that altitude .
The same spacecraft mass is still going to the same place , so the same amount of energy is being expended .
It could actually be more because these components are being brought up in other launch vehicles , thus fuel is being spent on the carrier craft as well .
What this does help with , though , is reliability and redundancy .
Instead of throwing all your eggs in one launch vehicle basket , you 're going up to GEO in bits in and pieces , so if one of the launches fails , you do n't loose the whole thing .
This same idea is the main concept for the F6 fractionated spacecraft [ wikipedia.org ] program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the fuel spent would be the same (if not more) because it had to be spent to get the spacecraft components and fuel up to that altitude.
The same spacecraft mass is still going to the same place, so the same amount of energy is being expended.
It could actually be more because these components are being brought up in other launch vehicles, thus fuel is being spent on the carrier craft as well.
What this does help with, though, is reliability and redundancy.
Instead of throwing all your eggs in one launch vehicle basket, you're going up to GEO in bits in and pieces, so if one of the launches fails, you don't loose the whole thing.
This same idea is the main concept for the F6 fractionated spacecraft [wikipedia.org] program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677445</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1247503860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ISS provides nothing useful at all. It should have been debited before it was launched. Its a money sink and nothing more.
<br> <br>
If you don't believe me then please point to all the publication of first class peer reviewed research  that they have done there? I will then point you to the dozens more publication from other missions that have cost a fraction of the money (hubble, mars rovers and many others).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISS provides nothing useful at all .
It should have been debited before it was launched .
Its a money sink and nothing more .
If you do n't believe me then please point to all the publication of first class peer reviewed research that they have done there ?
I will then point you to the dozens more publication from other missions that have cost a fraction of the money ( hubble , mars rovers and many others ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISS provides nothing useful at all.
It should have been debited before it was launched.
Its a money sink and nothing more.
If you don't believe me then please point to all the publication of first class peer reviewed research  that they have done there?
I will then point you to the dozens more publication from other missions that have cost a fraction of the money (hubble, mars rovers and many others).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676375</id>
	<title>Re:W.T.F.</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1247500440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly new. The Apollo missions took years to build, and had a total mission length of about two weeks. Military aircraft have a design life of 5000 or so hours, compares to the 70,000 or so of civil aircraft. Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it needs to be long life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly new .
The Apollo missions took years to build , and had a total mission length of about two weeks .
Military aircraft have a design life of 5000 or so hours , compares to the 70,000 or so of civil aircraft .
Just because it is expensive does n't mean it needs to be long life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly new.
The Apollo missions took years to build, and had a total mission length of about two weeks.
Military aircraft have a design life of 5000 or so hours, compares to the 70,000 or so of civil aircraft.
Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it needs to be long life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680703</id>
	<title>Re:3drealms of science?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247514900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not make that date something to the tune of, "Upon becoming too cumbersome to maintain." Or, "Becomes scientifically unecessary."</p></div><p>Because they live in the real world, where hopes and dreams don't keep things flying.  In the real world, you can't keep something running when you can't pay the upkeep necessary to keep it running.  They run out of money for the project in 2015.  Regardless of whether it's too cumbersome or not, or scientifically necessary or not.  They have to deal with reality as it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not make that date something to the tune of , " Upon becoming too cumbersome to maintain .
" Or , " Becomes scientifically unecessary .
" Because they live in the real world , where hopes and dreams do n't keep things flying .
In the real world , you ca n't keep something running when you ca n't pay the upkeep necessary to keep it running .
They run out of money for the project in 2015 .
Regardless of whether it 's too cumbersome or not , or scientifically necessary or not .
They have to deal with reality as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not make that date something to the tune of, "Upon becoming too cumbersome to maintain.
" Or, "Becomes scientifically unecessary.
"Because they live in the real world, where hopes and dreams don't keep things flying.
In the real world, you can't keep something running when you can't pay the upkeep necessary to keep it running.
They run out of money for the project in 2015.
Regardless of whether it's too cumbersome or not, or scientifically necessary or not.
They have to deal with reality as it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678741</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247508120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not expect it to be up there until 2090? I'm sure we can do 80 more years of valuable science in there <b>with the same equipment that is up there now</b>. Not like experimental instruments ever yield all their information, that's why the Tower of Pisa is still a pioneering research center on gravity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not expect it to be up there until 2090 ?
I 'm sure we can do 80 more years of valuable science in there with the same equipment that is up there now .
Not like experimental instruments ever yield all their information , that 's why the Tower of Pisa is still a pioneering research center on gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not expect it to be up there until 2090?
I'm sure we can do 80 more years of valuable science in there with the same equipment that is up there now.
Not like experimental instruments ever yield all their information, that's why the Tower of Pisa is still a pioneering research center on gravity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681057</id>
	<title>Hang on a second...</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1247516340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not even sure that NASA has the power to make that decision.</p><p>The ISS will fall out of orbit without a boost every so often, and can be deliberately de-orbitted with a boost in the other direction. Thing is, NASA isn't going to be boosting the station in 2016. It will be boosted by Russian Progress and European ATV spacecraft, and possibly by other supply craft from other partners or (maybe) private corporations.</p><p>What gives NASA (or more accurately, commentators on NASA) the impression, that with the shuttle retired and Orion only just getting going, they are going to have any real ability to dictate the fate of the ISS? Do Americans just assume they own and control everything without checking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not even sure that NASA has the power to make that decision.The ISS will fall out of orbit without a boost every so often , and can be deliberately de-orbitted with a boost in the other direction .
Thing is , NASA is n't going to be boosting the station in 2016 .
It will be boosted by Russian Progress and European ATV spacecraft , and possibly by other supply craft from other partners or ( maybe ) private corporations.What gives NASA ( or more accurately , commentators on NASA ) the impression , that with the shuttle retired and Orion only just getting going , they are going to have any real ability to dictate the fate of the ISS ?
Do Americans just assume they own and control everything without checking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not even sure that NASA has the power to make that decision.The ISS will fall out of orbit without a boost every so often, and can be deliberately de-orbitted with a boost in the other direction.
Thing is, NASA isn't going to be boosting the station in 2016.
It will be boosted by Russian Progress and European ATV spacecraft, and possibly by other supply craft from other partners or (maybe) private corporations.What gives NASA (or more accurately, commentators on NASA) the impression, that with the shuttle retired and Orion only just getting going, they are going to have any real ability to dictate the fate of the ISS?
Do Americans just assume they own and control everything without checking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678325</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Jedi Holocron</author>
	<datestamp>1247506740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So why did we put it up there in the first place? </p></div><p>To validate the continuation of the Space Shuttle program. Without the ISS the Shuttle was pointless years ago...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why did we put it up there in the first place ?
To validate the continuation of the Space Shuttle program .
Without the ISS the Shuttle was pointless years ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why did we put it up there in the first place?
To validate the continuation of the Space Shuttle program.
Without the ISS the Shuttle was pointless years ago...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677377</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1247503620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the only option is to destroy it?  Moving it is out of the question?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the only option is to destroy it ?
Moving it is out of the question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the only option is to destroy it?
Moving it is out of the question?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676925</id>
	<title>Come on, people</title>
	<author>Deadstick</author>
	<datestamp>1247502060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this is a Washington Monument ploy. It's how government agencies keep the money flowing. Nothing to see here.</p><p>rj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is a Washington Monument ploy .
It 's how government agencies keep the money flowing .
Nothing to see here.rj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is a Washington Monument ploy.
It's how government agencies keep the money flowing.
Nothing to see here.rj</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678473</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247507340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.</p></div></blockquote><p>Other than the fact it's in the wrong orbit and essentially impossible to move to a useful one for that purpose, sure.  Using the ISS to stage to the Moon or Mars is kinda like assembling a fleet in St. Louis for an expedition in the Gulf of Alaska.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if we 're going to the moon and mars , the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.Other than the fact it 's in the wrong orbit and essentially impossible to move to a useful one for that purpose , sure .
Using the ISS to stage to the Moon or Mars is kinda like assembling a fleet in St. Louis for an expedition in the Gulf of Alaska .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.Other than the fact it's in the wrong orbit and essentially impossible to move to a useful one for that purpose, sure.
Using the ISS to stage to the Moon or Mars is kinda like assembling a fleet in St. Louis for an expedition in the Gulf of Alaska.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681551</id>
	<title>Is "Spaceland" threat the real reason to de-orbit?</title>
	<author>dublin</author>
	<datestamp>1247518380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Give the money in well structured grants to the private sector, like Burt Ruttan and Elon Musk, at least they are smaller, leaner and willing to think outside the box</i></p><p>Actually, those two guys may be the biggest reason NASA wants to bring down the entirety of a station it only barely owns half of in the first place!</p><p>Think this out a bit:</p><p>1. Once the shuttle retires, NASA will have no manned spaceflight capabilities to speak of, which the ISS requires to stay up.<br>2. Because of 1, NASA would have to "abandon" the ISS by leaving it unmanned.<br>3. Entrepreneurs and inventors really love a challenge, and a prize.  <b>And the ISS is quite a prize.</b><br>4. Getting someone aboard the ISS may well be legally "taking possession" of it.  (I'm making the plausible assumption that the salvage laws in space would be found to be the same as, or largely similar to, those of the seas.)<br>5.  The ISS cabal definitely doesn't want a spaceborne Sealand, and they'd rather torch a half trillion taxpayer bucks than let that even be a possibility.  Things get worse if you contemplate unfriendly countries occupying the ISS, possibly as an orbiting recon and weapons platform. (NORK-ISS, anyone?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p>This may be a far more credible rationale for "de-orbit" than any bogus "safety" argument:  NASA and the other ISS owners can't keep occupying it, which is the only thing that perpetuates "ownership", and they can't stand the thought of anyone else getting to own it, so they'd rather destroy it.</p><p>Destruction may even be sound policy, depending on the actual strategic risk, although once again, the taxpayers whose wealth was confiscated for this boondoggle get screwed.  I love space technology, but tend to agree with Walter McDougall that <a href="http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1987/2/1987\_2\_24.shtml" title="americanheritage.com">a huge unintended consequence of the space race was to destroy America's private innovation and set us on the road to big government control of our lives</a> [americanheritage.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give the money in well structured grants to the private sector , like Burt Ruttan and Elon Musk , at least they are smaller , leaner and willing to think outside the boxActually , those two guys may be the biggest reason NASA wants to bring down the entirety of a station it only barely owns half of in the first place ! Think this out a bit : 1 .
Once the shuttle retires , NASA will have no manned spaceflight capabilities to speak of , which the ISS requires to stay up.2 .
Because of 1 , NASA would have to " abandon " the ISS by leaving it unmanned.3 .
Entrepreneurs and inventors really love a challenge , and a prize .
And the ISS is quite a prize.4 .
Getting someone aboard the ISS may well be legally " taking possession " of it .
( I 'm making the plausible assumption that the salvage laws in space would be found to be the same as , or largely similar to , those of the seas. ) 5 .
The ISS cabal definitely does n't want a spaceborne Sealand , and they 'd rather torch a half trillion taxpayer bucks than let that even be a possibility .
Things get worse if you contemplate unfriendly countries occupying the ISS , possibly as an orbiting recon and weapons platform .
( NORK-ISS , anyone ?
; - ) ) This may be a far more credible rationale for " de-orbit " than any bogus " safety " argument : NASA and the other ISS owners ca n't keep occupying it , which is the only thing that perpetuates " ownership " , and they ca n't stand the thought of anyone else getting to own it , so they 'd rather destroy it.Destruction may even be sound policy , depending on the actual strategic risk , although once again , the taxpayers whose wealth was confiscated for this boondoggle get screwed .
I love space technology , but tend to agree with Walter McDougall that a huge unintended consequence of the space race was to destroy America 's private innovation and set us on the road to big government control of our lives [ americanheritage.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give the money in well structured grants to the private sector, like Burt Ruttan and Elon Musk, at least they are smaller, leaner and willing to think outside the boxActually, those two guys may be the biggest reason NASA wants to bring down the entirety of a station it only barely owns half of in the first place!Think this out a bit:1.
Once the shuttle retires, NASA will have no manned spaceflight capabilities to speak of, which the ISS requires to stay up.2.
Because of 1, NASA would have to "abandon" the ISS by leaving it unmanned.3.
Entrepreneurs and inventors really love a challenge, and a prize.
And the ISS is quite a prize.4.
Getting someone aboard the ISS may well be legally "taking possession" of it.
(I'm making the plausible assumption that the salvage laws in space would be found to be the same as, or largely similar to, those of the seas.)5.
The ISS cabal definitely doesn't want a spaceborne Sealand, and they'd rather torch a half trillion taxpayer bucks than let that even be a possibility.
Things get worse if you contemplate unfriendly countries occupying the ISS, possibly as an orbiting recon and weapons platform.
(NORK-ISS, anyone?
;-))This may be a far more credible rationale for "de-orbit" than any bogus "safety" argument:  NASA and the other ISS owners can't keep occupying it, which is the only thing that perpetuates "ownership", and they can't stand the thought of anyone else getting to own it, so they'd rather destroy it.Destruction may even be sound policy, depending on the actual strategic risk, although once again, the taxpayers whose wealth was confiscated for this boondoggle get screwed.
I love space technology, but tend to agree with Walter McDougall that a huge unintended consequence of the space race was to destroy America's private innovation and set us on the road to big government control of our lives [americanheritage.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677115</id>
	<title>Re:Send it to orbit the moon or Mars</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1247502660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>It's not a rocket designed to withstand the massive thrust needed for such a move.<br>It's not a lander designed to set down on the Moon.<br>It's not a re-entry vehicle designed to enter that Martian atmosphere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a rocket designed to withstand the massive thrust needed for such a move.It 's not a lander designed to set down on the Moon.It 's not a re-entry vehicle designed to enter that Martian atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a rocket designed to withstand the massive thrust needed for such a move.It's not a lander designed to set down on the Moon.It's not a re-entry vehicle designed to enter that Martian atmosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677319</id>
	<title>!Permanent</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1247503440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are we <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/0222214/ISS-Launches-First-Permanent-Node-of-Interplanetary-Internet" title="slashdot.org">installing 'vital' equipment</a> [slashdot.org] on something we're going to let burn up in the atmosphere?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we installing 'vital ' equipment [ slashdot.org ] on something we 're going to let burn up in the atmosphere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we installing 'vital' equipment [slashdot.org] on something we're going to let burn up in the atmosphere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678439</id>
	<title>Re:Send it to orbit the moon or Mars</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247507160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Couldn't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.  First, there is the enormous amount of fuel required (think thousands of Shuttle launches).  Second, the ISS isn't shielded for the more intense radiation environment beyond the Van Allen belts (let alone the many times worse environment inside the Belts).  Third, the ISS is designed for the (relatively) warm and benign thermal environment of LEO, not the frozen hell of Lunar orbit (let alone the even colder environment of Martian orbit).<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>You never know when you need it and having it parked in orbit for that time you wished you had, might be wiser than destroying it.</p></div></blockquote><p>In it's current altitude band, it will reenter within a couple of years without constant (and expensive) reboosting.  Boosting it to an altitude where it will have enough orbital life to keep it around for decade or two puts it above the altitude that any current or planned manned spacecraft can reach.  Lastly, due to the large fuel requirements for changing orbital planes and altitudes, ISS is (regardless of orbit) essentially unreachable except for missions launched deliberately to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars ? No .
First , there is the enormous amount of fuel required ( think thousands of Shuttle launches ) .
Second , the ISS is n't shielded for the more intense radiation environment beyond the Van Allen belts ( let alone the many times worse environment inside the Belts ) .
Third , the ISS is designed for the ( relatively ) warm and benign thermal environment of LEO , not the frozen hell of Lunar orbit ( let alone the even colder environment of Martian orbit ) .
    You never know when you need it and having it parked in orbit for that time you wished you had , might be wiser than destroying it.In it 's current altitude band , it will reenter within a couple of years without constant ( and expensive ) reboosting .
Boosting it to an altitude where it will have enough orbital life to keep it around for decade or two puts it above the altitude that any current or planned manned spacecraft can reach .
Lastly , due to the large fuel requirements for changing orbital planes and altitudes , ISS is ( regardless of orbit ) essentially unreachable except for missions launched deliberately to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars?No.
First, there is the enormous amount of fuel required (think thousands of Shuttle launches).
Second, the ISS isn't shielded for the more intense radiation environment beyond the Van Allen belts (let alone the many times worse environment inside the Belts).
Third, the ISS is designed for the (relatively) warm and benign thermal environment of LEO, not the frozen hell of Lunar orbit (let alone the even colder environment of Martian orbit).
  
  You never know when you need it and having it parked in orbit for that time you wished you had, might be wiser than destroying it.In it's current altitude band, it will reenter within a couple of years without constant (and expensive) reboosting.
Boosting it to an altitude where it will have enough orbital life to keep it around for decade or two puts it above the altitude that any current or planned manned spacecraft can reach.
Lastly, due to the large fuel requirements for changing orbital planes and altitudes, ISS is (regardless of orbit) essentially unreachable except for missions launched deliberately to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676249</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1247499900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$100 billion dollars is a lot of money just to burn it up in less than 20 years,</p></div><p>We could have put people on Mars for that money.</p><p>Of course then you burn that money in an even short amount of time, but then at least we'd have put people on Mars. The amount of money you spend is irrelevant if you don't take into account what you get back for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 100 billion dollars is a lot of money just to burn it up in less than 20 years,We could have put people on Mars for that money.Of course then you burn that money in an even short amount of time , but then at least we 'd have put people on Mars .
The amount of money you spend is irrelevant if you do n't take into account what you get back for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$100 billion dollars is a lot of money just to burn it up in less than 20 years,We could have put people on Mars for that money.Of course then you burn that money in an even short amount of time, but then at least we'd have put people on Mars.
The amount of money you spend is irrelevant if you don't take into account what you get back for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677305</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1247503380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The profit was for the contractors, and occurred at step 1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The profit was for the contractors , and occurred at step 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The profit was for the contractors, and occurred at step 1...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679011</id>
	<title>Re:Think outside the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're going to deorbit it, why waste it on the ocean?  At least drop it on a country we don't like.  Or on <a href="http://images.southparkstudios.com/crap/downloads/preview\_image\_thumbnail.php?id=1608" title="southparkstudios.com" rel="nofollow">Kenny</a> [southparkstudios.com].</p></div><p>Drop it on Australia again; because:</p><p>1.   We could use another tourist attraction. http://www.nachohat.org/gallery/nullabor\_balladonia\_skylab</p><p>2.   It would be nifty to have to whole set of American Space Stations.</p><p>3.   Most of our wildlife already bounces nicely, so they won't be too worried about a bloody Big thump.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to deorbit it , why waste it on the ocean ?
At least drop it on a country we do n't like .
Or on Kenny [ southparkstudios.com ] .Drop it on Australia again ; because : 1 .
We could use another tourist attraction .
http : //www.nachohat.org/gallery/nullabor \ _balladonia \ _skylab2. It would be nifty to have to whole set of American Space Stations.3 .
Most of our wildlife already bounces nicely , so they wo n't be too worried about a bloody Big thump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to deorbit it, why waste it on the ocean?
At least drop it on a country we don't like.
Or on Kenny [southparkstudios.com].Drop it on Australia again; because:1.
We could use another tourist attraction.
http://www.nachohat.org/gallery/nullabor\_balladonia\_skylab2.   It would be nifty to have to whole set of American Space Stations.3.
Most of our wildlife already bounces nicely, so they won't be too worried about a bloody Big thump.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684765</id>
	<title>How About Another Use for ISS</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1247491440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not boost ISS to a Lagrange Point and use it as a platform for building other vehicles for Logistics, and vehicles for further exploration?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not boost ISS to a Lagrange Point and use it as a platform for building other vehicles for Logistics , and vehicles for further exploration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not boost ISS to a Lagrange Point and use it as a platform for building other vehicles for Logistics, and vehicles for further exploration?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761</id>
	<title>Next stop...</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1247497800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...space port? Imagine it, we build a space port in geosynchronous orbit. It would decrease the necessity to have massive quantities of fuel expended for vehicles to reach orbital velocity since you'd already be at speed at launch time. They could plan for modularized spacecraft, and then simply deliver them to the port for construction and deployment. If a space elevator were ever to be built, it could serve as the end linkage. There are a ton of possibilities, and I think its ultimately where we're headed. So why not swing for the stars (no pun intended)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...space port ?
Imagine it , we build a space port in geosynchronous orbit .
It would decrease the necessity to have massive quantities of fuel expended for vehicles to reach orbital velocity since you 'd already be at speed at launch time .
They could plan for modularized spacecraft , and then simply deliver them to the port for construction and deployment .
If a space elevator were ever to be built , it could serve as the end linkage .
There are a ton of possibilities , and I think its ultimately where we 're headed .
So why not swing for the stars ( no pun intended ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...space port?
Imagine it, we build a space port in geosynchronous orbit.
It would decrease the necessity to have massive quantities of fuel expended for vehicles to reach orbital velocity since you'd already be at speed at launch time.
They could plan for modularized spacecraft, and then simply deliver them to the port for construction and deployment.
If a space elevator were ever to be built, it could serve as the end linkage.
There are a ton of possibilities, and I think its ultimately where we're headed.
So why not swing for the stars (no pun intended)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675943</id>
	<title>First we need to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247498640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Deorbit Washington</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deorbit Washington</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deorbit Washington</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678583</id>
	<title>Re:If true, NASA funding will be even harder to fi</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247507700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way.</p></div><p>So you're saying if NASA doesn't waste money keeping a bunch of completed experiment modules in space the US taxpayer will cut NASA's funding for wasting money?<br> <br>

I really feel bad for NASA..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , we 've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we 've had there , but the US taxpayer wo n't think of it that way.So you 're saying if NASA does n't waste money keeping a bunch of completed experiment modules in space the US taxpayer will cut NASA 's funding for wasting money ?
I really feel bad for NASA. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way.So you're saying if NASA doesn't waste money keeping a bunch of completed experiment modules in space the US taxpayer will cut NASA's funding for wasting money?
I really feel bad for NASA..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680275</id>
	<title>Re:What gives them the right</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247513040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to say when or if it should be destroyed.</p></div><p>Nothing gives them the right, unfortunately.  If it were up to them, they'd keep it up there.  But since they don't have the right to do that, they'll be forced to bring it down.  From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"If we've spent a hundred billion dollars, I don't think we want to shut it down in 2015," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told Augustine's committee.</p><p>Suffredini [the NASA head who was there announcing the plan] agrees. </p></div><p>It's a bad idea.  NASA agrees it's a good idea.  NASA doesn't <i>want</i> to shut it down in 2015.  But if no one comes up with the money to keep it going, it'll have to be shut down in 2015.  If you don't want it shut down, come up with the money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... to say when or if it should be destroyed.Nothing gives them the right , unfortunately .
If it were up to them , they 'd keep it up there .
But since they do n't have the right to do that , they 'll be forced to bring it down .
From TFA : " If we 've spent a hundred billion dollars , I do n't think we want to shut it down in 2015 , " Sen. Bill Nelson ( D-Fla. ) told Augustine 's committee.Suffredini [ the NASA head who was there announcing the plan ] agrees .
It 's a bad idea .
NASA agrees it 's a good idea .
NASA does n't want to shut it down in 2015 .
But if no one comes up with the money to keep it going , it 'll have to be shut down in 2015 .
If you do n't want it shut down , come up with the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... to say when or if it should be destroyed.Nothing gives them the right, unfortunately.
If it were up to them, they'd keep it up there.
But since they don't have the right to do that, they'll be forced to bring it down.
From TFA:"If we've spent a hundred billion dollars, I don't think we want to shut it down in 2015," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told Augustine's committee.Suffredini [the NASA head who was there announcing the plan] agrees.
It's a bad idea.
NASA agrees it's a good idea.
NASA doesn't want to shut it down in 2015.
But if no one comes up with the money to keep it going, it'll have to be shut down in 2015.
If you don't want it shut down, come up with the money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678613</id>
	<title>Re:What gives them the right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247507760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an alternative could be to abandon it and let the other countries pick up the slack, saving the option to blow it up should its orbit destabilize over the United States due to a lack of support from the other countries.</p><p>in this case perhaps they were willing to abandon the ISS and nobody ccame forward with the means to keep it up there.  you can't expect the United States to shoulder the costs so that the rest of the world has a space station.  the US doesn't owe anyone that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an alternative could be to abandon it and let the other countries pick up the slack , saving the option to blow it up should its orbit destabilize over the United States due to a lack of support from the other countries.in this case perhaps they were willing to abandon the ISS and nobody ccame forward with the means to keep it up there .
you ca n't expect the United States to shoulder the costs so that the rest of the world has a space station .
the US does n't owe anyone that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an alternative could be to abandon it and let the other countries pick up the slack, saving the option to blow it up should its orbit destabilize over the United States due to a lack of support from the other countries.in this case perhaps they were willing to abandon the ISS and nobody ccame forward with the means to keep it up there.
you can't expect the United States to shoulder the costs so that the rest of the world has a space station.
the US doesn't owe anyone that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676771</id>
	<title>Insurance scam?</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1247501580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they have a fat policy on it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they have a fat policy on it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they have a fat policy on it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676415</id>
	<title>Re:First we need to...</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1247500560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what if it doesn't entirely burn up?  That could create a second Detroit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if it does n't entirely burn up ?
That could create a second Detroit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if it doesn't entirely burn up?
That could create a second Detroit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679243</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1247509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL. Or, another way to look at it, is we could have put up a dozen more space stations for what we've spent on that war so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
Or , another way to look at it , is we could have put up a dozen more space stations for what we 've spent on that war so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
Or, another way to look at it, is we could have put up a dozen more space stations for what we've spent on that war so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677057</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1247502480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?</i> <br> <br>Well, the Russians bolloxed that up.   In order to encourage Russian participation in the ISS, the station's orbit was set at 51 degrees.  This would allow the Russians to launch from their high lattitude launch facilites.  (The greater the latitude, the greater the orbit inclination.)  Unfortunately, this means that the ISS is in a pretty much useless orbit when it comes to being a staging area for assembling and launching spacecraft to other planets.  For that purpose, you'd want the station to be orbiting in the same plane as the ecliptic: 23.5 degrees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions ?
Well , the Russians bolloxed that up .
In order to encourage Russian participation in the ISS , the station 's orbit was set at 51 degrees .
This would allow the Russians to launch from their high lattitude launch facilites .
( The greater the latitude , the greater the orbit inclination .
) Unfortunately , this means that the ISS is in a pretty much useless orbit when it comes to being a staging area for assembling and launching spacecraft to other planets .
For that purpose , you 'd want the station to be orbiting in the same plane as the ecliptic : 23.5 degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?
Well, the Russians bolloxed that up.
In order to encourage Russian participation in the ISS, the station's orbit was set at 51 degrees.
This would allow the Russians to launch from their high lattitude launch facilites.
(The greater the latitude, the greater the orbit inclination.
)  Unfortunately, this means that the ISS is in a pretty much useless orbit when it comes to being a staging area for assembling and launching spacecraft to other planets.
For that purpose, you'd want the station to be orbiting in the same plane as the ecliptic: 23.5 degrees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676071</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247499120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't wait for my girlfriend (and her pussy) to get back from vacation</p></div><p>As opposed to your girlfriend leaving her pussy on vacation?  I think I saw something about that in the National Enquirer once.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for my girlfriend ( and her pussy ) to get back from vacationAs opposed to your girlfriend leaving her pussy on vacation ?
I think I saw something about that in the National Enquirer once.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for my girlfriend (and her pussy) to get back from vacationAs opposed to your girlfriend leaving her pussy on vacation?
I think I saw something about that in the National Enquirer once.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676173</id>
	<title>Re:Next stop...</title>
	<author>Ambitwistor</author>
	<datestamp>1247499540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you want to put a space port in <em>geosynchronous</em> orbit?  It's harder to get there than to LEO, and I don't see any benefit of locating a space port over a stationary point on the Earth's surface, which is the only advantage of GEO.  ("Future endpoint of a space elevator" doesn't sound like a very practical justification to me.)</p><p>(And a space port would decrease the necessity to expend fuel to reach orbital velocity?  As others have pointed out, whatever you launch from the port, or its raw materials, needs to get to the space port somehow, so you're not saving fuel that way.  You might save fuel if you build everything on the Moon and ship it from there instead of from Earth, but that presumes a moon base or factory too.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you want to put a space port in geosynchronous orbit ?
It 's harder to get there than to LEO , and I do n't see any benefit of locating a space port over a stationary point on the Earth 's surface , which is the only advantage of GEO .
( " Future endpoint of a space elevator " does n't sound like a very practical justification to me .
) ( And a space port would decrease the necessity to expend fuel to reach orbital velocity ?
As others have pointed out , whatever you launch from the port , or its raw materials , needs to get to the space port somehow , so you 're not saving fuel that way .
You might save fuel if you build everything on the Moon and ship it from there instead of from Earth , but that presumes a moon base or factory too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you want to put a space port in geosynchronous orbit?
It's harder to get there than to LEO, and I don't see any benefit of locating a space port over a stationary point on the Earth's surface, which is the only advantage of GEO.
("Future endpoint of a space elevator" doesn't sound like a very practical justification to me.
)(And a space port would decrease the necessity to expend fuel to reach orbital velocity?
As others have pointed out, whatever you launch from the port, or its raw materials, needs to get to the space port somehow, so you're not saving fuel that way.
You might save fuel if you build everything on the Moon and ship it from there instead of from Earth, but that presumes a moon base or factory too.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680823</id>
	<title>Re:If true, NASA funding will be even harder to fi</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247515440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now.</p></div><p>You would prefer they keep quiet about it until they actually run out of money, then deorbit it without telling anyone?  Or do you have some magical plan they should be following where they plan on keeping the ISS up without spending a dime on it?  Alas, NASA has to deal with the real world of facts.  The station can't be kept in orbit with good intentions alone.  When the money runs out, the station comes down.  The only question is, whether it comes down in a controlled or an uncontrolled manner.  It's good that they plan to bring it down in a controlled manner.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now.You would prefer they keep quiet about it until they actually run out of money , then deorbit it without telling anyone ?
Or do you have some magical plan they should be following where they plan on keeping the ISS up without spending a dime on it ?
Alas , NASA has to deal with the real world of facts .
The station ca n't be kept in orbit with good intentions alone .
When the money runs out , the station comes down .
The only question is , whether it comes down in a controlled or an uncontrolled manner .
It 's good that they plan to bring it down in a controlled manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now.You would prefer they keep quiet about it until they actually run out of money, then deorbit it without telling anyone?
Or do you have some magical plan they should be following where they plan on keeping the ISS up without spending a dime on it?
Alas, NASA has to deal with the real world of facts.
The station can't be kept in orbit with good intentions alone.
When the money runs out, the station comes down.
The only question is, whether it comes down in a controlled or an uncontrolled manner.
It's good that they plan to bring it down in a controlled manner.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680769</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1247515200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines</p></div><p>
So, you're saying they'll de-orbit in 2014? Missing deadlines goes <i>both ways</i> with NASA. It's usually earlier when they intertwine politics into the decision making.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines So , you 're saying they 'll de-orbit in 2014 ?
Missing deadlines goes both ways with NASA .
It 's usually earlier when they intertwine politics into the decision making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines
So, you're saying they'll de-orbit in 2014?
Missing deadlines goes both ways with NASA.
It's usually earlier when they intertwine politics into the decision making.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675827</id>
	<title>Wait, before you do!</title>
	<author>SickFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247498160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Build another one, then de-orbit both of them. Why build and destroy one when you can do two for twice the price?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Build another one , then de-orbit both of them .
Why build and destroy one when you can do two for twice the price ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build another one, then de-orbit both of them.
Why build and destroy one when you can do two for twice the price?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678263</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste</title>
	<author>acehunter</author>
	<datestamp>1247506440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not?  Cats need a vacation too.  What are you, pro-dog?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
Cats need a vacation too .
What are you , pro-dog ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
Cats need a vacation too.
What are you, pro-dog?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679511</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1247510700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean</i></p><p>Right, because that would be like spending <a href="http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/budget/index.shtml" title="doe.gov">five billion or so on disposing of nuclear waste</a> [doe.gov] and then <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleasesMolt/idUSTRE5464A020090507" title="reuters.com">shutting the program down after 25 years without disposing of any nuclear waste</a> [reuters.com] and leaving the United States as one of the few countries in the developed world without an ongoing waste disposal strategy.</p><p>Surely no government would ever do that!</p><p>Politics is probably in play here:  with the shuttle phased out, there will be no big $ for American contractors to support the IIS, because launch costs are going to be the greater part of ongoing costs.  So the US government would be in a position of spending a lot of money on foreign launch vehicles, which means "No pork for you!" with regard to domestic campaign contributors.</p><p>Ergo, the US government would be supporting an international effort that would not feed back much of anything in terms of pork barrel spending into the domestic economy.  Since pork is one of the major means by which the Party maintains control of the state, this is unacceptable.</p><p>Furthermore, because the US is an imperial power, it can't afford to be seen as weak or second-rate, so if it ceases to participate in the ISS the station must come down, because otherwise foreigners would have "the high ground."</p><p>If something doesn't make sense, there is usually politics behind it, and behind the politics there is usually money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , after all the money we 've spent , I do n't see them just plopping it into the oceanRight , because that would be like spending five billion or so on disposing of nuclear waste [ doe.gov ] and then shutting the program down after 25 years without disposing of any nuclear waste [ reuters.com ] and leaving the United States as one of the few countries in the developed world without an ongoing waste disposal strategy.Surely no government would ever do that ! Politics is probably in play here : with the shuttle phased out , there will be no big $ for American contractors to support the IIS , because launch costs are going to be the greater part of ongoing costs .
So the US government would be in a position of spending a lot of money on foreign launch vehicles , which means " No pork for you !
" with regard to domestic campaign contributors.Ergo , the US government would be supporting an international effort that would not feed back much of anything in terms of pork barrel spending into the domestic economy .
Since pork is one of the major means by which the Party maintains control of the state , this is unacceptable.Furthermore , because the US is an imperial power , it ca n't afford to be seen as weak or second-rate , so if it ceases to participate in the ISS the station must come down , because otherwise foreigners would have " the high ground .
" If something does n't make sense , there is usually politics behind it , and behind the politics there is usually money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the oceanRight, because that would be like spending five billion or so on disposing of nuclear waste [doe.gov] and then shutting the program down after 25 years without disposing of any nuclear waste [reuters.com] and leaving the United States as one of the few countries in the developed world without an ongoing waste disposal strategy.Surely no government would ever do that!Politics is probably in play here:  with the shuttle phased out, there will be no big $ for American contractors to support the IIS, because launch costs are going to be the greater part of ongoing costs.
So the US government would be in a position of spending a lot of money on foreign launch vehicles, which means "No pork for you!
" with regard to domestic campaign contributors.Ergo, the US government would be supporting an international effort that would not feed back much of anything in terms of pork barrel spending into the domestic economy.
Since pork is one of the major means by which the Party maintains control of the state, this is unacceptable.Furthermore, because the US is an imperial power, it can't afford to be seen as weak or second-rate, so if it ceases to participate in the ISS the station must come down, because otherwise foreigners would have "the high ground.
"If something doesn't make sense, there is usually politics behind it, and behind the politics there is usually money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678193</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247506200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, I remember all that talk - because that's all it was, talk among people who haven't kept up with the times or don't know what they are talking about.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Being a base for staging missions was an early feature of Space Station Freedom.  That feature was deferred during one of the rounds of redesign/down scoping (in the late 1980's) and removed completely when Freedom became ISS in the early 1990's.  The change of orbital inclination to accommodate the Russians essentially made it impractical to stage missions from the station because of the resulting low altitude and lowered cargo capacity (because of the payload hit required for launches other than Russian to the new orbit).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions ? Yes , I remember all that talk - because that 's all it was , talk among people who have n't kept up with the times or do n't know what they are talking about .
  Being a base for staging missions was an early feature of Space Station Freedom .
That feature was deferred during one of the rounds of redesign/down scoping ( in the late 1980 's ) and removed completely when Freedom became ISS in the early 1990 's .
The change of orbital inclination to accommodate the Russians essentially made it impractical to stage missions from the station because of the resulting low altitude and lowered cargo capacity ( because of the payload hit required for launches other than Russian to the new orbit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?Yes, I remember all that talk - because that's all it was, talk among people who haven't kept up with the times or don't know what they are talking about.
  Being a base for staging missions was an early feature of Space Station Freedom.
That feature was deferred during one of the rounds of redesign/down scoping (in the late 1980's) and removed completely when Freedom became ISS in the early 1990's.
The change of orbital inclination to accommodate the Russians essentially made it impractical to stage missions from the station because of the resulting low altitude and lowered cargo capacity (because of the payload hit required for launches other than Russian to the new orbit).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684713</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>Anenome</author>
	<datestamp>1247491080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to understand the long term plans here. The US wants to have space stations that are wholly our own. While the ISS was fun for practicing what it took to run a space station, we've largely learned those lessons now.</p><p>One forecaster thinks the US will have manned 'Battlestar' class space stationsfby 2050, protected by constellations of support satellites designed to provide military support and surveillance of the entire world from space using three constellation clusters strategically placed in orbit.</p><p>For that to work, the ISS eventually needs to be disposed of. So, look at this not so much as a waste of taxpayer money so much as a time-frame for the next development in space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to understand the long term plans here .
The US wants to have space stations that are wholly our own .
While the ISS was fun for practicing what it took to run a space station , we 've largely learned those lessons now.One forecaster thinks the US will have manned 'Battlestar ' class space stationsfby 2050 , protected by constellations of support satellites designed to provide military support and surveillance of the entire world from space using three constellation clusters strategically placed in orbit.For that to work , the ISS eventually needs to be disposed of .
So , look at this not so much as a waste of taxpayer money so much as a time-frame for the next development in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to understand the long term plans here.
The US wants to have space stations that are wholly our own.
While the ISS was fun for practicing what it took to run a space station, we've largely learned those lessons now.One forecaster thinks the US will have manned 'Battlestar' class space stationsfby 2050, protected by constellations of support satellites designed to provide military support and surveillance of the entire world from space using three constellation clusters strategically placed in orbit.For that to work, the ISS eventually needs to be disposed of.
So, look at this not so much as a waste of taxpayer money so much as a time-frame for the next development in space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676081</id>
	<title>3drealms of science?</title>
	<author>Kurusuki</author>
	<datestamp>1247499180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this? Spend a dozen years creating possibly the second most sophisticated piece of scientific equipment only to blow it up on a predefined time table? Why not make that date something to the tune of, "Upon becoming too cumbersome to maintain." Or, "Becomes scientifically unecessary." Why is it you have to state ahead of time that it will only last 5 or so years? It's not like you have to state how long something is going to last, we all know how well that went with the Mars rovers.


&gt;&gt; Okay guys, we've worked 12 years on her and she's finally done. 'aint she a beaut&#195;&#169;?  Okay boys, take her down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this ?
Spend a dozen years creating possibly the second most sophisticated piece of scientific equipment only to blow it up on a predefined time table ?
Why not make that date something to the tune of , " Upon becoming too cumbersome to maintain .
" Or , " Becomes scientifically unecessary .
" Why is it you have to state ahead of time that it will only last 5 or so years ?
It 's not like you have to state how long something is going to last , we all know how well that went with the Mars rovers .
&gt; &gt; Okay guys , we 've worked 12 years on her and she 's finally done .
'aint she a beaut     ?
Okay boys , take her down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this?
Spend a dozen years creating possibly the second most sophisticated piece of scientific equipment only to blow it up on a predefined time table?
Why not make that date something to the tune of, "Upon becoming too cumbersome to maintain.
" Or, "Becomes scientifically unecessary.
" Why is it you have to state ahead of time that it will only last 5 or so years?
It's not like you have to state how long something is going to last, we all know how well that went with the Mars rovers.
&gt;&gt; Okay guys, we've worked 12 years on her and she's finally done.
'aint she a beautÃ©?
Okay boys, take her down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677891</id>
	<title>Re:Send it to orbit the moon or Mars</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1247505420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Couldn't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars?</p></div><p>I doubt it.</p><p>To move it out of low earth orbit, you would need a large amount of force.  The station weights about 370 metric tonnes, and would need to accurate by about 3.5 kilometres per second to reach escape velocity.</p><p>The shuttle's orbital engines will give you 53.4 kN of force for 21 minutes. Using that to push the ISS out of orbit would take about 7 hours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars ? I doubt it.To move it out of low earth orbit , you would need a large amount of force .
The station weights about 370 metric tonnes , and would need to accurate by about 3.5 kilometres per second to reach escape velocity.The shuttle 's orbital engines will give you 53.4 kN of force for 21 minutes .
Using that to push the ISS out of orbit would take about 7 hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars?I doubt it.To move it out of low earth orbit, you would need a large amount of force.
The station weights about 370 metric tonnes, and would need to accurate by about 3.5 kilometres per second to reach escape velocity.The shuttle's orbital engines will give you 53.4 kN of force for 21 minutes.
Using that to push the ISS out of orbit would take about 7 hours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678133</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1247506080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would have been great, and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind, but the ISS can't do it. You need a station in orbit around the equator for that</p></div></blockquote><p>No, ideally you want an orbit in the plane of the ecliptic to do that, not the Equator.
</p><p>The Equator is inclined 23.44 degrees from the ecliptic, so a station orbiting at the Equator would have just as much trouble as the current ISS for a launch to Mars, the Moon, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would have been great , and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind , but the ISS ca n't do it .
You need a station in orbit around the equator for thatNo , ideally you want an orbit in the plane of the ecliptic to do that , not the Equator .
The Equator is inclined 23.44 degrees from the ecliptic , so a station orbiting at the Equator would have just as much trouble as the current ISS for a launch to Mars , the Moon , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would have been great, and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind, but the ISS can't do it.
You need a station in orbit around the equator for thatNo, ideally you want an orbit in the plane of the ecliptic to do that, not the Equator.
The Equator is inclined 23.44 degrees from the ecliptic, so a station orbiting at the Equator would have just as much trouble as the current ISS for a launch to Mars, the Moon, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676433</id>
	<title>Re:Next stop...</title>
	<author>imroy</author>
	<datestamp>1247500620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine it, we build a space port in geosynchronous orbit. It would decrease the necessity to have massive quantities of fuel expended for vehicles to reach orbital velocity since you'd already be at speed at launch time.</p></div><p>Um, geosynchronous orbit (GEO) is a long way out - 36 000 km. It's a very high orbit compared to most other things we put into orbit. When a GEO satellite is launched, the rocket only launches it into a "geosynchronous transfer orbit" (GTO); a large booster then gives it enough delta-V to get up into GEO. Your idea would certainly not decrease the need for fuel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine it , we build a space port in geosynchronous orbit .
It would decrease the necessity to have massive quantities of fuel expended for vehicles to reach orbital velocity since you 'd already be at speed at launch time.Um , geosynchronous orbit ( GEO ) is a long way out - 36 000 km .
It 's a very high orbit compared to most other things we put into orbit .
When a GEO satellite is launched , the rocket only launches it into a " geosynchronous transfer orbit " ( GTO ) ; a large booster then gives it enough delta-V to get up into GEO .
Your idea would certainly not decrease the need for fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine it, we build a space port in geosynchronous orbit.
It would decrease the necessity to have massive quantities of fuel expended for vehicles to reach orbital velocity since you'd already be at speed at launch time.Um, geosynchronous orbit (GEO) is a long way out - 36 000 km.
It's a very high orbit compared to most other things we put into orbit.
When a GEO satellite is launched, the rocket only launches it into a "geosynchronous transfer orbit" (GTO); a large booster then gives it enough delta-V to get up into GEO.
Your idea would certainly not decrease the need for fuel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687761</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite what the article implies</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1247563140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope not. They should have dumped that piece of junk 10 years ago. Its does nothing but cost a *lot* of money... to do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. nothing....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope not .
They should have dumped that piece of junk 10 years ago .
Its does nothing but cost a * lot * of money... to do .. nothing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope not.
They should have dumped that piece of junk 10 years ago.
Its does nothing but cost a *lot* of money... to do .. nothing....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1247499600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines. Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days? They've been at it for years now. The date will be pushed back over and over again.</p></div><p>I hope you're right, but de-orbiting the ISS is a somewhat different matter than a Mars rover breaking down. You can't predict when a breakdown occurs, and as long as it doesn't, it's cheap to keep using it.</p><p>De-orbiting the ISS is an active choice, however. It's expensive to keep manned and operational. I suppose they could simply abandon it and leave it up there, but it's going to come down eventually. If I understand correctly, its orbit is so low that it experiences drag from Earth's atmosphere, which means it regularly needs a boost, and therefore fuel. I guess they prefer to have it come down in a controlled manner, so nobody gets hit on the head with the thing.</p><p>(I may have started by expressing the hope that the ISS stays up there for a while, but I'm not at all sure that's a good idea. Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever. So why did we put it up there in the first place? Shouldn't we be figuring out how to mine asteroids instead?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines .
Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days ?
They 've been at it for years now .
The date will be pushed back over and over again.I hope you 're right , but de-orbiting the ISS is a somewhat different matter than a Mars rover breaking down .
You ca n't predict when a breakdown occurs , and as long as it does n't , it 's cheap to keep using it.De-orbiting the ISS is an active choice , however .
It 's expensive to keep manned and operational .
I suppose they could simply abandon it and leave it up there , but it 's going to come down eventually .
If I understand correctly , its orbit is so low that it experiences drag from Earth 's atmosphere , which means it regularly needs a boost , and therefore fuel .
I guess they prefer to have it come down in a controlled manner , so nobody gets hit on the head with the thing .
( I may have started by expressing the hope that the ISS stays up there for a while , but I 'm not at all sure that 's a good idea .
Critics say it 's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever .
So why did we put it up there in the first place ?
Should n't we be figuring out how to mine asteroids instead ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines.
Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days?
They've been at it for years now.
The date will be pushed back over and over again.I hope you're right, but de-orbiting the ISS is a somewhat different matter than a Mars rover breaking down.
You can't predict when a breakdown occurs, and as long as it doesn't, it's cheap to keep using it.De-orbiting the ISS is an active choice, however.
It's expensive to keep manned and operational.
I suppose they could simply abandon it and leave it up there, but it's going to come down eventually.
If I understand correctly, its orbit is so low that it experiences drag from Earth's atmosphere, which means it regularly needs a boost, and therefore fuel.
I guess they prefer to have it come down in a controlled manner, so nobody gets hit on the head with the thing.
(I may have started by expressing the hope that the ISS stays up there for a while, but I'm not at all sure that's a good idea.
Critics say it's a waste of money with no scientific value whatsoever.
So why did we put it up there in the first place?
Shouldn't we be figuring out how to mine asteroids instead?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676469</id>
	<title>Give it a telescope and hi-res ground imaging</title>
	<author>clyde\_cadiddlehopper</author>
	<datestamp>1247500680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A steady stream of pretty pictures seems to keep satellites aloft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A steady stream of pretty pictures seems to keep satellites aloft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A steady stream of pretty pictures seems to keep satellites aloft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28689729</id>
	<title>Re:Guess the Permanent Interplanetary Internet Nod</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't really permanent, eh?</p></div><p>Perhaps not really an ISS, huh?</p><p>Maybe an ASS...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't really permanent , eh ? Perhaps not really an ISS , huh ? Maybe an ASS.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't really permanent, eh?Perhaps not really an ISS, huh?Maybe an ASS...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676467</id>
	<title>Stop...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247500680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop the wars in Iraq, Pipelinistan ehrm...Afghanistan, etc, pull the USAsians back and the ISS can stay afloat a nice number of extra years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop the wars in Iraq , Pipelinistan ehrm...Afghanistan , etc , pull the USAsians back and the ISS can stay afloat a nice number of extra years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop the wars in Iraq, Pipelinistan ehrm...Afghanistan, etc, pull the USAsians back and the ISS can stay afloat a nice number of extra years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689</id>
	<title>Only 6 years after completion?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Christ, what a rathole for money that thing is.</p><p>You shouldn't even be <i>reading</i> this post for another ten minutes or so, because <b>I should be writing it on Mars</b>.  Instead, yay, let's pay a bunch of underemployed Russian rocket scientists to build another Skylab/Mir, and see what happens when we blow bubbles in LEO.</p><p>Coming as it does near the anniversary of the first Apollo landing, this is a really depressing story.  Idiocracy, indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Christ , what a rathole for money that thing is.You should n't even be reading this post for another ten minutes or so , because I should be writing it on Mars .
Instead , yay , let 's pay a bunch of underemployed Russian rocket scientists to build another Skylab/Mir , and see what happens when we blow bubbles in LEO.Coming as it does near the anniversary of the first Apollo landing , this is a really depressing story .
Idiocracy , indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christ, what a rathole for money that thing is.You shouldn't even be reading this post for another ten minutes or so, because I should be writing it on Mars.
Instead, yay, let's pay a bunch of underemployed Russian rocket scientists to build another Skylab/Mir, and see what happens when we blow bubbles in LEO.Coming as it does near the anniversary of the first Apollo landing, this is a really depressing story.
Idiocracy, indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675755</id>
	<title>I sure hope so....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1247497800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, they have to bring it down , so they can get a new budget, or keep the old one, and then resend the new ISS up to space, instead of reusing/recycling parts, have a full forge up there, so you can melt down steel to then reshape it, etc...</p><p>There has to be many ways of doing certain things, even if we leave it up there and start building a second newer version, then the newer version with its smelt, can add to itself by taking apart the old one, and so on, and so on...sort of like the replicators from Stargate SG!..., no?</p><p>It would be cheaper, and alos less dangerous, for people down here....waiting for that ship to drop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , they have to bring it down , so they can get a new budget , or keep the old one , and then resend the new ISS up to space , instead of reusing/recycling parts , have a full forge up there , so you can melt down steel to then reshape it , etc...There has to be many ways of doing certain things , even if we leave it up there and start building a second newer version , then the newer version with its smelt , can add to itself by taking apart the old one , and so on , and so on...sort of like the replicators from Stargate SG ! ... , no ? It would be cheaper , and alos less dangerous , for people down here....waiting for that ship to drop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, they have to bring it down , so they can get a new budget, or keep the old one, and then resend the new ISS up to space, instead of reusing/recycling parts, have a full forge up there, so you can melt down steel to then reshape it, etc...There has to be many ways of doing certain things, even if we leave it up there and start building a second newer version, then the newer version with its smelt, can add to itself by taking apart the old one, and so on, and so on...sort of like the replicators from Stargate SG!..., no?It would be cheaper, and alos less dangerous, for people down here....waiting for that ship to drop!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678169</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247506140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it.</p></div><p>You repeat yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it.You repeat yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like taking 6 months of the Iraq war funding and just burning it.You repeat yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678155</id>
	<title>Go Up?</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1247506140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now the ISS can't stay up by itself too well, but why not start adding more engine power, now that all the construction is almost done, and lift it to a higher orbit, even if gradually? There may be other things at those levels such as satellites but surely space is so big there is still a good parking spot left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now the ISS ca n't stay up by itself too well , but why not start adding more engine power , now that all the construction is almost done , and lift it to a higher orbit , even if gradually ?
There may be other things at those levels such as satellites but surely space is so big there is still a good parking spot left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now the ISS can't stay up by itself too well, but why not start adding more engine power, now that all the construction is almost done, and lift it to a higher orbit, even if gradually?
There may be other things at those levels such as satellites but surely space is so big there is still a good parking spot left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676769</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247501580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't a recent president once say: "For NASA, space is still a high priority".<br>Would this indicate that he didn't know what he was talking about...?</p><p>
&nbsp; And what is it with republicans and mental capacity anyways?<br>You had Reagan, who wasn't a complete dunce but not far from. Then GB Senior, who I guess was kinda OK but had that fantastic quote-machine Dan Quayle attached and then George "The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country." W. Nuff said there.</p><p>
&nbsp; At the same time the democrats have had Bill Clinton (yes he fooled around with his intern, did that really make him a worse president or were y'all just jealouse ?) and now Obama (well to be fair he does have Joe Biden). Each one of them probably have a higher IQ than the last three republican presidents put together.</p><p>
&nbsp; - Peder</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't a recent president once say : " For NASA , space is still a high priority " .Would this indicate that he did n't know what he was talking about... ?
  And what is it with republicans and mental capacity anyways ? You had Reagan , who was n't a complete dunce but not far from .
Then GB Senior , who I guess was kinda OK but had that fantastic quote-machine Dan Quayle attached and then George " The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country .
" W. Nuff said there .
  At the same time the democrats have had Bill Clinton ( yes he fooled around with his intern , did that really make him a worse president or were y'all just jealouse ?
) and now Obama ( well to be fair he does have Joe Biden ) .
Each one of them probably have a higher IQ than the last three republican presidents put together .
  - Peder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't a recent president once say: "For NASA, space is still a high priority".Would this indicate that he didn't know what he was talking about...?
  And what is it with republicans and mental capacity anyways?You had Reagan, who wasn't a complete dunce but not far from.
Then GB Senior, who I guess was kinda OK but had that fantastic quote-machine Dan Quayle attached and then George "The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.
" W. Nuff said there.
  At the same time the democrats have had Bill Clinton (yes he fooled around with his intern, did that really make him a worse president or were y'all just jealouse ?
) and now Obama (well to be fair he does have Joe Biden).
Each one of them probably have a higher IQ than the last three republican presidents put together.
  - Peder
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678859</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Then create some experiments that give it value.</i> <br> <br>
What do you think all those astronauts that go to the ISS are doing?  Sitting on their thumbs and admiring the view?  No, they are doing science experiments in physics, biology, meteorology, and astronomy.  They are testing procedures for living and working in space.  They are determining how a zero grav environment affects plants and animals.  How crystals may or may not form (can we say bone decalcification, anyone?)  How to fight fires, and do surgery, and the effects of microgravity on blood flow to the brain, and, and, and...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then create some experiments that give it value .
What do you think all those astronauts that go to the ISS are doing ?
Sitting on their thumbs and admiring the view ?
No , they are doing science experiments in physics , biology , meteorology , and astronomy .
They are testing procedures for living and working in space .
They are determining how a zero grav environment affects plants and animals .
How crystals may or may not form ( can we say bone decalcification , anyone ?
) How to fight fires , and do surgery , and the effects of microgravity on blood flow to the brain , and , and , and.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then create some experiments that give it value.
What do you think all those astronauts that go to the ISS are doing?
Sitting on their thumbs and admiring the view?
No, they are doing science experiments in physics, biology, meteorology, and astronomy.
They are testing procedures for living and working in space.
They are determining how a zero grav environment affects plants and animals.
How crystals may or may not form (can we say bone decalcification, anyone?
)  How to fight fires, and do surgery, and the effects of microgravity on blood flow to the brain, and, and, and...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676675</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Linker3000</author>
	<datestamp>1247501280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...so nobody gets hit on the head...". For some reason, that conjured up a Monty Python-type sketch...</p><p>"Oh doctor, it was terrible; there I was minding my own business, walking down the street without a care in the world when this bloody big space station hit me on the head. It's given me such a headache..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...so nobody gets hit on the head... " .
For some reason , that conjured up a Monty Python-type sketch... " Oh doctor , it was terrible ; there I was minding my own business , walking down the street without a care in the world when this bloody big space station hit me on the head .
It 's given me such a headache... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...so nobody gets hit on the head...".
For some reason, that conjured up a Monty Python-type sketch..."Oh doctor, it was terrible; there I was minding my own business, walking down the street without a care in the world when this bloody big space station hit me on the head.
It's given me such a headache..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676169</id>
	<title>A very familiar refrain</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1247499540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Translation, "give us more money or we'll drop this satellite on your heads."  This is the unsubtle protest of a bureaucrat trying to use the media to get the public incensed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation , " give us more money or we 'll drop this satellite on your heads .
" This is the unsubtle protest of a bureaucrat trying to use the media to get the public incensed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation, "give us more money or we'll drop this satellite on your heads.
"  This is the unsubtle protest of a bureaucrat trying to use the media to get the public incensed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681359</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone understand economics?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247517660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, these are the same people that are pouring billions to save dying companies such as GM, so I should not be surprised.</p></div><p>Hehe.  Very apropos question in the title, then, coming from someone who clearly doesn't understand economics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , these are the same people that are pouring billions to save dying companies such as GM , so I should not be surprised.Hehe .
Very apropos question in the title , then , coming from someone who clearly does n't understand economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, these are the same people that are pouring billions to save dying companies such as GM, so I should not be surprised.Hehe.
Very apropos question in the title, then, coming from someone who clearly doesn't understand economics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676779</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247501580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>The Mars rovers were supposed to to have a very high degree of probability of full functionality for a minimum of 90 days.  Warranty jokes aside, you can't design something to work perfectly until it breaks down on day 91.  To be really sure it will work for 90 days, you've got to design it probably work for much,much longer.  That they have managed to limp along for years is awesome, but not entirely shocking.  In terms of the science produced, the fairly small cost (of staff on Earth) to keep the rovers operating is pretty reasonable, since they are already on Mars.<br><br>The IIS is a whole different story.  It costs insanely more money, and doesn't produce any science.  It's mission, and it's end date, are entirely political.  With construction complete, it's not quite as good a way for politicians to give aerospace companies money, but there isn't much better until the shuttle-replacement ramps up, so expect great gnashing of teeth about how horrible it will be if we don't have astronauts bravely exploring the inside of a can they built as it skims along barely above the atmosphere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mars rovers were supposed to to have a very high degree of probability of full functionality for a minimum of 90 days .
Warranty jokes aside , you ca n't design something to work perfectly until it breaks down on day 91 .
To be really sure it will work for 90 days , you 've got to design it probably work for much,much longer .
That they have managed to limp along for years is awesome , but not entirely shocking .
In terms of the science produced , the fairly small cost ( of staff on Earth ) to keep the rovers operating is pretty reasonable , since they are already on Mars.The IIS is a whole different story .
It costs insanely more money , and does n't produce any science .
It 's mission , and it 's end date , are entirely political .
With construction complete , it 's not quite as good a way for politicians to give aerospace companies money , but there is n't much better until the shuttle-replacement ramps up , so expect great gnashing of teeth about how horrible it will be if we do n't have astronauts bravely exploring the inside of a can they built as it skims along barely above the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mars rovers were supposed to to have a very high degree of probability of full functionality for a minimum of 90 days.
Warranty jokes aside, you can't design something to work perfectly until it breaks down on day 91.
To be really sure it will work for 90 days, you've got to design it probably work for much,much longer.
That they have managed to limp along for years is awesome, but not entirely shocking.
In terms of the science produced, the fairly small cost (of staff on Earth) to keep the rovers operating is pretty reasonable, since they are already on Mars.The IIS is a whole different story.
It costs insanely more money, and doesn't produce any science.
It's mission, and it's end date, are entirely political.
With construction complete, it's not quite as good a way for politicians to give aerospace companies money, but there isn't much better until the shuttle-replacement ramps up, so expect great gnashing of teeth about how horrible it will be if we don't have astronauts bravely exploring the inside of a can they built as it skims along barely above the atmosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019</id>
	<title>Send it to orbit the moon or Mars</title>
	<author>CHK6</author>
	<datestamp>1247498880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars? It could can like an emergency hunter's lodge in Alaska. A future mission to the moon again or Mars and you have a possible backup at the destination. Hopefully the other countries will see this idea is better than de-orbiting it. They just need to remember to leave the key in the mouse head after locking up. You never know when you need it and having it parked in orbit for that time you wished you had, might be wiser than destroying it. Also NASA and other countries could study moving large stations between moons or planets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars ?
It could can like an emergency hunter 's lodge in Alaska .
A future mission to the moon again or Mars and you have a possible backup at the destination .
Hopefully the other countries will see this idea is better than de-orbiting it .
They just need to remember to leave the key in the mouse head after locking up .
You never know when you need it and having it parked in orbit for that time you wished you had , might be wiser than destroying it .
Also NASA and other countries could study moving large stations between moons or planets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't they just package it up and send it to the moon or Mars?
It could can like an emergency hunter's lodge in Alaska.
A future mission to the moon again or Mars and you have a possible backup at the destination.
Hopefully the other countries will see this idea is better than de-orbiting it.
They just need to remember to leave the key in the mouse head after locking up.
You never know when you need it and having it parked in orbit for that time you wished you had, might be wiser than destroying it.
Also NASA and other countries could study moving large stations between moons or planets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676789</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1247501640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't get it...</p></div><p>Here, let me help you</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Build ISS<br>2. Deorbit...<br>.<br>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>I think we are OK so far?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>X. Profit?!?!</p></div><p>You mean:</p><p>X. Profit for the sub-contractor friends of the congressmen in the 80s whom originally approved the thing.</p><p>But that was friends of the senatorial class of '80.  Even Strom Thurmond is gone now.  So, who needs to kick-back his friends anymore?  Deorbit the thing and work on a new make-work/make-vote/make-contributions program.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom\_Thurmond" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom\_Thurmond</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it...Here , let me help you1 .
Build ISS2 .
Deorbit..... .I think we are OK so far ? X .
Profit ? ! ? ! You mean : X. Profit for the sub-contractor friends of the congressmen in the 80s whom originally approved the thing.But that was friends of the senatorial class of '80 .
Even Strom Thurmond is gone now .
So , who needs to kick-back his friends anymore ?
Deorbit the thing and work on a new make-work/make-vote/make-contributions program.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom \ _Thurmond [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it...Here, let me help you1.
Build ISS2.
Deorbit..... .I think we are OK so far?X.
Profit?!?!You mean:X. Profit for the sub-contractor friends of the congressmen in the 80s whom originally approved the thing.But that was friends of the senatorial class of '80.
Even Strom Thurmond is gone now.
So, who needs to kick-back his friends anymore?
Deorbit the thing and work on a new make-work/make-vote/make-contributions program.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom\_Thurmond [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676077</id>
	<title>That was quick!</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1247499120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thus ending seven years of <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/0222214/ISS-Launches-First-Permanent-Node-of-Interplanetary-Internet?art\_pos=4" title="slashdot.org">interplanetary porn</a> [slashdot.org],...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus ending seven years of interplanetary porn [ slashdot.org ] ,.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus ending seven years of interplanetary porn [slashdot.org],...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28696295</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>lavalamp70</author>
	<datestamp>1247565780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wish I had $100 billion to piss away. Oh wait - that was my money....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish I had $ 100 billion to piss away .
Oh wait - that was my money... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish I had $100 billion to piss away.
Oh wait - that was my money....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677899</id>
	<title>Re:Only 6 years after completion?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you can't really go to Mars without the know-how that you get from building large-scale space stations.</p><p>NASA could have completed many space stations in the early 80's and landed on Mars several times since the 90's. Unfortunately, the majority of American voters considered military spending to be more important.</p><p>And they still do...</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_military\_expenditures</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you ca n't really go to Mars without the know-how that you get from building large-scale space stations.NASA could have completed many space stations in the early 80 's and landed on Mars several times since the 90 's .
Unfortunately , the majority of American voters considered military spending to be more important.And they still do...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _countries \ _by \ _military \ _expenditures</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you can't really go to Mars without the know-how that you get from building large-scale space stations.NASA could have completed many space stations in the early 80's and landed on Mars several times since the 90's.
Unfortunately, the majority of American voters considered military spending to be more important.And they still do...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_military\_expenditures</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879</id>
	<title>Does anyone understand economics?</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1247501940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, Congress proves it doesn't understand the sunk cost fallacy:</p><p><i>"If we've spent a hundred billion dollars, I don't think we want to shut it down in 2015,"  Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told Augustine's committee. </i> </p><p>Of course, these are the same people that are pouring billions to save dying companies such as GM, so I should not be surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , Congress proves it does n't understand the sunk cost fallacy : " If we 've spent a hundred billion dollars , I do n't think we want to shut it down in 2015 , " Sen. Bill Nelson ( D-Fla. ) told Augustine 's committee .
Of course , these are the same people that are pouring billions to save dying companies such as GM , so I should not be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, Congress proves it doesn't understand the sunk cost fallacy:"If we've spent a hundred billion dollars, I don't think we want to shut it down in 2015,"  Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told Augustine's committee.
Of course, these are the same people that are pouring billions to save dying companies such as GM, so I should not be surprised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28689003</id>
	<title>NASA must know about the Collapse</title>
	<author>SAABMaven</author>
	<datestamp>1247577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for them to just give up like that.  Scuttling programs with no real replacement.</p><p>Haven't heard of the Collapse?  Haven't even noticed that food prices have doubled in the past year with many nutritional items going off the shelf or being replaced with high-fructose, high-subsidy corn syrup or high-subsidy, high-pesticide soy?</p><p><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;rlz=1G1GGLQ\_ENCA260&amp;q=peak+oil+collapse" title="google.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;rlz=1G1GGLQ\_ENCA260&amp;q=peak+oil+collapse</a> [google.ca]</p><p><a href="http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>(I bet a lot of you assumed that the Internet would be there forever, as well...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for them to just give up like that .
Scuttling programs with no real replacement.Have n't heard of the Collapse ?
Have n't even noticed that food prices have doubled in the past year with many nutritional items going off the shelf or being replaced with high-fructose , high-subsidy corn syrup or high-subsidy , high-pesticide soy ? http : //www.google.ca/search ? hl = en&amp;safe = off&amp;rlz = 1G1GGLQ \ _ENCA260&amp;q = peak + oil + collapse [ google.ca ] http : //cluborlov.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] ( I bet a lot of you assumed that the Internet would be there forever , as well... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for them to just give up like that.
Scuttling programs with no real replacement.Haven't heard of the Collapse?
Haven't even noticed that food prices have doubled in the past year with many nutritional items going off the shelf or being replaced with high-fructose, high-subsidy corn syrup or high-subsidy, high-pesticide soy?http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;rlz=1G1GGLQ\_ENCA260&amp;q=peak+oil+collapse [google.ca]http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com](I bet a lot of you assumed that the Internet would be there forever, as well...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678527</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247507520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bill Clinton killed the United States supercollider<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I call BS.  To quote wikipedia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress canceled the project in 1993.</p></div><p>and</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, in 1993, Clinton tried to prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science"</p></div><p>I'll give you partial credit because the article also states that Clinton didn't do enough to support it, but there's a whole host of other names (including two Goveners of Texas) that failed to support it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Clinton killed the United States supercollider ...I call BS .
To quote wikipedia : Congress canceled the project in 1993.andHowever , in 1993 , Clinton tried to prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue " to support this important and challenging effort " through completion because " abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science " I 'll give you partial credit because the article also states that Clinton did n't do enough to support it , but there 's a whole host of other names ( including two Goveners of Texas ) that failed to support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Clinton killed the United States supercollider ...I call BS.
To quote wikipedia:Congress canceled the project in 1993.andHowever, in 1993, Clinton tried to prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science"I'll give you partial credit because the article also states that Clinton didn't do enough to support it, but there's a whole host of other names (including two Goveners of Texas) that failed to support it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677897</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>ndavis</author>
	<datestamp>1247505420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't get it...</p><p>1. Build ISS
2. Deorbit...
.
.
.
X. Profit?!?!</p></div><p>
This is NASA which is government funded so profit does not happen so instead the last step is infusions of capital from Congress.<br> <br>

1. Build ISS<br>
2. Talk about Deorbit and deadline<br>
3.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....<br>
4. Cash Infusion from Congress to keep ISS in obit<br>
5. Deorbit ISS anyhow</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it...1 .
Build ISS 2 .
Deorbit.. . .
. .
X. Profit ? ! ? !
This is NASA which is government funded so profit does not happen so instead the last step is infusions of capital from Congress .
1. Build ISS 2 .
Talk about Deorbit and deadline 3 .
.... . 4 .
Cash Infusion from Congress to keep ISS in obit 5 .
Deorbit ISS anyhow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it...1.
Build ISS
2.
Deorbit...
.
.
.
X. Profit?!?!
This is NASA which is government funded so profit does not happen so instead the last step is infusions of capital from Congress.
1. Build ISS
2.
Talk about Deorbit and deadline
3.
.....
4.
Cash Infusion from Congress to keep ISS in obit
5.
Deorbit ISS anyhow
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676333</id>
	<title>Outrageous</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1247500260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is outrageous, to spend billions on this thing and then deorbit it just a few years after it is complete is just pure insanity. Billions of dollars wasted. I wonder if there will be any useful scientific information to come out of ISS. More likely, it seems that ISS, manned moon and mars programs are nothing but ego trips that drain money away from more effective and productive projects such as Hubble. The idea of manned spaceflight to the moon or mars is ridiculous as most people will never be able to go into space, and you can do most things with cheaper unmanned craft than with these expensive manned systems. With technology which exists in the forseeable future, spaceflight will be little more than a gimmick or something that a few small number of people will do. Its just too expensive and costly.</p><p>I think a public space program is vital, and does things that a private company would not do. A private company would likely mainly shuttle extremely wealthy people into orbit, a few per year, and any scientific data they happen to produce would likely be sold at huge cost, instead of being available to all humanity. The public space program should be science oriented to expand knowledge and make data available to all for improvement of our knowledge of the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is outrageous , to spend billions on this thing and then deorbit it just a few years after it is complete is just pure insanity .
Billions of dollars wasted .
I wonder if there will be any useful scientific information to come out of ISS .
More likely , it seems that ISS , manned moon and mars programs are nothing but ego trips that drain money away from more effective and productive projects such as Hubble .
The idea of manned spaceflight to the moon or mars is ridiculous as most people will never be able to go into space , and you can do most things with cheaper unmanned craft than with these expensive manned systems .
With technology which exists in the forseeable future , spaceflight will be little more than a gimmick or something that a few small number of people will do .
Its just too expensive and costly.I think a public space program is vital , and does things that a private company would not do .
A private company would likely mainly shuttle extremely wealthy people into orbit , a few per year , and any scientific data they happen to produce would likely be sold at huge cost , instead of being available to all humanity .
The public space program should be science oriented to expand knowledge and make data available to all for improvement of our knowledge of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is outrageous, to spend billions on this thing and then deorbit it just a few years after it is complete is just pure insanity.
Billions of dollars wasted.
I wonder if there will be any useful scientific information to come out of ISS.
More likely, it seems that ISS, manned moon and mars programs are nothing but ego trips that drain money away from more effective and productive projects such as Hubble.
The idea of manned spaceflight to the moon or mars is ridiculous as most people will never be able to go into space, and you can do most things with cheaper unmanned craft than with these expensive manned systems.
With technology which exists in the forseeable future, spaceflight will be little more than a gimmick or something that a few small number of people will do.
Its just too expensive and costly.I think a public space program is vital, and does things that a private company would not do.
A private company would likely mainly shuttle extremely wealthy people into orbit, a few per year, and any scientific data they happen to produce would likely be sold at huge cost, instead of being available to all humanity.
The public space program should be science oriented to expand knowledge and make data available to all for improvement of our knowledge of the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676481</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste</title>
	<author>Hubbell</author>
	<datestamp>1247500680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody seems to get it.  They only did it for the lulz of blowing it up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody seems to get it .
They only did it for the lulz of blowing it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody seems to get it.
They only did it for the lulz of blowing it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676187</id>
	<title>That's not waste in NASA world!</title>
	<author>blahbooboo</author>
	<datestamp>1247499720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, that isn't wasteful! Not in NASA world anyway! A world where they have been wasting tons of cash on an ancient launch mechanism that's been around waaay too long at 1 billion per launch -- I am looking at you Space Shuttle<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , that is n't wasteful !
Not in NASA world anyway !
A world where they have been wasting tons of cash on an ancient launch mechanism that 's been around waaay too long at 1 billion per launch -- I am looking at you Space Shuttle : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, that isn't wasteful!
Not in NASA world anyway!
A world where they have been wasting tons of cash on an ancient launch mechanism that's been around waaay too long at 1 billion per launch -- I am looking at you Space Shuttle :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683749</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1247485140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haven't other countries also poured a fair bit of money into it? I mean, it IS the <strong>International</strong> Space Station. What do they have to say to this unilateral "plan"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't other countries also poured a fair bit of money into it ?
I mean , it IS the International Space Station .
What do they have to say to this unilateral " plan " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't other countries also poured a fair bit of money into it?
I mean, it IS the International Space Station.
What do they have to say to this unilateral "plan"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676027</id>
	<title>Blame it on /.</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1247498880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that they have <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/0222214/ISS-Launches-First-Permanent-Node-of-Interplanetary-Internet?art\_pos=4" title="slashdot.org">this</a> [slashdot.org] it's inevitable that productivity will begin to sink and before you know it there's nothing to do but<br>read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and surf for porn... Might as well start planning for its decommissioning, the place will be useless in a year.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It will be tested heavily this month, and could give astronauts direct Internet access within a year.</p></div><p>Tested heavily. My point exactly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that they have this [ slashdot.org ] it 's inevitable that productivity will begin to sink and before you know it there 's nothing to do butread / .
and surf for porn... Might as well start planning for its decommissioning , the place will be useless in a year.It will be tested heavily this month , and could give astronauts direct Internet access within a year.Tested heavily .
My point exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that they have this [slashdot.org] it's inevitable that productivity will begin to sink and before you know it there's nothing to do butread /.
and surf for porn... Might as well start planning for its decommissioning, the place will be useless in a year.It will be tested heavily this month, and could give astronauts direct Internet access within a year.Tested heavily.
My point exactly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677043</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>GigG</author>
	<datestamp>1247502480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gravity is cheap. Rocket engines, the fuel for them, getting both of those up to space isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gravity is cheap .
Rocket engines , the fuel for them , getting both of those up to space is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gravity is cheap.
Rocket engines, the fuel for them, getting both of those up to space isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677259</id>
	<title>Re:It's Skylab all over again!</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1247503140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing how NASA is supposedly full of rocket scientists, and yet none of them apparently understand that we should be putting 'space stations' in actual orbits that they stay in by themselves.</p><p>
So we don't have to ship up fuel, and when inevitable budget cuts come along the solution is 'mothball the station and come back a decade later' instead of 'safely deorbit the station so it doesn't crash on a city'.</p><p>
Likewise, they shouldn't be putting them at crazy diagonal orbits that are hard to match.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how NASA is supposedly full of rocket scientists , and yet none of them apparently understand that we should be putting 'space stations ' in actual orbits that they stay in by themselves .
So we do n't have to ship up fuel , and when inevitable budget cuts come along the solution is 'mothball the station and come back a decade later ' instead of 'safely deorbit the station so it does n't crash on a city' .
Likewise , they should n't be putting them at crazy diagonal orbits that are hard to match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how NASA is supposedly full of rocket scientists, and yet none of them apparently understand that we should be putting 'space stations' in actual orbits that they stay in by themselves.
So we don't have to ship up fuel, and when inevitable budget cuts come along the solution is 'mothball the station and come back a decade later' instead of 'safely deorbit the station so it doesn't crash on a city'.
Likewise, they shouldn't be putting them at crazy diagonal orbits that are hard to match.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678887</id>
	<title>Re:Only 6 years after completion?!</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1247508600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ISS is a perfectly capable space station. It isn't keeping anybody from Mars; in fact by providing a place to assemble a Mars-bound spaceship, it is helping. Certainly the Ares V, if it ever flies, cannot put up a Mars mission in one shot.</p><p>Do not blame a cheap (on the scale of government spending, not NASA spending) project for the fact that space travel is horrifically underfunded. Blame the small-minded penny pinchers demanding a tax cut for the millionaires they are convinced they shall join one day, and the politicians cynically purchasing the votes of the elderly with social spending and the campaign funds of the corporations with acquisitive wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISS is a perfectly capable space station .
It is n't keeping anybody from Mars ; in fact by providing a place to assemble a Mars-bound spaceship , it is helping .
Certainly the Ares V , if it ever flies , can not put up a Mars mission in one shot.Do not blame a cheap ( on the scale of government spending , not NASA spending ) project for the fact that space travel is horrifically underfunded .
Blame the small-minded penny pinchers demanding a tax cut for the millionaires they are convinced they shall join one day , and the politicians cynically purchasing the votes of the elderly with social spending and the campaign funds of the corporations with acquisitive wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISS is a perfectly capable space station.
It isn't keeping anybody from Mars; in fact by providing a place to assemble a Mars-bound spaceship, it is helping.
Certainly the Ares V, if it ever flies, cannot put up a Mars mission in one shot.Do not blame a cheap (on the scale of government spending, not NASA spending) project for the fact that space travel is horrifically underfunded.
Blame the small-minded penny pinchers demanding a tax cut for the millionaires they are convinced they shall join one day, and the politicians cynically purchasing the votes of the elderly with social spending and the campaign funds of the corporations with acquisitive wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677349</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247503560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You raise I bigger point than you may be aware of:<br>What if the whole point was to make money. And now the only way to keep making money off of it, is to plan a de-orbit and bill for that. Then plan a new station and let the cycle begin again. Meanwhile filling the pockets of Boeing or whoever earned most from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You raise I bigger point than you may be aware of : What if the whole point was to make money .
And now the only way to keep making money off of it , is to plan a de-orbit and bill for that .
Then plan a new station and let the cycle begin again .
Meanwhile filling the pockets of Boeing or whoever earned most from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You raise I bigger point than you may be aware of:What if the whole point was to make money.
And now the only way to keep making money off of it, is to plan a de-orbit and bill for that.
Then plan a new station and let the cycle begin again.
Meanwhile filling the pockets of Boeing or whoever earned most from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1247503800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. The ISS is huge, so getting it into a Hohmann transfer orbit would require vastly more fuel than the Apollo missions did. And, the ISS isn't designed for more than the miniscule amount of thrust needed for station keeping. And, the ISS is designed to keep humans alive underneath the Van Allen radiation belts. Venturing above them would subject the astronauts to much more radiation. Also, lunar orbits are very unstable because of the "lumpiness" of the moon's gravity field. Only orbits with specific inclinations are remotely stable, which means the fuel requirements are even higher than a straightforward Hohmann trajectory would imply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The ISS is huge , so getting it into a Hohmann transfer orbit would require vastly more fuel than the Apollo missions did .
And , the ISS is n't designed for more than the miniscule amount of thrust needed for station keeping .
And , the ISS is designed to keep humans alive underneath the Van Allen radiation belts .
Venturing above them would subject the astronauts to much more radiation .
Also , lunar orbits are very unstable because of the " lumpiness " of the moon 's gravity field .
Only orbits with specific inclinations are remotely stable , which means the fuel requirements are even higher than a straightforward Hohmann trajectory would imply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The ISS is huge, so getting it into a Hohmann transfer orbit would require vastly more fuel than the Apollo missions did.
And, the ISS isn't designed for more than the miniscule amount of thrust needed for station keeping.
And, the ISS is designed to keep humans alive underneath the Van Allen radiation belts.
Venturing above them would subject the astronauts to much more radiation.
Also, lunar orbits are very unstable because of the "lumpiness" of the moon's gravity field.
Only orbits with specific inclinations are remotely stable, which means the fuel requirements are even higher than a straightforward Hohmann trajectory would imply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678781</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wouldn't you want to just build the station on the moon?  Why would you need/want an orbiting station?  If you're going to mine the moon, you'll have to land on it sometime anyway, so why not just set up post there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't you want to just build the station on the moon ?
Why would you need/want an orbiting station ?
If you 're going to mine the moon , you 'll have to land on it sometime anyway , so why not just set up post there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't you want to just build the station on the moon?
Why would you need/want an orbiting station?
If you're going to mine the moon, you'll have to land on it sometime anyway, so why not just set up post there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687539</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247603640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on some back of an envelope calculations, it takes about twice the energy to escape Earth's gravity as it took to put the ISS into orbit, and the ISS was put there piece by piece over several missions.  So I would say not worth the time/fuel/effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on some back of an envelope calculations , it takes about twice the energy to escape Earth 's gravity as it took to put the ISS into orbit , and the ISS was put there piece by piece over several missions .
So I would say not worth the time/fuel/effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on some back of an envelope calculations, it takes about twice the energy to escape Earth's gravity as it took to put the ISS into orbit, and the ISS was put there piece by piece over several missions.
So I would say not worth the time/fuel/effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683471</id>
	<title>Re:Only 6 years after completion?!</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1247483220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Christ, what a rathole for money that thing is.</p><p>You shouldn't even be <i>reading</i> this post for another ten minutes or so, because <b>I should be writing it on Mars</b>.  Instead, yay, let's pay a bunch of underemployed Russian rocket scientists to build another Skylab/Mir, and see what happens when we blow bubbles in LEO.</p><p>Coming as it does near the anniversary of the first Apollo landing, this is a really depressing story.  Idiocracy, indeed.</p></div><p>
NASA is the rathole for money. <br> <br>
There's nothing up there, in fact there's such an abundance of nothing there that there's a vacuum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christ , what a rathole for money that thing is.You should n't even be reading this post for another ten minutes or so , because I should be writing it on Mars .
Instead , yay , let 's pay a bunch of underemployed Russian rocket scientists to build another Skylab/Mir , and see what happens when we blow bubbles in LEO.Coming as it does near the anniversary of the first Apollo landing , this is a really depressing story .
Idiocracy , indeed .
NASA is the rathole for money .
There 's nothing up there , in fact there 's such an abundance of nothing there that there 's a vacuum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christ, what a rathole for money that thing is.You shouldn't even be reading this post for another ten minutes or so, because I should be writing it on Mars.
Instead, yay, let's pay a bunch of underemployed Russian rocket scientists to build another Skylab/Mir, and see what happens when we blow bubbles in LEO.Coming as it does near the anniversary of the first Apollo landing, this is a really depressing story.
Idiocracy, indeed.
NASA is the rathole for money.
There's nothing up there, in fact there's such an abundance of nothing there that there's a vacuum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679689</id>
	<title>Re:It's Skylab all over again!</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1247511120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just as we get to the first flights of Orion, which will almost certainly slip past 1Q2016</i></p><p>Here's the question, though:  why are American project planners so completely incompetent?  Since <b>everyone knows</b> that this kind of project will probably slip, and there's loads of historical data on the slip factor, predicting the correct schedule pretty accurately is a matter of simple multiplication.  You'd have to be an idiot not to do it.</p><p>So the question is:  why aren't project managers for the American government capable of doing it?</p><p>Any time anyone says, "Well, of course the project is late!  It's new/different/big/difficult!" the question that should be asked is, "If you say that everyone should have expected to the project to be late, why didn't you apply the appropriate correction to initial schedule to start with?  Are you an idiot, that you knew it would miss the original schedule, but didn't correct for that knowledge?"</p><p>Project estimation is actually an incredibly easy task, intellectually.  It is a difficult task morally, as people give in to the temptation to lie--to themselves and others--far too easily, and we are far too forgiving when they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as we get to the first flights of Orion , which will almost certainly slip past 1Q2016Here 's the question , though : why are American project planners so completely incompetent ?
Since everyone knows that this kind of project will probably slip , and there 's loads of historical data on the slip factor , predicting the correct schedule pretty accurately is a matter of simple multiplication .
You 'd have to be an idiot not to do it.So the question is : why are n't project managers for the American government capable of doing it ? Any time anyone says , " Well , of course the project is late !
It 's new/different/big/difficult !
" the question that should be asked is , " If you say that everyone should have expected to the project to be late , why did n't you apply the appropriate correction to initial schedule to start with ?
Are you an idiot , that you knew it would miss the original schedule , but did n't correct for that knowledge ?
" Project estimation is actually an incredibly easy task , intellectually .
It is a difficult task morally , as people give in to the temptation to lie--to themselves and others--far too easily , and we are far too forgiving when they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as we get to the first flights of Orion, which will almost certainly slip past 1Q2016Here's the question, though:  why are American project planners so completely incompetent?
Since everyone knows that this kind of project will probably slip, and there's loads of historical data on the slip factor, predicting the correct schedule pretty accurately is a matter of simple multiplication.
You'd have to be an idiot not to do it.So the question is:  why aren't project managers for the American government capable of doing it?Any time anyone says, "Well, of course the project is late!
It's new/different/big/difficult!
" the question that should be asked is, "If you say that everyone should have expected to the project to be late, why didn't you apply the appropriate correction to initial schedule to start with?
Are you an idiot, that you knew it would miss the original schedule, but didn't correct for that knowledge?
"Project estimation is actually an incredibly easy task, intellectually.
It is a difficult task morally, as people give in to the temptation to lie--to themselves and others--far too easily, and we are far too forgiving when they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</id>
	<title>Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't fully understand why useful objects in space are discarded into the atmosphere. Isn't it feasible to send them into space, either in an extremely high orbit or just give it enough inertia to keep traveling in open space? Is it really not worth the time/fuel/effort?

It seems odd that we can't keep a consistent, physical presence in space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't fully understand why useful objects in space are discarded into the atmosphere .
Is n't it feasible to send them into space , either in an extremely high orbit or just give it enough inertia to keep traveling in open space ?
Is it really not worth the time/fuel/effort ?
It seems odd that we ca n't keep a consistent , physical presence in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't fully understand why useful objects in space are discarded into the atmosphere.
Isn't it feasible to send them into space, either in an extremely high orbit or just give it enough inertia to keep traveling in open space?
Is it really not worth the time/fuel/effort?
It seems odd that we can't keep a consistent, physical presence in space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677053</id>
	<title>Re:Lock the doors and repel all boarders</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1247502480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>There is a quite large, continuing cost to keep boosting the things orbit back up.  If anyone wants to pay that, I'm sure that's fine with NASA.  If nobody pays that, the thing is coming down, it's just a question of how predictably.<br><br>"I would really laugh if<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the station was now TOO BIG to be safely taken apart, without affecting it's overall stability - and the risk of the whole thing crashing back in one large piece."<br><br>What mental model of orbital dynamics are you working with?  You think it's going to fall off its sky-hook or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a quite large , continuing cost to keep boosting the things orbit back up .
If anyone wants to pay that , I 'm sure that 's fine with NASA .
If nobody pays that , the thing is coming down , it 's just a question of how predictably .
" I would really laugh if ... the station was now TOO BIG to be safely taken apart , without affecting it 's overall stability - and the risk of the whole thing crashing back in one large piece .
" What mental model of orbital dynamics are you working with ?
You think it 's going to fall off its sky-hook or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a quite large, continuing cost to keep boosting the things orbit back up.
If anyone wants to pay that, I'm sure that's fine with NASA.
If nobody pays that, the thing is coming down, it's just a question of how predictably.
"I would really laugh if ... the station was now TOO BIG to be safely taken apart, without affecting it's overall stability - and the risk of the whole thing crashing back in one large piece.
"What mental model of orbital dynamics are you working with?
You think it's going to fall off its sky-hook or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686229</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>BostonPilot</author>
	<datestamp>1247503500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been losing confidence in NASA manned missions for years. NASA (manned) is an organization without a worthwhile achievable goal. They need more money than the budget allows to do revolutionary work like Mercury through Apollo was. So, they cast about to and fro trying to think of something they can do within their budget. That's seems backwards. If they could commit to a worthwhile project (like, colonize [not visit] Mars) they might be able to get their budget increased to what it would take to achieve that goal. It would take the political will for the country to sign up for long term funding of the project, and an innovative not-business-as-usual approach by NASA.</p><p>As it is, seeing $100,000,000,000 blown for what seems like little return, or more likely seeing them playing a brinkmanship game for funding (give us more money or we'll be forced to burn up the space station you just built for $100B), that just makes me want to shut them down. Gut the manned space part of the agency, and give the remaining money to robotic exploration programs that will have a scientific return for the money.</p><p>Apollo ended up being a dead end (although I don't think NASA thought it would be). The shuttle and the ISS have turned out to be dead ends. NASA either needs to find a legitimate, achievable goal for manned flight, or give it up. I don't mind supporting science with my tax dollar, but I resent supporting white elephant projects which only benefit Boeing &amp; gang, and a bunch of career bureaucrats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been losing confidence in NASA manned missions for years .
NASA ( manned ) is an organization without a worthwhile achievable goal .
They need more money than the budget allows to do revolutionary work like Mercury through Apollo was .
So , they cast about to and fro trying to think of something they can do within their budget .
That 's seems backwards .
If they could commit to a worthwhile project ( like , colonize [ not visit ] Mars ) they might be able to get their budget increased to what it would take to achieve that goal .
It would take the political will for the country to sign up for long term funding of the project , and an innovative not-business-as-usual approach by NASA.As it is , seeing $ 100,000,000,000 blown for what seems like little return , or more likely seeing them playing a brinkmanship game for funding ( give us more money or we 'll be forced to burn up the space station you just built for $ 100B ) , that just makes me want to shut them down .
Gut the manned space part of the agency , and give the remaining money to robotic exploration programs that will have a scientific return for the money.Apollo ended up being a dead end ( although I do n't think NASA thought it would be ) .
The shuttle and the ISS have turned out to be dead ends .
NASA either needs to find a legitimate , achievable goal for manned flight , or give it up .
I do n't mind supporting science with my tax dollar , but I resent supporting white elephant projects which only benefit Boeing &amp; gang , and a bunch of career bureaucrats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been losing confidence in NASA manned missions for years.
NASA (manned) is an organization without a worthwhile achievable goal.
They need more money than the budget allows to do revolutionary work like Mercury through Apollo was.
So, they cast about to and fro trying to think of something they can do within their budget.
That's seems backwards.
If they could commit to a worthwhile project (like, colonize [not visit] Mars) they might be able to get their budget increased to what it would take to achieve that goal.
It would take the political will for the country to sign up for long term funding of the project, and an innovative not-business-as-usual approach by NASA.As it is, seeing $100,000,000,000 blown for what seems like little return, or more likely seeing them playing a brinkmanship game for funding (give us more money or we'll be forced to burn up the space station you just built for $100B), that just makes me want to shut them down.
Gut the manned space part of the agency, and give the remaining money to robotic exploration programs that will have a scientific return for the money.Apollo ended up being a dead end (although I don't think NASA thought it would be).
The shuttle and the ISS have turned out to be dead ends.
NASA either needs to find a legitimate, achievable goal for manned flight, or give it up.
I don't mind supporting science with my tax dollar, but I resent supporting white elephant projects which only benefit Boeing &amp; gang, and a bunch of career bureaucrats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678217</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247506320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, when you don't go on vacation with the girlfriend and her pussy, don't expect the latter to have stayed away from stray cats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , when you do n't go on vacation with the girlfriend and her pussy , do n't expect the latter to have stayed away from stray cats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, when you don't go on vacation with the girlfriend and her pussy, don't expect the latter to have stayed away from stray cats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677449</id>
	<title>Re:luckily for us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247503920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think congresscritters are a better option?</p><p>Let's see - NASA doing science... Congress doing science...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think congresscritters are a better option ? Let 's see - NASA doing science... Congress doing science.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think congresscritters are a better option?Let's see - NASA doing science... Congress doing science...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680619</id>
	<title>ISS looking worse and worse compared to the SSC.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247514360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is why they choose the ISS over the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider), and the SSC was NOT going to cost 100 billion dollars it also would have had three times the energy of the LHC (20 TeV in each beam, so 40 TeV to the LHC's 14 Tev).  Not to mention all the new physics we would have discovered with it.</p><p>Really I don't get why we spend billions of dollars bailing out failed businesses when we could spend it on science instead, you pay for people to have jobs and you get fundamental knowledge from it which can lead to new industries and more jobs.</p><p>
&nbsp; Even the ISS has scientific importance, I just don't think it was MORE important than the SSC and we had to cancel one or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is why they choose the ISS over the SSC ( Superconducting Super Collider ) , and the SSC was NOT going to cost 100 billion dollars it also would have had three times the energy of the LHC ( 20 TeV in each beam , so 40 TeV to the LHC 's 14 Tev ) .
Not to mention all the new physics we would have discovered with it.Really I do n't get why we spend billions of dollars bailing out failed businesses when we could spend it on science instead , you pay for people to have jobs and you get fundamental knowledge from it which can lead to new industries and more jobs .
  Even the ISS has scientific importance , I just do n't think it was MORE important than the SSC and we had to cancel one or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is why they choose the ISS over the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider), and the SSC was NOT going to cost 100 billion dollars it also would have had three times the energy of the LHC (20 TeV in each beam, so 40 TeV to the LHC's 14 Tev).
Not to mention all the new physics we would have discovered with it.Really I don't get why we spend billions of dollars bailing out failed businesses when we could spend it on science instead, you pay for people to have jobs and you get fundamental knowledge from it which can lead to new industries and more jobs.
  Even the ISS has scientific importance, I just don't think it was MORE important than the SSC and we had to cancel one or the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677753</id>
	<title>future science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is ridiculous, but not completely surprising. there could be ideas for a larger, newer space station with a more logical docking system, or even just something more modern and updated to cater to the ideals of the world's future space explorators. the ISS was mainly built for experiments in zero gravity and to study the effect of long term space exposure to the human body. while it may seem like a total waste, there is no way to get the station back to earth without completely destroying it. the destruction of the system will only lead to bigger, more useful future endeavors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is ridiculous , but not completely surprising .
there could be ideas for a larger , newer space station with a more logical docking system , or even just something more modern and updated to cater to the ideals of the world 's future space explorators .
the ISS was mainly built for experiments in zero gravity and to study the effect of long term space exposure to the human body .
while it may seem like a total waste , there is no way to get the station back to earth without completely destroying it .
the destruction of the system will only lead to bigger , more useful future endeavors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is ridiculous, but not completely surprising.
there could be ideas for a larger, newer space station with a more logical docking system, or even just something more modern and updated to cater to the ideals of the world's future space explorators.
the ISS was mainly built for experiments in zero gravity and to study the effect of long term space exposure to the human body.
while it may seem like a total waste, there is no way to get the station back to earth without completely destroying it.
the destruction of the system will only lead to bigger, more useful future endeavors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677925</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing the critical step in the middle:</p><p>3. A fucking miracle happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing the critical step in the middle : 3 .
A fucking miracle happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing the critical step in the middle:3.
A fucking miracle happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677523</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding me!</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1247504220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US is a big financial contributor to the LHC. The LHC should really be view as a bit of a combined effort.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is a big financial contributor to the LHC .
The LHC should really be view as a bit of a combined effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is a big financial contributor to the LHC.
The LHC should really be view as a bit of a combined effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651</id>
	<title>What a waste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know space flight is tough, but shouldn't a super-expensive space station last longer than it took to build?</p><p>I mean this thing just got a full crew about a month ago.</p><p>I guess 7 years of full crew isn't horrible.</p><p>I wonder what it's like to have sex in space. I hear it's already happened a couple times..</p><p>I can't wait for my girlfriend (and her pussy) to get back from vacation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know space flight is tough , but should n't a super-expensive space station last longer than it took to build ? I mean this thing just got a full crew about a month ago.I guess 7 years of full crew is n't horrible.I wonder what it 's like to have sex in space .
I hear it 's already happened a couple times..I ca n't wait for my girlfriend ( and her pussy ) to get back from vacation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know space flight is tough, but shouldn't a super-expensive space station last longer than it took to build?I mean this thing just got a full crew about a month ago.I guess 7 years of full crew isn't horrible.I wonder what it's like to have sex in space.
I hear it's already happened a couple times..I can't wait for my girlfriend (and her pussy) to get back from vacation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686249</id>
	<title>Reminds me of an old Yiddish joke</title>
	<author>rkinch</author>
	<datestamp>1247503740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ISS is awful.  The missions there are terrible.  And so short!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISS is awful .
The missions there are terrible .
And so short !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISS is awful.
The missions there are terrible.
And so short!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678743</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many hands do you have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many hands do you have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many hands do you have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676531</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a negotiation</title>
	<author>Razalhague</author>
	<datestamp>1247500860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not the last article on the subject that we will see...</p></div><p>Well, duh. The last article will be "ISS De-orbited Today".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not the last article on the subject that we will see...Well , duh .
The last article will be " ISS De-orbited Today " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not the last article on the subject that we will see...Well, duh.
The last article will be "ISS De-orbited Today".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685529</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1247498580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What unilateral plan??? Don't post about stuff that exists purely as a construct of your imagination as if it was real. I know this is slashdot, but still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What unilateral plan ? ? ?
Do n't post about stuff that exists purely as a construct of your imagination as if it was real .
I know this is slashdot , but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What unilateral plan???
Don't post about stuff that exists purely as a construct of your imagination as if it was real.
I know this is slashdot, but still.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679953</id>
	<title>Bulshit! Bulshit!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bulshit! The Russians already stated that their module will decouple from ISS and they will build upon a new Space Station based on their existing module!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bulshit !
The Russians already stated that their module will decouple from ISS and they will build upon a new Space Station based on their existing module !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bulshit!
The Russians already stated that their module will decouple from ISS and they will build upon a new Space Station based on their existing module!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677379</id>
	<title>Re:Lock the doors and repel all boarders</title>
	<author>Amazing Quantum Man</author>
	<datestamp>1247503680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like William Gibson got there first.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Star,\_Winter\_Orbit" title="wikipedia.org">Red Star, Winter Orbit</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like William Gibson got there first .
Red Star , Winter Orbit [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like William Gibson got there first.
Red Star, Winter Orbit [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678417</id>
	<title>Re:Lock the doors and repel all boarders</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247507100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Europeans and Russians wanted to take over maintenance of the ISS that's fine, but it's pretty pricey and why keep an experiment running after it's finished?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Europeans and Russians wanted to take over maintenance of the ISS that 's fine , but it 's pretty pricey and why keep an experiment running after it 's finished ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Europeans and Russians wanted to take over maintenance of the ISS that's fine, but it's pretty pricey and why keep an experiment running after it's finished?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679083</id>
	<title>Re:W.T.F.</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like NASA posturing meant to get more funding for the ISS.</p><p>At the same time, I think a lot has been learned while building the ISS. I am far from certain that the lessons justify the cost, but just building a complex structure in space was a valuable exercise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like NASA posturing meant to get more funding for the ISS.At the same time , I think a lot has been learned while building the ISS .
I am far from certain that the lessons justify the cost , but just building a complex structure in space was a valuable exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like NASA posturing meant to get more funding for the ISS.At the same time, I think a lot has been learned while building the ISS.
I am far from certain that the lessons justify the cost, but just building a complex structure in space was a valuable exercise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686677</id>
	<title>Why not move it to the moon?</title>
	<author>TomRC</author>
	<datestamp>1247507160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems really dumb, given how expensive as it is to launch mass off the Earth.  Why not at least park it somewhere away from Earth, but where someone could eventually use it?</p><p>Supposedly the ISS will eventually have some VASIMR plasma thrusters attached to experiment with using that form of propulsion to keep it in orbit.   Why not just take up a full load of reaction mass, for VASIMR?  Shut down everything else that's drawing power (the solar panels don't provide enough energy to run VASIMR continuously).  Use VASIMR's "high thrust" mode to run from LEO to above the van Allen belts as quickly as possible, and then using VASIMR's "efficient thrust" mode, shift into a highly elliptical orbit, eventually a lunar transfer orbit, and finally in a nice parking orbit around the moon?</p><p>Hey - if it survives the trip in reasonably good shape, maybe it could even be used for something for exploring the moon - an emergency orbital shelter perhaps, or at least a cheap communication relay satellite?  Worst case, crash it into the moon somewhere a future lunar base could mine the scrap.</p><p>I dunno - must be rocket science, 'cause I can't understand why they'd waste all that lovely and expensive delta-V.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems really dumb , given how expensive as it is to launch mass off the Earth .
Why not at least park it somewhere away from Earth , but where someone could eventually use it ? Supposedly the ISS will eventually have some VASIMR plasma thrusters attached to experiment with using that form of propulsion to keep it in orbit .
Why not just take up a full load of reaction mass , for VASIMR ?
Shut down everything else that 's drawing power ( the solar panels do n't provide enough energy to run VASIMR continuously ) .
Use VASIMR 's " high thrust " mode to run from LEO to above the van Allen belts as quickly as possible , and then using VASIMR 's " efficient thrust " mode , shift into a highly elliptical orbit , eventually a lunar transfer orbit , and finally in a nice parking orbit around the moon ? Hey - if it survives the trip in reasonably good shape , maybe it could even be used for something for exploring the moon - an emergency orbital shelter perhaps , or at least a cheap communication relay satellite ?
Worst case , crash it into the moon somewhere a future lunar base could mine the scrap.I dunno - must be rocket science , 'cause I ca n't understand why they 'd waste all that lovely and expensive delta-V .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems really dumb, given how expensive as it is to launch mass off the Earth.
Why not at least park it somewhere away from Earth, but where someone could eventually use it?Supposedly the ISS will eventually have some VASIMR plasma thrusters attached to experiment with using that form of propulsion to keep it in orbit.
Why not just take up a full load of reaction mass, for VASIMR?
Shut down everything else that's drawing power (the solar panels don't provide enough energy to run VASIMR continuously).
Use VASIMR's "high thrust" mode to run from LEO to above the van Allen belts as quickly as possible, and then using VASIMR's "efficient thrust" mode, shift into a highly elliptical orbit, eventually a lunar transfer orbit, and finally in a nice parking orbit around the moon?Hey - if it survives the trip in reasonably good shape, maybe it could even be used for something for exploring the moon - an emergency orbital shelter perhaps, or at least a cheap communication relay satellite?
Worst case, crash it into the moon somewhere a future lunar base could mine the scrap.I dunno - must be rocket science, 'cause I can't understand why they'd waste all that lovely and expensive delta-V.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679873</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>hab136</author>
	<datestamp>1247511720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why not? That's what we did with its predecessor, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab" title="wikipedia.org">Skylab</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , after all the money we 've spent , I do n't see them just plopping it into the ocean.Why not ?
That 's what we did with its predecessor , Skylab [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.Why not?
That's what we did with its predecessor, Skylab [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678141</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247506080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Build ISS<br>
2. Perform the zero-gravity experiments it was constructed for, getting many years of science out of it (including the ones up until now)<br>
3. Deorbit<br> <br>

By your logic I could say "what are the LHC guys thinking? they'll be shutting it down in a few years!" But that completely misses the point of constructing it..<br> <br>

I don't get how so many have <i>completely misunderstood</i> the ISS' purpose..</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Build ISS 2 .
Perform the zero-gravity experiments it was constructed for , getting many years of science out of it ( including the ones up until now ) 3 .
Deorbit By your logic I could say " what are the LHC guys thinking ?
they 'll be shutting it down in a few years !
" But that completely misses the point of constructing it. . I do n't get how so many have completely misunderstood the ISS ' purpose. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Build ISS
2.
Perform the zero-gravity experiments it was constructed for, getting many years of science out of it (including the ones up until now)
3.
Deorbit 

By your logic I could say "what are the LHC guys thinking?
they'll be shutting it down in a few years!
" But that completely misses the point of constructing it.. 

I don't get how so many have completely misunderstood the ISS' purpose..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684971</id>
	<title>No they won't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247492880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lolzors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lolzors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lolzors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945</id>
	<title>Lock the doors and repel all boarders</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1247498640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>and declare independence.
<p>
With the russians being the only people (once the scuttle is sent to the knacker's yard) who have the ability to send people to the ISS, and the europeans with their independent supply craft, it may even be possible to ignore whatever NASA wants to do. Come 2016, it may even be that there were no more americans on the station - in which case all the existing occupants would have to do would be to stop any more of them arriving. Once the high costs of construction have been met and the station enters a lower cost maintenance phase of it's life, there could well be deals to be done with other countries to keep the station supplied and crews rotated and some real work done.
</p><p>
Last of all, I would really laugh if the de-orbiting project threw up some show-stoppers which showed that the station was now TOO BIG to be safely taken apart, without affecting it's overall stability - and the risk of the whole thing crashing back in one large piece.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and declare independence .
With the russians being the only people ( once the scuttle is sent to the knacker 's yard ) who have the ability to send people to the ISS , and the europeans with their independent supply craft , it may even be possible to ignore whatever NASA wants to do .
Come 2016 , it may even be that there were no more americans on the station - in which case all the existing occupants would have to do would be to stop any more of them arriving .
Once the high costs of construction have been met and the station enters a lower cost maintenance phase of it 's life , there could well be deals to be done with other countries to keep the station supplied and crews rotated and some real work done .
Last of all , I would really laugh if the de-orbiting project threw up some show-stoppers which showed that the station was now TOO BIG to be safely taken apart , without affecting it 's overall stability - and the risk of the whole thing crashing back in one large piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and declare independence.
With the russians being the only people (once the scuttle is sent to the knacker's yard) who have the ability to send people to the ISS, and the europeans with their independent supply craft, it may even be possible to ignore whatever NASA wants to do.
Come 2016, it may even be that there were no more americans on the station - in which case all the existing occupants would have to do would be to stop any more of them arriving.
Once the high costs of construction have been met and the station enters a lower cost maintenance phase of it's life, there could well be deals to be done with other countries to keep the station supplied and crews rotated and some real work done.
Last of all, I would really laugh if the de-orbiting project threw up some show-stoppers which showed that the station was now TOO BIG to be safely taken apart, without affecting it's overall stability - and the risk of the whole thing crashing back in one large piece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677049</id>
	<title>INTERNATIONAL Space Station?</title>
	<author>LunarEffect</author>
	<datestamp>1247502480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the NASA can just say: "Sorry, rest of the world, shows over in 2016."?
Don't the ESA, JAXA, RKA...etc have a say in this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the NASA can just say : " Sorry , rest of the world , shows over in 2016. " ?
Do n't the ESA , JAXA , RKA...etc have a say in this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the NASA can just say: "Sorry, rest of the world, shows over in 2016."?
Don't the ESA, JAXA, RKA...etc have a say in this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28682121</id>
	<title>Re:Lock the doors and repel all boarders</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1247477400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it may even be possible to ignore whatever NASA wants to do.</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course it's possible, but that doesn't matter in the slightest.  From the very beginning, this was a US move to subsidize Russian rocket scientists.</p><p>NASA gets to decide what happens with ISS, because the US is the one spending the majority of the money.  If they stop paying, it's over.  You vastly overestimate Russia and Europe's willingness to invest HEAVILY in leading-edge space exploration.  Sure, MIR was good, but it was peanuts by comparison, and that was mostly sunk cost before the end of the cold war, which was steadily decaying, even with the Americans shoveling out money for a ride in prep for developing ISS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it may even be possible to ignore whatever NASA wants to do.Of course it 's possible , but that does n't matter in the slightest .
From the very beginning , this was a US move to subsidize Russian rocket scientists.NASA gets to decide what happens with ISS , because the US is the one spending the majority of the money .
If they stop paying , it 's over .
You vastly overestimate Russia and Europe 's willingness to invest HEAVILY in leading-edge space exploration .
Sure , MIR was good , but it was peanuts by comparison , and that was mostly sunk cost before the end of the cold war , which was steadily decaying , even with the Americans shoveling out money for a ride in prep for developing ISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it may even be possible to ignore whatever NASA wants to do.Of course it's possible, but that doesn't matter in the slightest.
From the very beginning, this was a US move to subsidize Russian rocket scientists.NASA gets to decide what happens with ISS, because the US is the one spending the majority of the money.
If they stop paying, it's over.
You vastly overestimate Russia and Europe's willingness to invest HEAVILY in leading-edge space exploration.
Sure, MIR was good, but it was peanuts by comparison, and that was mostly sunk cost before the end of the cold war, which was steadily decaying, even with the Americans shoveling out money for a ride in prep for developing ISS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676417</id>
	<title>Next Step</title>
	<author>zbharucha</author>
	<datestamp>1247500560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't say that the ISS has been a whole and complete waste. Sure - it is years behind schedule, etc., etc. but one has to admit that it has taught us a lot in terms of international cooperation, waste management, construction in zero-G among a long list of others. I truly believe that the next step to maintaining a presence in space has to come in the way of building a lunar base. It will be challenging but will have huge advantages, not the least of which is a base which is permanent (won't have to be de-orbited after a number of years), a base capable of providing on-site labs to do all sorts of analysis on lunar soil, rocks, regolith and basically, a base which will extend our knowledge of our own natural satellite by many orders of magnitude. And who knows? Perhaps one day we'll be advanced enough to manufacture components from materials found on the moon and be using that very base to send heavy spacecraft to other heavenly bodies like Mars. Discuss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say that the ISS has been a whole and complete waste .
Sure - it is years behind schedule , etc. , etc .
but one has to admit that it has taught us a lot in terms of international cooperation , waste management , construction in zero-G among a long list of others .
I truly believe that the next step to maintaining a presence in space has to come in the way of building a lunar base .
It will be challenging but will have huge advantages , not the least of which is a base which is permanent ( wo n't have to be de-orbited after a number of years ) , a base capable of providing on-site labs to do all sorts of analysis on lunar soil , rocks , regolith and basically , a base which will extend our knowledge of our own natural satellite by many orders of magnitude .
And who knows ?
Perhaps one day we 'll be advanced enough to manufacture components from materials found on the moon and be using that very base to send heavy spacecraft to other heavenly bodies like Mars .
Discuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say that the ISS has been a whole and complete waste.
Sure - it is years behind schedule, etc., etc.
but one has to admit that it has taught us a lot in terms of international cooperation, waste management, construction in zero-G among a long list of others.
I truly believe that the next step to maintaining a presence in space has to come in the way of building a lunar base.
It will be challenging but will have huge advantages, not the least of which is a base which is permanent (won't have to be de-orbited after a number of years), a base capable of providing on-site labs to do all sorts of analysis on lunar soil, rocks, regolith and basically, a base which will extend our knowledge of our own natural satellite by many orders of magnitude.
And who knows?
Perhaps one day we'll be advanced enough to manufacture components from materials found on the moon and be using that very base to send heavy spacecraft to other heavenly bodies like Mars.
Discuss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676381</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1247500440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Isn't it feasible to send them into space?" <br>
<br>
No.  Remember the moon mission?  Remember the rocket we strapped to the lander to get it into lunar orbit?  Yea, we'd need a bigger one to push the lander actually out of earth orbit.  And of course the ISS is larger then the lunar lander.  To burn it up in the atmosphere, though... well it needs periodic boosts to *not* burn up in the atmosphere.  We of course would like to pick when and where exactly it falls, so there will be a little push at the end, but nowhere what we'd need to get it out of earth orbit.<br>
<br>
Besides, why *not* burn it in the atmosphere?  Not like it's dangerous when we do it on purpose - satellites burn up entirely and something big like the ISS will end up in a few square miles of open ocean after a few days of warnings.  And a space station in sun orbit instead of earth orbit... would be as useful as one lying burnt at the bottom of the pacific.  I suppose one at a L4/5 could be useful, but only if we had plans/reasons to visit periodically.  No, the most useful place for the ISS is just where it is.<br>
<br>
Honestly, NASA probably just wants more money.  Space travel is expensive, and we want them to hold the ISS in orbit, go to the moon, and keep launching satellites and whatnot.  If they don't have enough money, one of them has to go, as this is a not-so-subtle reminder of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is n't it feasible to send them into space ?
" No .
Remember the moon mission ?
Remember the rocket we strapped to the lander to get it into lunar orbit ?
Yea , we 'd need a bigger one to push the lander actually out of earth orbit .
And of course the ISS is larger then the lunar lander .
To burn it up in the atmosphere , though... well it needs periodic boosts to * not * burn up in the atmosphere .
We of course would like to pick when and where exactly it falls , so there will be a little push at the end , but nowhere what we 'd need to get it out of earth orbit .
Besides , why * not * burn it in the atmosphere ?
Not like it 's dangerous when we do it on purpose - satellites burn up entirely and something big like the ISS will end up in a few square miles of open ocean after a few days of warnings .
And a space station in sun orbit instead of earth orbit... would be as useful as one lying burnt at the bottom of the pacific .
I suppose one at a L4/5 could be useful , but only if we had plans/reasons to visit periodically .
No , the most useful place for the ISS is just where it is .
Honestly , NASA probably just wants more money .
Space travel is expensive , and we want them to hold the ISS in orbit , go to the moon , and keep launching satellites and whatnot .
If they do n't have enough money , one of them has to go , as this is a not-so-subtle reminder of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Isn't it feasible to send them into space?
" 

No.
Remember the moon mission?
Remember the rocket we strapped to the lander to get it into lunar orbit?
Yea, we'd need a bigger one to push the lander actually out of earth orbit.
And of course the ISS is larger then the lunar lander.
To burn it up in the atmosphere, though... well it needs periodic boosts to *not* burn up in the atmosphere.
We of course would like to pick when and where exactly it falls, so there will be a little push at the end, but nowhere what we'd need to get it out of earth orbit.
Besides, why *not* burn it in the atmosphere?
Not like it's dangerous when we do it on purpose - satellites burn up entirely and something big like the ISS will end up in a few square miles of open ocean after a few days of warnings.
And a space station in sun orbit instead of earth orbit... would be as useful as one lying burnt at the bottom of the pacific.
I suppose one at a L4/5 could be useful, but only if we had plans/reasons to visit periodically.
No, the most useful place for the ISS is just where it is.
Honestly, NASA probably just wants more money.
Space travel is expensive, and we want them to hold the ISS in orbit, go to the moon, and keep launching satellites and whatnot.
If they don't have enough money, one of them has to go, as this is a not-so-subtle reminder of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680983</id>
	<title>Final Experiment</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1247516040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not get one last good experiment out of it and see how big of a crater it can make? If it makes enough of an impact, we can test our impact-based apocalypse theories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not get one last good experiment out of it and see how big of a crater it can make ?
If it makes enough of an impact , we can test our impact-based apocalypse theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not get one last good experiment out of it and see how big of a crater it can make?
If it makes enough of an impact, we can test our impact-based apocalypse theories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676497</id>
	<title>Re:Send it to orbit the moon or Mars</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1247500740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. It takes huge amounts of fuel to get out of the Earth's gravity well. That would certainly cost tens of billions, and possibly as much again as has already been spent. Left to itself, its orbit will decay and it will plummet unpredictably with a very few years. Boosted, expensively, to parking orbit, it will be a useless hunk embarrassingly visible, like a redneck's chocked up car in front of the house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It takes huge amounts of fuel to get out of the Earth 's gravity well .
That would certainly cost tens of billions , and possibly as much again as has already been spent .
Left to itself , its orbit will decay and it will plummet unpredictably with a very few years .
Boosted , expensively , to parking orbit , it will be a useless hunk embarrassingly visible , like a redneck 's chocked up car in front of the house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It takes huge amounts of fuel to get out of the Earth's gravity well.
That would certainly cost tens of billions, and possibly as much again as has already been spent.
Left to itself, its orbit will decay and it will plummet unpredictably with a very few years.
Boosted, expensively, to parking orbit, it will be a useless hunk embarrassingly visible, like a redneck's chocked up car in front of the house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680469</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1247513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The moon's gravity field is "lumpy"?  Wouldn't that indicate that the density of the moon is non-uniform?</p><p>I wonder if the Monolith has anything to do with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The moon 's gravity field is " lumpy " ?
Would n't that indicate that the density of the moon is non-uniform ? I wonder if the Monolith has anything to do with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moon's gravity field is "lumpy"?
Wouldn't that indicate that the density of the moon is non-uniform?I wonder if the Monolith has anything to do with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675953</id>
	<title>Not quite what the article implies</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1247498700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Article implies they are planning on trashing it in 2016 unless they get more funding.. This is a political move, and the ISS will probably be kept in service longer then that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Article implies they are planning on trashing it in 2016 unless they get more funding.. This is a political move , and the ISS will probably be kept in service longer then that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article implies they are planning on trashing it in 2016 unless they get more funding.. This is a political move, and the ISS will probably be kept in service longer then that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676427</id>
	<title>"Permanent Inode" not.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247500560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, so we spend $$ putting up a station, a few more and put a DTN node there, and call it permanent, then deorbit the whole kit/kaboodle in what, 6 years?</p><p>http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/0222214/ISS-Launches-First-Permanent-Node-of-Interplanetary-Internet</p><p>Deconstruction of "permanence" commencing....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , so we spend $ $ putting up a station , a few more and put a DTN node there , and call it permanent , then deorbit the whole kit/kaboodle in what , 6 years ? http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/0222214/ISS-Launches-First-Permanent-Node-of-Interplanetary-InternetDeconstruction of " permanence " commencing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, so we spend $$ putting up a station, a few more and put a DTN node there, and call it permanent, then deorbit the whole kit/kaboodle in what, 6 years?http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/0222214/ISS-Launches-First-Permanent-Node-of-Interplanetary-InternetDeconstruction of "permanence" commencing....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676437</id>
	<title>Re:Next stop...</title>
	<author>Eric52902</author>
	<datestamp>1247500620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No pun intended? Really?  Its like saying, "with all due respect".  You can say it, but I see right through your little farce!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No pun intended ?
Really ? Its like saying , " with all due respect " .
You can say it , but I see right through your little farce !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No pun intended?
Really?  Its like saying, "with all due respect".
You can say it, but I see right through your little farce!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686781</id>
	<title>Re:What gives them the right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247508060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"crashed into the sea."</p><p>Would that be the "D" sea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" crashed into the sea .
" Would that be the " D " sea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"crashed into the sea.
"Would that be the "D" sea?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676013</id>
	<title>Operation Meteor</title>
	<author>Allicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1247498880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture will clearly have something to say about this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture will clearly have something to say about this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture will clearly have something to say about this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676817</id>
	<title>Re:Next stop...</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1247501700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then deorbit it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then deorbit it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then deorbit it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678457</id>
	<title>Moon</title>
	<author>Polybius</author>
	<datestamp>1247507280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Divert the money to a permanantly manned Moon base and send up some metallurgists to play around with alloys in the low gravity and near-vacuum.  Could probably just use some frensel lenses to heat the forge.  Maybe they could find some new super mega alloy, produce it on the Moon then construct a ship there to send to Mars with the newly gained "how to run a moon base" knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Divert the money to a permanantly manned Moon base and send up some metallurgists to play around with alloys in the low gravity and near-vacuum .
Could probably just use some frensel lenses to heat the forge .
Maybe they could find some new super mega alloy , produce it on the Moon then construct a ship there to send to Mars with the newly gained " how to run a moon base " knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Divert the money to a permanantly manned Moon base and send up some metallurgists to play around with alloys in the low gravity and near-vacuum.
Could probably just use some frensel lenses to heat the forge.
Maybe they could find some new super mega alloy, produce it on the Moon then construct a ship there to send to Mars with the newly gained "how to run a moon base" knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678031</id>
	<title>Re:Only 6 years after completion?!</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247505780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How are we supposed to go to Mars without any understanding of surviving outside of Earth for extended periods? Why would we keep the ISS' heavy maintenance costs going longer than they're needed?<br> <br>

Don't think of it as a "space station, to conquer the far reaches of outer space", or a permanent monument for space tourists to visit. It's a zero-gravity lab, plain and simple; an extended mission, which will be discarded when complete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are we supposed to go to Mars without any understanding of surviving outside of Earth for extended periods ?
Why would we keep the ISS ' heavy maintenance costs going longer than they 're needed ?
Do n't think of it as a " space station , to conquer the far reaches of outer space " , or a permanent monument for space tourists to visit .
It 's a zero-gravity lab , plain and simple ; an extended mission , which will be discarded when complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are we supposed to go to Mars without any understanding of surviving outside of Earth for extended periods?
Why would we keep the ISS' heavy maintenance costs going longer than they're needed?
Don't think of it as a "space station, to conquer the far reaches of outer space", or a permanent monument for space tourists to visit.
It's a zero-gravity lab, plain and simple; an extended mission, which will be discarded when complete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680595</id>
	<title>Re:Lock the doors and repel all boarders</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1247514300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What mental model of orbital dynamics are you working with? You think it's going to fall off its sky-hook or something?</p></div><p>Err, no. Just conservation of angular momentum in it''s orbit, plus maybe some things about not getting it spinning. Disassembly will never be simply the opposite of assembly. Also don't forget that it'll be the occupants who have to take it apart - so avoiding bumping large chunks of old space-station into their only means of getting home could make it quite a tricky operation.
</p><p>
P.S. it's not on a skyhook - I don't know what they've been teaching you guys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What mental model of orbital dynamics are you working with ?
You think it 's going to fall off its sky-hook or something ? Err , no .
Just conservation of angular momentum in it ' 's orbit , plus maybe some things about not getting it spinning .
Disassembly will never be simply the opposite of assembly .
Also do n't forget that it 'll be the occupants who have to take it apart - so avoiding bumping large chunks of old space-station into their only means of getting home could make it quite a tricky operation .
P.S. it 's not on a skyhook - I do n't know what they 've been teaching you guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What mental model of orbital dynamics are you working with?
You think it's going to fall off its sky-hook or something?Err, no.
Just conservation of angular momentum in it''s orbit, plus maybe some things about not getting it spinning.
Disassembly will never be simply the opposite of assembly.
Also don't forget that it'll be the occupants who have to take it apart - so avoiding bumping large chunks of old space-station into their only means of getting home could make it quite a tricky operation.
P.S. it's not on a skyhook - I don't know what they've been teaching you guys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</id>
	<title>I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247498880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.<br><br>Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.<br><br>Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species.  One of those strategies means long term human space flight.  Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that.<br><br>I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , after all the money we 've spent , I do n't see them just plopping it into the ocean.Firstly , if we 're going to the moon and mars , the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.Secondly , we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species .
One of those strategies means long term human space flight .
Currently a space station is the only thing that 's giving us that.I 'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects , but right now it 's the only thing NASA is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species.
One of those strategies means long term human space flight.
Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that.I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678883</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone understand economics?</title>
	<author>GryMor</author>
	<datestamp>1247508600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only seems that way due to parts of the argument being assumed, specifically:<br>That it will cost the same or more to get back to where we are now.</p><p>Given NASA's bureaucracy, this is a given without significant reforms. Given that previous reforms do not seem to have helped much, it is almost certainly a given WITH significant reforms.</p><p>This is only a good argument if we want to get back to where we are now, and the cost of maintaing this position is less than getting back here, or if we wish to go somewhere that will be cheaper if we are starting from this point rather than from scratch.</p><p>I personally believe it's a bad move to deorbit anything that we could otherwise attach to some central node (like the ISS) and eventually use as spare parts for in space tinkering. Of course, the shuttle itself is a bit of a nightmare, much better to have an SSTO with a minimal reentry vehicle so you leave most of your mass up at the node.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only seems that way due to parts of the argument being assumed , specifically : That it will cost the same or more to get back to where we are now.Given NASA 's bureaucracy , this is a given without significant reforms .
Given that previous reforms do not seem to have helped much , it is almost certainly a given WITH significant reforms.This is only a good argument if we want to get back to where we are now , and the cost of maintaing this position is less than getting back here , or if we wish to go somewhere that will be cheaper if we are starting from this point rather than from scratch.I personally believe it 's a bad move to deorbit anything that we could otherwise attach to some central node ( like the ISS ) and eventually use as spare parts for in space tinkering .
Of course , the shuttle itself is a bit of a nightmare , much better to have an SSTO with a minimal reentry vehicle so you leave most of your mass up at the node .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only seems that way due to parts of the argument being assumed, specifically:That it will cost the same or more to get back to where we are now.Given NASA's bureaucracy, this is a given without significant reforms.
Given that previous reforms do not seem to have helped much, it is almost certainly a given WITH significant reforms.This is only a good argument if we want to get back to where we are now, and the cost of maintaing this position is less than getting back here, or if we wish to go somewhere that will be cheaper if we are starting from this point rather than from scratch.I personally believe it's a bad move to deorbit anything that we could otherwise attach to some central node (like the ISS) and eventually use as spare parts for in space tinkering.
Of course, the shuttle itself is a bit of a nightmare, much better to have an SSTO with a minimal reentry vehicle so you leave most of your mass up at the node.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678467</id>
	<title>Engines..</title>
	<author>drewsup</author>
	<datestamp>1247507280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Weren't they supposed to be testing the new VASIMIR engine on this thing eventually??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't they supposed to be testing the new VASIMIR engine on this thing eventually ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't they supposed to be testing the new VASIMIR engine on this thing eventually?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677423</id>
	<title>Ion drive to maintain orbit?</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1247503800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is because of maintenance costs, right?  Costs too much to resupply and refuel it.  I was reading about Ion thrusters in wikipedia and they sound like an excellent way to keep the ISS from falling into the earth without the costly fuel.  Ion drives do use a lot of power though.. WP says 2-140kW and the ISS generates what, 100kW?  Some exact numbers on the ISSs rate of decent and how much thrust would be needed to keep it in orbit would give the no/go for an ion drive.  They could even just burn off all excess solar power with the ion drive.. it would go to waste otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is because of maintenance costs , right ?
Costs too much to resupply and refuel it .
I was reading about Ion thrusters in wikipedia and they sound like an excellent way to keep the ISS from falling into the earth without the costly fuel .
Ion drives do use a lot of power though.. WP says 2-140kW and the ISS generates what , 100kW ?
Some exact numbers on the ISSs rate of decent and how much thrust would be needed to keep it in orbit would give the no/go for an ion drive .
They could even just burn off all excess solar power with the ion drive.. it would go to waste otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is because of maintenance costs, right?
Costs too much to resupply and refuel it.
I was reading about Ion thrusters in wikipedia and they sound like an excellent way to keep the ISS from falling into the earth without the costly fuel.
Ion drives do use a lot of power though.. WP says 2-140kW and the ISS generates what, 100kW?
Some exact numbers on the ISSs rate of decent and how much thrust would be needed to keep it in orbit would give the no/go for an ion drive.
They could even just burn off all excess solar power with the ion drive.. it would go to waste otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677007</id>
	<title>Re:Only 6 years after completion?!</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1247502300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You shouldn't even be reading this post for another ten minutes or so, because I should be writing it on Mars.</p></div><p>Er, you do realize that you yourself don't actually get to go to Mars, right?</p><p>They could have put the money into sending SOMEBODY to Mars, but the odds against it being you are, uh, astronomical.  Face it: if you're very lucky, you might be able to spend $100k and get into a brief orbit before you die.  Not even the Moon is in your actual reach.</p><p>If you think that a vicarious trip to another planet is worth the scores of billions of dollars we'd all have to come up with to pay for it, by all means agitate for that.  But be very, very clear: it's not going to be you.</p><p>Personally, I'm not crazy about spending those billions so somebody else gets to go to space and produce very little science.  I'd rather see it put into expendable robot missions, and that goes for the ISS as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should n't even be reading this post for another ten minutes or so , because I should be writing it on Mars.Er , you do realize that you yourself do n't actually get to go to Mars , right ? They could have put the money into sending SOMEBODY to Mars , but the odds against it being you are , uh , astronomical .
Face it : if you 're very lucky , you might be able to spend $ 100k and get into a brief orbit before you die .
Not even the Moon is in your actual reach.If you think that a vicarious trip to another planet is worth the scores of billions of dollars we 'd all have to come up with to pay for it , by all means agitate for that .
But be very , very clear : it 's not going to be you.Personally , I 'm not crazy about spending those billions so somebody else gets to go to space and produce very little science .
I 'd rather see it put into expendable robot missions , and that goes for the ISS as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldn't even be reading this post for another ten minutes or so, because I should be writing it on Mars.Er, you do realize that you yourself don't actually get to go to Mars, right?They could have put the money into sending SOMEBODY to Mars, but the odds against it being you are, uh, astronomical.
Face it: if you're very lucky, you might be able to spend $100k and get into a brief orbit before you die.
Not even the Moon is in your actual reach.If you think that a vicarious trip to another planet is worth the scores of billions of dollars we'd all have to come up with to pay for it, by all means agitate for that.
But be very, very clear: it's not going to be you.Personally, I'm not crazy about spending those billions so somebody else gets to go to space and produce very little science.
I'd rather see it put into expendable robot missions, and that goes for the ISS as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675667</id>
	<title>Guess the Permanent Interplanetary Internet Node..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't really permanent, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't really permanent , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't really permanent, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681955</id>
	<title>Re:Operation Meteor</title>
	<author>etherelithic</author>
	<datestamp>1247476740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OZ will surely quell those colony rebels!</htmltext>
<tokenext>OZ will surely quell those colony rebels !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OZ will surely quell those colony rebels!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680577</id>
	<title>Re:Only 6 years after completion?!</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1247514180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His point is that lots of people should be in space, or on other planets/moons by now.  Watch 2001 some time; if we had kept up the same rate of development that we had in the 60s, the things shown in that movie (large orbiting space station, moon base, regular transports to/from moon, manned ship en route to Jupiter, etc.) would be a reality by now.</p><p><i>Personally, I'm not crazy about spending those billions so somebody else gets to go to space and produce very little science. I'd rather see it put into expendable robot missions, and that goes for the ISS as well.</i></p><p>If we sent a team of geologists and other scientists to Mars, we would get far more science, far more quickly, than sending a handful of small robotic probes.  It would cost a lot, yes, but you'd also get a lot.  Spend a little, get a little, spend a lot, get a lot.</p><p>If we want to get to the point where we're doing things in space which actually benefit the economy in visible ways (asteroid mining, space-based solar power, or whatever), that'll require sending actual humans up there to do the work.  We're not developing our know-how for this by sending up robots.  The only way to get better at sending humans into space is to actually send humans into space and learn from the mistakes made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His point is that lots of people should be in space , or on other planets/moons by now .
Watch 2001 some time ; if we had kept up the same rate of development that we had in the 60s , the things shown in that movie ( large orbiting space station , moon base , regular transports to/from moon , manned ship en route to Jupiter , etc .
) would be a reality by now.Personally , I 'm not crazy about spending those billions so somebody else gets to go to space and produce very little science .
I 'd rather see it put into expendable robot missions , and that goes for the ISS as well.If we sent a team of geologists and other scientists to Mars , we would get far more science , far more quickly , than sending a handful of small robotic probes .
It would cost a lot , yes , but you 'd also get a lot .
Spend a little , get a little , spend a lot , get a lot.If we want to get to the point where we 're doing things in space which actually benefit the economy in visible ways ( asteroid mining , space-based solar power , or whatever ) , that 'll require sending actual humans up there to do the work .
We 're not developing our know-how for this by sending up robots .
The only way to get better at sending humans into space is to actually send humans into space and learn from the mistakes made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His point is that lots of people should be in space, or on other planets/moons by now.
Watch 2001 some time; if we had kept up the same rate of development that we had in the 60s, the things shown in that movie (large orbiting space station, moon base, regular transports to/from moon, manned ship en route to Jupiter, etc.
) would be a reality by now.Personally, I'm not crazy about spending those billions so somebody else gets to go to space and produce very little science.
I'd rather see it put into expendable robot missions, and that goes for the ISS as well.If we sent a team of geologists and other scientists to Mars, we would get far more science, far more quickly, than sending a handful of small robotic probes.
It would cost a lot, yes, but you'd also get a lot.
Spend a little, get a little, spend a lot, get a lot.If we want to get to the point where we're doing things in space which actually benefit the economy in visible ways (asteroid mining, space-based solar power, or whatever), that'll require sending actual humans up there to do the work.
We're not developing our know-how for this by sending up robots.
The only way to get better at sending humans into space is to actually send humans into space and learn from the mistakes made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675927</id>
	<title>At least make it an outhouse</title>
	<author>VoyagerRadio</author>
	<datestamp>1247498580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fer cryin' out loud, at least make it an outhouse. A perfect one, too, if they make it bottomless...that's maintenance free!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fer cryin ' out loud , at least make it an outhouse .
A perfect one , too , if they make it bottomless...that 's maintenance free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fer cryin' out loud, at least make it an outhouse.
A perfect one, too, if they make it bottomless...that's maintenance free!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743</id>
	<title>W.T.F.</title>
	<author>chebucto</author>
	<datestamp>1247497740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From wikipedia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled to be complete by 2011, with operations continuing until at least 2015. In the first quarter of 2016 unless there is a change in policy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the space station will be de-orbited.</p></div><p>So, 13 years of construction and four years of (full-capacity) operation. This sets the standard for white elephants. As far as I'm concerned, they should either de-orbit it now and stop throwing good money after bad, or keep it up there for a lot longer, if only to do experiments on long-term living in space.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From wikipedia : On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled to be complete by 2011 , with operations continuing until at least 2015 .
In the first quarter of 2016 unless there is a change in policy ... the space station will be de-orbited.So , 13 years of construction and four years of ( full-capacity ) operation .
This sets the standard for white elephants .
As far as I 'm concerned , they should either de-orbit it now and stop throwing good money after bad , or keep it up there for a lot longer , if only to do experiments on long-term living in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From wikipedia:On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled to be complete by 2011, with operations continuing until at least 2015.
In the first quarter of 2016 unless there is a change in policy ... the space station will be de-orbited.So, 13 years of construction and four years of (full-capacity) operation.
This sets the standard for white elephants.
As far as I'm concerned, they should either de-orbit it now and stop throwing good money after bad, or keep it up there for a lot longer, if only to do experiments on long-term living in space.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678065</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's relatively easy to de-orbit things, especially things in LEO, but reaching escape velocity takes a lot of fuel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's relatively easy to de-orbit things , especially things in LEO , but reaching escape velocity takes a lot of fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's relatively easy to de-orbit things, especially things in LEO, but reaching escape velocity takes a lot of fuel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675665</id>
	<title>luckily for us</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1247497440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>luckily for us Nasa doesn't decide anything!</htmltext>
<tokenext>luckily for us Nasa does n't decide anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>luckily for us Nasa doesn't decide anything!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679135</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing their bluffing</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1247509440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Until ISS starts doing useful science, which at this point it probably never will, its just a money pit.</i> <br> <br>Why do you think it is not doing useful science?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until ISS starts doing useful science , which at this point it probably never will , its just a money pit .
Why do you think it is not doing useful science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until ISS starts doing useful science, which at this point it probably never will, its just a money pit.
Why do you think it is not doing useful science?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676609</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1247501100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a WAY to keep the MILK coming.</p><p>I see what you did there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a WAY to keep the MILK coming.I see what you did there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a WAY to keep the MILK coming.I see what you did there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678157</id>
	<title>Re:What gives them the right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247506140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last component is a warp drive. The will de-orbit into outer space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last component is a warp drive .
The will de-orbit into outer space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last component is a warp drive.
The will de-orbit into outer space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678993</id>
	<title>Re:Lock the doors and repel all boarders</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1247508960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to play the end game bit, then you have a problem of supplies.  There is only so much food that can be grown up there, and things do break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to play the end game bit , then you have a problem of supplies .
There is only so much food that can be grown up there , and things do break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to play the end game bit, then you have a problem of supplies.
There is only so much food that can be grown up there, and things do break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661</id>
	<title>Unfortunately, it will never happen.</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1247497440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will stay there for a decade or two longer because those sucking the tit will find a way to keep the milk coming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will stay there for a decade or two longer because those sucking the tit will find a way to keep the milk coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will stay there for a decade or two longer because those sucking the tit will find a way to keep the milk coming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679541</id>
	<title>Ion Drive</title>
	<author>Wuahn</author>
	<datestamp>1247510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ISS needs some ion propulsion units to maintain its orbit and lots of those little scented Xmas trees to keep the whole thing from smelling like old socks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISS needs some ion propulsion units to maintain its orbit and lots of those little scented Xmas trees to keep the whole thing from smelling like old socks .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISS needs some ion propulsion units to maintain its orbit and lots of those little scented Xmas trees to keep the whole thing from smelling like old socks.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677921</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean."</p><p>I agree, we can easily hit a hospital in Pakistan with this thing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Honestly , after all the money we 've spent , I do n't see them just plopping it into the ocean .
" I agree , we can easily hit a hospital in Pakistan with this thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.
"I agree, we can easily hit a hospital in Pakistan with this thing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677351</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1247503560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We could have put people on Mars for that money.</i></p><p>no we couldn't.  we cant even get people to the moon right now.  Your $100 billion would pay for a one way suicide mission to mars, we dont even have a clue as to how to get them there safely let alone back.   The detailed research into the mars mission for the return trip has not even been started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could have put people on Mars for that money.no we could n't .
we cant even get people to the moon right now .
Your $ 100 billion would pay for a one way suicide mission to mars , we dont even have a clue as to how to get them there safely let alone back .
The detailed research into the mars mission for the return trip has not even been started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could have put people on Mars for that money.no we couldn't.
we cant even get people to the moon right now.
Your $100 billion would pay for a one way suicide mission to mars, we dont even have a clue as to how to get them there safely let alone back.
The detailed research into the mars mission for the return trip has not even been started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687725</id>
	<title>Re:Space politics</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1247562780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most important one is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on STS134.</p><p>And who knows what will happen in the future with regards to new launch vehicles? ISS might even get an extention if enough cheap launches are available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most important one is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on STS134.And who knows what will happen in the future with regards to new launch vehicles ?
ISS might even get an extention if enough cheap launches are available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most important one is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on STS134.And who knows what will happen in the future with regards to new launch vehicles?
ISS might even get an extention if enough cheap launches are available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684361</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never happen</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247488680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISS is sectional - not modular.  You can't break it apart and reassemble it in a different configuration, nor can modules be easily removed for use elsewhere.  Though it was launched in pieces, effectively it is one-big-chunk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISS is sectional - not modular .
You ca n't break it apart and reassemble it in a different configuration , nor can modules be easily removed for use elsewhere .
Though it was launched in pieces , effectively it is one-big-chunk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISS is sectional - not modular.
You can't break it apart and reassemble it in a different configuration, nor can modules be easily removed for use elsewhere.
Though it was launched in pieces, effectively it is one-big-chunk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680515</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone understand economics?</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1247514000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A)  Future benefits &gt; Future costs<p>
B) We've already spent X dollars</p><p>
One (and only one) of these is a legitimate reason to continue the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ) Future benefits &gt; Future costs B ) We 've already spent X dollars One ( and only one ) of these is a legitimate reason to continue the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A)  Future benefits &gt; Future costs
B) We've already spent X dollars
One (and only one) of these is a legitimate reason to continue the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678471</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1247507280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.

Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.

Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species.  One of those strategies means long term human space flight.  Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that.

I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing.</p></div><p>By 2016 it won't be of course, and the ISS will have ended its useful life. People don't seem to understand that the ISS doesn't stay up there by itself, and it doesn't do science just by virtue of being in space.<br> <br>

The LHC has taken over 20 years to complete, and will only run for a few years after it has started. Should we abandon that experiment too? After all we're not paying for the research, we're paying for a giant hoop in the ground and if that doesn't last forever then why bother?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , after all the money we 've spent , I do n't see them just plopping it into the ocean .
Firstly , if we 're going to the moon and mars , the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option .
Secondly , we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species .
One of those strategies means long term human space flight .
Currently a space station is the only thing that 's giving us that .
I 'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects , but right now it 's the only thing NASA is doing.By 2016 it wo n't be of course , and the ISS will have ended its useful life .
People do n't seem to understand that the ISS does n't stay up there by itself , and it does n't do science just by virtue of being in space .
The LHC has taken over 20 years to complete , and will only run for a few years after it has started .
Should we abandon that experiment too ?
After all we 're not paying for the research , we 're paying for a giant hoop in the ground and if that does n't last forever then why bother ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.
Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.
Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species.
One of those strategies means long term human space flight.
Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that.
I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing.By 2016 it won't be of course, and the ISS will have ended its useful life.
People don't seem to understand that the ISS doesn't stay up there by itself, and it doesn't do science just by virtue of being in space.
The LHC has taken over 20 years to complete, and will only run for a few years after it has started.
Should we abandon that experiment too?
After all we're not paying for the research, we're paying for a giant hoop in the ground and if that doesn't last forever then why bother?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680511</id>
	<title>Re:W.T.F.</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247513940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... or keep it up there for a lot longer, if only to do experiments on long-term living in space.</p></div><p>That would be NASA's first choice, if they had the ability to do so.  Alas, they can't do this without money.  As things stand right now, they must cease operations in 2015.  It's not a "choice", it's a fact that they need to deal with and have absolutely no control over.  They don't control the purse strings, they can only do what their funding allows, and their funding doesn't allow for that option both you and they would prefer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or keep it up there for a lot longer , if only to do experiments on long-term living in space.That would be NASA 's first choice , if they had the ability to do so .
Alas , they ca n't do this without money .
As things stand right now , they must cease operations in 2015 .
It 's not a " choice " , it 's a fact that they need to deal with and have absolutely no control over .
They do n't control the purse strings , they can only do what their funding allows , and their funding does n't allow for that option both you and they would prefer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or keep it up there for a lot longer, if only to do experiments on long-term living in space.That would be NASA's first choice, if they had the ability to do so.
Alas, they can't do this without money.
As things stand right now, they must cease operations in 2015.
It's not a "choice", it's a fact that they need to deal with and have absolutely no control over.
They don't control the purse strings, they can only do what their funding allows, and their funding doesn't allow for that option both you and they would prefer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679403</id>
	<title>Re:Think outside the box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How on earth was this modded 'interesting' instead of funny!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How on earth was this modded 'interesting ' instead of funny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How on earth was this modded 'interesting' instead of funny!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679721</id>
	<title>Re:Space politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Keeping the IIS in operation is expensive, but throwing it away would be foolhardy....</p></div><p>Aha!  A closet Microsoft fan revealed!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping the IIS in operation is expensive , but throwing it away would be foolhardy....Aha !
A closet Microsoft fan revealed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping the IIS in operation is expensive, but throwing it away would be foolhardy....Aha!
A closet Microsoft fan revealed!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687653</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247604900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't fully understand why useful objects in space are discarded into the atmosphere. Isn't it feasible to send them into space, either in an extremely high orbit or just give it enough inertia to keep traveling in open space?</i></p><p>For the same reason that, when you finish playing with a ball, you don't hurl it into space. You drop it. It takes a lot less energy.</p><p>To hurl something into space like that you'd need to send up another massive rocket to push it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't fully understand why useful objects in space are discarded into the atmosphere .
Is n't it feasible to send them into space , either in an extremely high orbit or just give it enough inertia to keep traveling in open space ? For the same reason that , when you finish playing with a ball , you do n't hurl it into space .
You drop it .
It takes a lot less energy.To hurl something into space like that you 'd need to send up another massive rocket to push it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't fully understand why useful objects in space are discarded into the atmosphere.
Isn't it feasible to send them into space, either in an extremely high orbit or just give it enough inertia to keep traveling in open space?For the same reason that, when you finish playing with a ball, you don't hurl it into space.
You drop it.
It takes a lot less energy.To hurl something into space like that you'd need to send up another massive rocket to push it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679393</id>
	<title>Re:I didnt sign up for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much did this cost? $100 billion dollars? I expect it to be up there till at least 2050</p></div><p>Sigh</p><p>The worlds schedules do not care about your expectations.</p><p>If you cared one bit about the ISS before this over 15 year old "news", why did you never even read the original mission statement before construction on ISS was started?<br>You know... the one that says it would be decommissioned in 2015?</p><p>The only thing surprising about this to everyone else is that they are a year behind schedule!</p><p>But I'm sure if you would lend them the millions of dollars a year it takes to get fuel to the station to keep it in its current orbit (Thrusters must fire roughly once a month to keep it from falling into the earths atmosphere anyway), not to mention a few billion dollars for the USA to build copies of all the Russian modules, launch them, and install them...<br>As I'm sure you were also not aware, the Russians want their modules back so we can not have them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much did this cost ?
$ 100 billion dollars ?
I expect it to be up there till at least 2050SighThe worlds schedules do not care about your expectations.If you cared one bit about the ISS before this over 15 year old " news " , why did you never even read the original mission statement before construction on ISS was started ? You know... the one that says it would be decommissioned in 2015 ? The only thing surprising about this to everyone else is that they are a year behind schedule ! But I 'm sure if you would lend them the millions of dollars a year it takes to get fuel to the station to keep it in its current orbit ( Thrusters must fire roughly once a month to keep it from falling into the earths atmosphere anyway ) , not to mention a few billion dollars for the USA to build copies of all the Russian modules , launch them , and install them...As I 'm sure you were also not aware , the Russians want their modules back so we can not have them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much did this cost?
$100 billion dollars?
I expect it to be up there till at least 2050SighThe worlds schedules do not care about your expectations.If you cared one bit about the ISS before this over 15 year old "news", why did you never even read the original mission statement before construction on ISS was started?You know... the one that says it would be decommissioned in 2015?The only thing surprising about this to everyone else is that they are a year behind schedule!But I'm sure if you would lend them the millions of dollars a year it takes to get fuel to the station to keep it in its current orbit (Thrusters must fire roughly once a month to keep it from falling into the earths atmosphere anyway), not to mention a few billion dollars for the USA to build copies of all the Russian modules, launch them, and install them...As I'm sure you were also not aware, the Russians want their modules back so we can not have them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676089</id>
	<title>Re:So what does that make the IRR?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247499180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?</p></div><p>Would have been great, and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind, but the ISS can't do it. You need a station in orbit around the equator for that, but the ISS was put at a big inclination in order to make it easier for the Russians to get to it.</p><p>On the one hand, I'm sad to see a major space project come and go like this. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the ISS can accomplish compared to spending that money on another major space project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions ? Would have been great , and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind , but the ISS ca n't do it .
You need a station in orbit around the equator for that , but the ISS was put at a big inclination in order to make it easier for the Russians to get to it.On the one hand , I 'm sad to see a major space project come and go like this .
On the other hand , I 'm not sure what the ISS can accomplish compared to spending that money on another major space project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?Would have been great, and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind, but the ISS can't do it.
You need a station in orbit around the equator for that, but the ISS was put at a big inclination in order to make it easier for the Russians to get to it.On the one hand, I'm sad to see a major space project come and go like this.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what the ISS can accomplish compared to spending that money on another major space project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676933</id>
	<title>Re:W.T.F.</title>
	<author>acoustix</author>
	<datestamp>1247502060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but remember that the US won't have a vehicle to travel to the ISS after it's completed.  Can you tell that this is a government-run operation?</p><p>And to think that we want the US government to get more involved in health care.....I can't wait!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but remember that the US wo n't have a vehicle to travel to the ISS after it 's completed .
Can you tell that this is a government-run operation ? And to think that we want the US government to get more involved in health care.....I ca n't wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but remember that the US won't have a vehicle to travel to the ISS after it's completed.
Can you tell that this is a government-run operation?And to think that we want the US government to get more involved in health care.....I can't wait!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681491</id>
	<title>Re:Why don't they ISS to mars?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247518140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember, the reason they need to deorbit it is because they don't have the money to keep it up.  Given that the basic problem is a lack of funds, how were you going to send it to Mars?  Pray it there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , the reason they need to deorbit it is because they do n't have the money to keep it up .
Given that the basic problem is a lack of funds , how were you going to send it to Mars ?
Pray it there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, the reason they need to deorbit it is because they don't have the money to keep it up.
Given that the basic problem is a lack of funds, how were you going to send it to Mars?
Pray it there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677417</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit on this...</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1247503800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean."<br>Sunk costs.  You can't get the money back no matter what you do; that money should be irrelevant to your decision.<br><br>"Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option."<br><br>Why?  It's not in a useful orbit for such a purpose.  Heck, there was considerable concern about doing the last Hubble mission, because the ISS wasn't usable as a bailout for even that orbit.  (Lunar orbit is further, FYI)<br><br>"Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species. One of those strategies means long term human space flight. Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that."<br><br>The space station can't survive a week without constant massive assistance from the ground; it's not a useful part.<br><br>"I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing."<br><br>I'm going to cry.  Here's a list of  70-something "current missions": http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html.  One of them is the ISS.  The rest do science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Honestly , after all the money we 've spent , I do n't see them just plopping it into the ocean .
" Sunk costs .
You ca n't get the money back no matter what you do ; that money should be irrelevant to your decision .
" Firstly , if we 're going to the moon and mars , the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option. " Why ?
It 's not in a useful orbit for such a purpose .
Heck , there was considerable concern about doing the last Hubble mission , because the ISS was n't usable as a bailout for even that orbit .
( Lunar orbit is further , FYI ) " Secondly , we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species .
One of those strategies means long term human space flight .
Currently a space station is the only thing that 's giving us that .
" The space station ca n't survive a week without constant massive assistance from the ground ; it 's not a useful part .
" I 'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects , but right now it 's the only thing NASA is doing .
" I 'm going to cry .
Here 's a list of 70-something " current missions " : http : //www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html .
One of them is the ISS .
The rest do science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.
"Sunk costs.
You can't get the money back no matter what you do; that money should be irrelevant to your decision.
"Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option."Why?
It's not in a useful orbit for such a purpose.
Heck, there was considerable concern about doing the last Hubble mission, because the ISS wasn't usable as a bailout for even that orbit.
(Lunar orbit is further, FYI)"Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species.
One of those strategies means long term human space flight.
Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that.
"The space station can't survive a week without constant massive assistance from the ground; it's not a useful part.
"I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing.
"I'm going to cry.
Here's a list of  70-something "current missions": http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html.
One of them is the ISS.
The rest do science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28690317</id>
	<title>Paging Mr. Gibson</title>
	<author>StarEmperor</author>
	<datestamp>1247583000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe some plucky <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Star,\_Winter\_Orbit" title="wikipedia.org">squatters</a> [wikipedia.org] will take it over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe some plucky squatters [ wikipedia.org ] will take it over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe some plucky squatters [wikipedia.org] will take it over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687345</id>
	<title>Re:Why not preserve it?</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1247601660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Deorbiting into the Pacific (which is usually where they target) is much safer and easier and can be done with a fraction of the fuel (they probably have enough on board).</i></p><p>I'm pretty sure that there's a mission requirement that they have more than enough fuel on-board for a controlled de-orbit at all times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deorbiting into the Pacific ( which is usually where they target ) is much safer and easier and can be done with a fraction of the fuel ( they probably have enough on board ) .I 'm pretty sure that there 's a mission requirement that they have more than enough fuel on-board for a controlled de-orbit at all times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deorbiting into the Pacific (which is usually where they target) is much safer and easier and can be done with a fraction of the fuel (they probably have enough on board).I'm pretty sure that there's a mission requirement that they have more than enough fuel on-board for a controlled de-orbit at all times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676259</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1247499960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, she will probably need to rest it for a while anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , she will probably need to rest it for a while anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, she will probably need to rest it for a while anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649</id>
	<title>It'll never happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines. Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days? They've been at it for years now. The date will be pushed back over and over again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines .
Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days ?
They 've been at it for years now .
The date will be pushed back over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is terrible with arbitrary deadlines.
Remember how the Mars rovers were only supposed to work for 90 days?
They've been at it for years now.
The date will be pushed back over and over again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189</id>
	<title>Space politics</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247499720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really difficult to do medium/long term space projects when there are changes to the budget every year, and new legislators looking to reevaluate after every election. If we're going to take on a project like this, we need the resolve (and financial commitment) to see it through.</p><p>How ridiculous is it that we have built the station, but we're not going to send up the already-built <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge\_Accommodations\_Module" title="wikipedia.org">Centrifuge Accommodations Module</a> [wikipedia.org], arguably one of the most important planned science modules?</p><p>Keeping the IIS in operation is expensive, but throwing it away would be foolhardy if it still has value for scientific research or for supporting future missions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really difficult to do medium/long term space projects when there are changes to the budget every year , and new legislators looking to reevaluate after every election .
If we 're going to take on a project like this , we need the resolve ( and financial commitment ) to see it through.How ridiculous is it that we have built the station , but we 're not going to send up the already-built Centrifuge Accommodations Module [ wikipedia.org ] , arguably one of the most important planned science modules ? Keeping the IIS in operation is expensive , but throwing it away would be foolhardy if it still has value for scientific research or for supporting future missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really difficult to do medium/long term space projects when there are changes to the budget every year, and new legislators looking to reevaluate after every election.
If we're going to take on a project like this, we need the resolve (and financial commitment) to see it through.How ridiculous is it that we have built the station, but we're not going to send up the already-built Centrifuge Accommodations Module [wikipedia.org], arguably one of the most important planned science modules?Keeping the IIS in operation is expensive, but throwing it away would be foolhardy if it still has value for scientific research or for supporting future missions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677031</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing their bluffing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247502420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let them play it.  Until ISS starts doing useful science, which at this point it probably never will, its just a money pit.  But, if NASA thinks they can deorbit a $150 billion in sunk costs and 40 wasted years and get away unscathed they are mistaken.   It will make NASA's manned space office permenently damaged goods, more so than they already are.</p><p>NASA's manned space office has just been using ISS and Shuttle as a giant job's program since Apollo ended.  They couldn't get funding for or think of anything useful to do so they've just been pouring money in to two failed programs, circling around in LEO doing nothing for nearly 40 years.  It was just a scheme so they would get pay checks and underachieving overachievers could put "astronaut" on their resume.  So far Orion and Ares aren't any better.</p><p>Either:</p><p>- Give the money in well structured grants to the private sector, like Burt Ruttan and Elon Musk, at least they are smaller, leaner and willing to think outside the box<br>- Give the money to parts of NASA that work like JPL for robotics missions or the great observatories<br>- Find someone with the ability and willingness to colonize Mars though you would have to throw a lot more money at it than NASA's current budget.  Since we've thrown trillions in to the pockets of corrupt bankers, Iraq, brain dead stimulus, GM, etc. colonizing Mars seems vastly better by comparison.</p><p>You put the kind of money in to JPL the ISS and Shuttle have been sucking up for the last four decades you could do some amazing robotic missions.  Robotics just wasn't there when Apollo ended.  Now it is and it can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less than putting men in space, especially with the current safety obsession in the wake of the two shuttle disaster, which is pretty much paralyzing manned missions.  Problem with putting men in space is it consumes vast resources and money just to keep them alive.  Only value in it is if you are going to build a self sustaining colony on Mars, presuming such a thing is even possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let them play it .
Until ISS starts doing useful science , which at this point it probably never will , its just a money pit .
But , if NASA thinks they can deorbit a $ 150 billion in sunk costs and 40 wasted years and get away unscathed they are mistaken .
It will make NASA 's manned space office permenently damaged goods , more so than they already are.NASA 's manned space office has just been using ISS and Shuttle as a giant job 's program since Apollo ended .
They could n't get funding for or think of anything useful to do so they 've just been pouring money in to two failed programs , circling around in LEO doing nothing for nearly 40 years .
It was just a scheme so they would get pay checks and underachieving overachievers could put " astronaut " on their resume .
So far Orion and Ares are n't any better.Either : - Give the money in well structured grants to the private sector , like Burt Ruttan and Elon Musk , at least they are smaller , leaner and willing to think outside the box- Give the money to parts of NASA that work like JPL for robotics missions or the great observatories- Find someone with the ability and willingness to colonize Mars though you would have to throw a lot more money at it than NASA 's current budget .
Since we 've thrown trillions in to the pockets of corrupt bankers , Iraq , brain dead stimulus , GM , etc .
colonizing Mars seems vastly better by comparison.You put the kind of money in to JPL the ISS and Shuttle have been sucking up for the last four decades you could do some amazing robotic missions .
Robotics just was n't there when Apollo ended .
Now it is and it can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less than putting men in space , especially with the current safety obsession in the wake of the two shuttle disaster , which is pretty much paralyzing manned missions .
Problem with putting men in space is it consumes vast resources and money just to keep them alive .
Only value in it is if you are going to build a self sustaining colony on Mars , presuming such a thing is even possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let them play it.
Until ISS starts doing useful science, which at this point it probably never will, its just a money pit.
But, if NASA thinks they can deorbit a $150 billion in sunk costs and 40 wasted years and get away unscathed they are mistaken.
It will make NASA's manned space office permenently damaged goods, more so than they already are.NASA's manned space office has just been using ISS and Shuttle as a giant job's program since Apollo ended.
They couldn't get funding for or think of anything useful to do so they've just been pouring money in to two failed programs, circling around in LEO doing nothing for nearly 40 years.
It was just a scheme so they would get pay checks and underachieving overachievers could put "astronaut" on their resume.
So far Orion and Ares aren't any better.Either:- Give the money in well structured grants to the private sector, like Burt Ruttan and Elon Musk, at least they are smaller, leaner and willing to think outside the box- Give the money to parts of NASA that work like JPL for robotics missions or the great observatories- Find someone with the ability and willingness to colonize Mars though you would have to throw a lot more money at it than NASA's current budget.
Since we've thrown trillions in to the pockets of corrupt bankers, Iraq, brain dead stimulus, GM, etc.
colonizing Mars seems vastly better by comparison.You put the kind of money in to JPL the ISS and Shuttle have been sucking up for the last four decades you could do some amazing robotic missions.
Robotics just wasn't there when Apollo ended.
Now it is and it can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less than putting men in space, especially with the current safety obsession in the wake of the two shuttle disaster, which is pretty much paralyzing manned missions.
Problem with putting men in space is it consumes vast resources and money just to keep them alive.
Only value in it is if you are going to build a self sustaining colony on Mars, presuming such a thing is even possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678207</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone understand economics?</title>
	<author>MadCow42</author>
	<datestamp>1247506260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sunk costs can be looked at many ways.  Essentially though, they should look at the continuing running costs (starting now) versus the value paid back (harder to measure of course).  However, normally you need to offset any scrapping/shutdown costs or value against those figures - depending on if those change over time or not.  That's the area where "sunk costs" might mislead people - there may be some residual value to consider.</p><p>How much you've already spent is meaningless.  The only question now is whether you'll lose <b>more</b> or not.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>MadCow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunk costs can be looked at many ways .
Essentially though , they should look at the continuing running costs ( starting now ) versus the value paid back ( harder to measure of course ) .
However , normally you need to offset any scrapping/shutdown costs or value against those figures - depending on if those change over time or not .
That 's the area where " sunk costs " might mislead people - there may be some residual value to consider.How much you 've already spent is meaningless .
The only question now is whether you 'll lose more or not .
: ) MadCow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunk costs can be looked at many ways.
Essentially though, they should look at the continuing running costs (starting now) versus the value paid back (harder to measure of course).
However, normally you need to offset any scrapping/shutdown costs or value against those figures - depending on if those change over time or not.
That's the area where "sunk costs" might mislead people - there may be some residual value to consider.How much you've already spent is meaningless.
The only question now is whether you'll lose more or not.
:)MadCow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677725</id>
	<title>Hotel for the super-rich?</title>
	<author>NCG\_Mike</author>
	<datestamp>1247504940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not make it a hotel for those with the funds... perhaps Virgin might be interested?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not make it a hotel for those with the funds... perhaps Virgin might be interested ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not make it a hotel for those with the funds... perhaps Virgin might be interested?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28682121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28682067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28696295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28689729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1330220_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28682067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28682121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676437
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28687539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28696295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677193
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677031
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679135
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28689729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683749
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679393
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676249
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28675965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676735
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28677413
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28683917
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28679299
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680469
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28684717
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678781
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28685087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28680703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28686677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28676333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28681057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1330220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1330220.28678457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
