<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1448231</id>
	<title>What If the Apollo Program Had Continued?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1247761620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>proslack writes <i>"The die had been cast years before Apollo 11 had even reached the moon. In the late 1960s, the Vietnam war was straining US finances. A fatal fire on the Apollo launch pad in January 1967 had blotted NASA's copybook. The Soviet moon effort seemed to be going nowhere. In the budget debates during the summer of 1967, Congress refused NASA's request to fund an extended moon programme.

<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327162.600-apollo-special-welcome-to-lunarville.html?full=true">What if things had been different that summer</a>? Suppose Congress had granted NASA's wish, then fast-forward 40-odd years..."</i>  A nice little what-if sort of story that makes sorta nostalgic for a non-existent present.</htmltext>
<tokenext>proslack writes " The die had been cast years before Apollo 11 had even reached the moon .
In the late 1960s , the Vietnam war was straining US finances .
A fatal fire on the Apollo launch pad in January 1967 had blotted NASA 's copybook .
The Soviet moon effort seemed to be going nowhere .
In the budget debates during the summer of 1967 , Congress refused NASA 's request to fund an extended moon programme .
What if things had been different that summer ?
Suppose Congress had granted NASA 's wish , then fast-forward 40-odd years... " A nice little what-if sort of story that makes sorta nostalgic for a non-existent present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>proslack writes "The die had been cast years before Apollo 11 had even reached the moon.
In the late 1960s, the Vietnam war was straining US finances.
A fatal fire on the Apollo launch pad in January 1967 had blotted NASA's copybook.
The Soviet moon effort seemed to be going nowhere.
In the budget debates during the summer of 1967, Congress refused NASA's request to fund an extended moon programme.
What if things had been different that summer?
Suppose Congress had granted NASA's wish, then fast-forward 40-odd years..."  A nice little what-if sort of story that makes sorta nostalgic for a non-existent present.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718487</id>
	<title>If the Apollo Program would have continued . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We wouldn't have had Vietnam (this frees up the money) and the Cold War would still be going on (this motivates rocket development).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We would n't have had Vietnam ( this frees up the money ) and the Cold War would still be going on ( this motivates rocket development ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We wouldn't have had Vietnam (this frees up the money) and the Cold War would still be going on (this motivates rocket development).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073</id>
	<title>A bunch of space cadet masturbation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We still haven't established what happens long-term in low-gravity.  We know that zero-g is not someplace you could live forever.  Is lunar gravity sufficient?  We don't actually know.  And it's one thing to follow the science fiction cliche that the martians and moonies couldn't adapt to Earth gravity anymore.... it's another thing if the first moonie baby is horribly disfigured.</p><p>We don't even know if, were you to raise ten generations of rats in a 1-g centerfuge and ten generations on Earth if the centerfuge rats would be healthy by comparison.</p><p>Helium-3 is also present on Earth.  You can buy it by the tank.  If just getting access to Helium-3 was enough to make fusion possible, we'd at least have one pilot reactor that was able to produce a decent sized net energy gain.</p><p>There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out.  What if we had done a few more missions and 19 left us with dead astronauts on the moon when the LM couldn't lift off?  Do you think we'd have continued at that point?  Remember, there could have been one more moon landing with the hardware we had but NASA didn't want to launch it.</p><p>The problem is, cutting off the Apollo program in favor of the Space Shuttle made fairly good sense at the time and awful sense in retrospect.  Even a fool can predict the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have n't established what happens long-term in low-gravity .
We know that zero-g is not someplace you could live forever .
Is lunar gravity sufficient ?
We do n't actually know .
And it 's one thing to follow the science fiction cliche that the martians and moonies could n't adapt to Earth gravity anymore.... it 's another thing if the first moonie baby is horribly disfigured.We do n't even know if , were you to raise ten generations of rats in a 1-g centerfuge and ten generations on Earth if the centerfuge rats would be healthy by comparison.Helium-3 is also present on Earth .
You can buy it by the tank .
If just getting access to Helium-3 was enough to make fusion possible , we 'd at least have one pilot reactor that was able to produce a decent sized net energy gain.There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out .
What if we had done a few more missions and 19 left us with dead astronauts on the moon when the LM could n't lift off ?
Do you think we 'd have continued at that point ?
Remember , there could have been one more moon landing with the hardware we had but NASA did n't want to launch it.The problem is , cutting off the Apollo program in favor of the Space Shuttle made fairly good sense at the time and awful sense in retrospect .
Even a fool can predict the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still haven't established what happens long-term in low-gravity.
We know that zero-g is not someplace you could live forever.
Is lunar gravity sufficient?
We don't actually know.
And it's one thing to follow the science fiction cliche that the martians and moonies couldn't adapt to Earth gravity anymore.... it's another thing if the first moonie baby is horribly disfigured.We don't even know if, were you to raise ten generations of rats in a 1-g centerfuge and ten generations on Earth if the centerfuge rats would be healthy by comparison.Helium-3 is also present on Earth.
You can buy it by the tank.
If just getting access to Helium-3 was enough to make fusion possible, we'd at least have one pilot reactor that was able to produce a decent sized net energy gain.There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out.
What if we had done a few more missions and 19 left us with dead astronauts on the moon when the LM couldn't lift off?
Do you think we'd have continued at that point?
Remember, there could have been one more moon landing with the hardware we had but NASA didn't want to launch it.The problem is, cutting off the Apollo program in favor of the Space Shuttle made fairly good sense at the time and awful sense in retrospect.
Even a fool can predict the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723171</id>
	<title>Re:A bunch of space cadet masturbation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>agreed; I was wondering when someone would state the OBVIOUS about low-gravity environments.  Just take a look at what happens to ISS astronauts left in LEO for 3 months - their bone density is substantially lowered as well as muscle mass.  Imagine being in low grav for more than 2 years!  There's bound to be serious health issues as we evolved with gravity; a necessary component for proper DIGESTION to occur...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed ; I was wondering when someone would state the OBVIOUS about low-gravity environments .
Just take a look at what happens to ISS astronauts left in LEO for 3 months - their bone density is substantially lowered as well as muscle mass .
Imagine being in low grav for more than 2 years !
There 's bound to be serious health issues as we evolved with gravity ; a necessary component for proper DIGESTION to occur.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed; I was wondering when someone would state the OBVIOUS about low-gravity environments.
Just take a look at what happens to ISS astronauts left in LEO for 3 months - their bone density is substantially lowered as well as muscle mass.
Imagine being in low grav for more than 2 years!
There's bound to be serious health issues as we evolved with gravity; a necessary component for proper DIGESTION to occur...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719887</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We would have Walmarts on the moon, and Neptune Iced Chicken!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We would have Walmarts on the moon , and Neptune Iced Chicken !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would have Walmarts on the moon, and Neptune Iced Chicken!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1247768220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Item 2 is a dead certainty.  Take a look around with Google maps.  See if you can find spots on the planet where there are marks of impact craters.  Look at the small one in Arizona - it is 3 miles across and a mile deep still after 50,000 years of erosion.  Now think about what the day was like 50,000 year ago when it hit.  Likely to have been a very, very bad day in the Southwest US.  I suspect stuff was falling in what is now San Francisco.  Lots of stuff.  Big stuff.  If that rock hit us today it would likely wipe out all life in most of the Southwest US and possibly take out everyone in Mexico as well.  Remember, 50,000 years ago there were people on the planet, people that you would recognize as human.</p><p>Take a look at Wolfe Creek in Australia - it is 35 million years old and you can still easily see it from space.  Think about the day that hit.</p><p>There are plenty more examples.  Look around for nice round lakes in Canada.  A good portion of them are impact craters.</p><p>OK, these things are spread out over a long period of time.  But the key here is that we haven't been hit in a long time.  We haven't been hit by anything big in a very long time.  Over a long enough period, it is an absolute certainty we will be hit again.  Even a small rock is going to cause a massive loss of life, whereas a big one could wipe out all life on a continent.  A water strike - actually the most likely - would probably scoure everything off the grouund for hundreds of miles on all nearby coasts.  An Atlantic hit would utterly destroy Europe to nearly Switzerland and Indiana on the US side.  South America would be almost devoid of life.</p><p>There are three choices: hope that God will protect us and it will never happen to his Chosen people (whoever they are), be able to go out and prevent an impact, or be somewhere else when it comes.  Right now, we are operating under the first alternative which I suspect most people will agree sucks.  The second is not utterly beyond our capabilities, but it would be tough and require plenty of warning.  I'm certainly in favor of a combination of the second and third alternatives.  The third implies a self-sustaining outpost that could survive if Earth was wiped out.  We are a long way from that being a realistic possibility.  But it is something to strive for.</p><p>The way things are now, all we can do is hope for a benevolent God that will protect us.  And maybe hope for Santa Clause to come and give us all what we need if it did happen.  Sorry, I gave up on these options when I was about eight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Item 2 is a dead certainty .
Take a look around with Google maps .
See if you can find spots on the planet where there are marks of impact craters .
Look at the small one in Arizona - it is 3 miles across and a mile deep still after 50,000 years of erosion .
Now think about what the day was like 50,000 year ago when it hit .
Likely to have been a very , very bad day in the Southwest US .
I suspect stuff was falling in what is now San Francisco .
Lots of stuff .
Big stuff .
If that rock hit us today it would likely wipe out all life in most of the Southwest US and possibly take out everyone in Mexico as well .
Remember , 50,000 years ago there were people on the planet , people that you would recognize as human.Take a look at Wolfe Creek in Australia - it is 35 million years old and you can still easily see it from space .
Think about the day that hit.There are plenty more examples .
Look around for nice round lakes in Canada .
A good portion of them are impact craters.OK , these things are spread out over a long period of time .
But the key here is that we have n't been hit in a long time .
We have n't been hit by anything big in a very long time .
Over a long enough period , it is an absolute certainty we will be hit again .
Even a small rock is going to cause a massive loss of life , whereas a big one could wipe out all life on a continent .
A water strike - actually the most likely - would probably scoure everything off the grouund for hundreds of miles on all nearby coasts .
An Atlantic hit would utterly destroy Europe to nearly Switzerland and Indiana on the US side .
South America would be almost devoid of life.There are three choices : hope that God will protect us and it will never happen to his Chosen people ( whoever they are ) , be able to go out and prevent an impact , or be somewhere else when it comes .
Right now , we are operating under the first alternative which I suspect most people will agree sucks .
The second is not utterly beyond our capabilities , but it would be tough and require plenty of warning .
I 'm certainly in favor of a combination of the second and third alternatives .
The third implies a self-sustaining outpost that could survive if Earth was wiped out .
We are a long way from that being a realistic possibility .
But it is something to strive for.The way things are now , all we can do is hope for a benevolent God that will protect us .
And maybe hope for Santa Clause to come and give us all what we need if it did happen .
Sorry , I gave up on these options when I was about eight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Item 2 is a dead certainty.
Take a look around with Google maps.
See if you can find spots on the planet where there are marks of impact craters.
Look at the small one in Arizona - it is 3 miles across and a mile deep still after 50,000 years of erosion.
Now think about what the day was like 50,000 year ago when it hit.
Likely to have been a very, very bad day in the Southwest US.
I suspect stuff was falling in what is now San Francisco.
Lots of stuff.
Big stuff.
If that rock hit us today it would likely wipe out all life in most of the Southwest US and possibly take out everyone in Mexico as well.
Remember, 50,000 years ago there were people on the planet, people that you would recognize as human.Take a look at Wolfe Creek in Australia - it is 35 million years old and you can still easily see it from space.
Think about the day that hit.There are plenty more examples.
Look around for nice round lakes in Canada.
A good portion of them are impact craters.OK, these things are spread out over a long period of time.
But the key here is that we haven't been hit in a long time.
We haven't been hit by anything big in a very long time.
Over a long enough period, it is an absolute certainty we will be hit again.
Even a small rock is going to cause a massive loss of life, whereas a big one could wipe out all life on a continent.
A water strike - actually the most likely - would probably scoure everything off the grouund for hundreds of miles on all nearby coasts.
An Atlantic hit would utterly destroy Europe to nearly Switzerland and Indiana on the US side.
South America would be almost devoid of life.There are three choices: hope that God will protect us and it will never happen to his Chosen people (whoever they are), be able to go out and prevent an impact, or be somewhere else when it comes.
Right now, we are operating under the first alternative which I suspect most people will agree sucks.
The second is not utterly beyond our capabilities, but it would be tough and require plenty of warning.
I'm certainly in favor of a combination of the second and third alternatives.
The third implies a self-sustaining outpost that could survive if Earth was wiped out.
We are a long way from that being a realistic possibility.
But it is something to strive for.The way things are now, all we can do is hope for a benevolent God that will protect us.
And maybe hope for Santa Clause to come and give us all what we need if it did happen.
Sorry, I gave up on these options when I was about eight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719163</id>
	<title>What if Apollo had continued...</title>
	<author>theendlessnow</author>
	<datestamp>1247767980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Apollo program had continued:
<ol>
<li>Children would still be drinking Tang.</li><li>Saddam could have hid his WMDs on the moon instead of a suburb of New Jersey (shhh! it's a secret).</li><li>Even more things could have been made from "space age materials".</li><li>Apple would prohibit the Palm Pre from using iTunes (arguably, this happens no matter what).</li><li>Michael Jackson's funeral would have been in space. Saving LA the hassle.</li><li>Mythbusters would get to see if a large scale nuclear explosion really would push the moon out of earth's orbit.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Apollo program had continued : Children would still be drinking Tang.Saddam could have hid his WMDs on the moon instead of a suburb of New Jersey ( shhh !
it 's a secret ) .Even more things could have been made from " space age materials " .Apple would prohibit the Palm Pre from using iTunes ( arguably , this happens no matter what ) .Michael Jackson 's funeral would have been in space .
Saving LA the hassle.Mythbusters would get to see if a large scale nuclear explosion really would push the moon out of earth 's orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Apollo program had continued:

Children would still be drinking Tang.Saddam could have hid his WMDs on the moon instead of a suburb of New Jersey (shhh!
it's a secret).Even more things could have been made from "space age materials".Apple would prohibit the Palm Pre from using iTunes (arguably, this happens no matter what).Michael Jackson's funeral would have been in space.
Saving LA the hassle.Mythbusters would get to see if a large scale nuclear explosion really would push the moon out of earth's orbit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718977</id>
	<title>Commercialization!</title>
	<author>zhilla2</author>
	<datestamp>1247767200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a nice dream. But what strikes me as bit weird - is that there are AFAIK huge natural resources on the moon. It's basically a goldmine! So what is stopping today's multinational super-corporations from exploiting it? No natives to subdue?<br>And lets be realistic - only way human race is getting to moon again is commercialization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a nice dream .
But what strikes me as bit weird - is that there are AFAIK huge natural resources on the moon .
It 's basically a goldmine !
So what is stopping today 's multinational super-corporations from exploiting it ?
No natives to subdue ? And lets be realistic - only way human race is getting to moon again is commercialization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a nice dream.
But what strikes me as bit weird - is that there are AFAIK huge natural resources on the moon.
It's basically a goldmine!
So what is stopping today's multinational super-corporations from exploiting it?
No natives to subdue?And lets be realistic - only way human race is getting to moon again is commercialization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719103</id>
	<title>certain movies...</title>
	<author>stillpixel</author>
	<datestamp>1247767740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>would not have been created, because we would know better than to believe in landing oil drilling teams on asteroids and trying to blow them up with nukes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>would not have been created , because we would know better than to believe in landing oil drilling teams on asteroids and trying to blow them up with nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would not have been created, because we would know better than to believe in landing oil drilling teams on asteroids and trying to blow them up with nukes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28729097</id>
	<title>Harry Turtledove called,</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247842440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he wants his book back!</p><p>Either that or in 50 years his relatives will sue everyone that posted on this forum...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he wants his book back ! Either that or in 50 years his relatives will sue everyone that posted on this forum.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he wants his book back!Either that or in 50 years his relatives will sue everyone that posted on this forum...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720203</id>
	<title>Lost Apollo 11 tapes not found after all.</title>
	<author>psoriac</author>
	<datestamp>1247771760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to submit this but found someone else already has; currently it's languishing in the firehose. <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1039753/NASA-Loses-the-Lost-Moon-Tapes-After-All?art\_pos=17" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/submission/1039753/NASA-Loses-the-Lost-Moon-Tapes-After-All?art\_pos=17</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>According to NPR's Morning Edition, NASA does not have the 'Lost Moon Tapes' containing the raw footage of Neil Armstrong's historic first steps on the Moon, after all. The article claims that the original Apollo 11 recordings were likely erased. Instead, the restoration is being done from the best of the broadcast-format video obtained from a variety of sources, not the original SST signal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to submit this but found someone else already has ; currently it 's languishing in the firehose .
http : //slashdot.org/submission/1039753/NASA-Loses-the-Lost-Moon-Tapes-After-All ? art \ _pos = 17 [ slashdot.org ] According to NPR 's Morning Edition , NASA does not have the 'Lost Moon Tapes ' containing the raw footage of Neil Armstrong 's historic first steps on the Moon , after all .
The article claims that the original Apollo 11 recordings were likely erased .
Instead , the restoration is being done from the best of the broadcast-format video obtained from a variety of sources , not the original SST signal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to submit this but found someone else already has; currently it's languishing in the firehose.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1039753/NASA-Loses-the-Lost-Moon-Tapes-After-All?art\_pos=17 [slashdot.org]According to NPR's Morning Edition, NASA does not have the 'Lost Moon Tapes' containing the raw footage of Neil Armstrong's historic first steps on the Moon, after all.
The article claims that the original Apollo 11 recordings were likely erased.
Instead, the restoration is being done from the best of the broadcast-format video obtained from a variety of sources, not the original SST signal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720017</id>
	<title>Re:Apollo</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1247771160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sputnik was only shocking to the general population that was unaware of<br>everything that was going on in terms of missile development at the time.<br>Eisenhower also made a very conscious decision to SPECIFICALLY AVOID using<br>military hardware for our first orbit. We were very much pulling our punches.</p><p>Ultimately, Sputnik was an afterthought of the Soviet ICBM program.</p><p>The Soviets did not have the guy that was fixated on getting to the Moon.</p><p>That guy was not working on the relevant civilian rocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sputnik was only shocking to the general population that was unaware ofeverything that was going on in terms of missile development at the time.Eisenhower also made a very conscious decision to SPECIFICALLY AVOID usingmilitary hardware for our first orbit .
We were very much pulling our punches.Ultimately , Sputnik was an afterthought of the Soviet ICBM program.The Soviets did not have the guy that was fixated on getting to the Moon.That guy was not working on the relevant civilian rocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sputnik was only shocking to the general population that was unaware ofeverything that was going on in terms of missile development at the time.Eisenhower also made a very conscious decision to SPECIFICALLY AVOID usingmilitary hardware for our first orbit.
We were very much pulling our punches.Ultimately, Sputnik was an afterthought of the Soviet ICBM program.The Soviets did not have the guy that was fixated on getting to the Moon.That guy was not working on the relevant civilian rocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719765</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1247770080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you change a single moment in your past, will everything change?<br><br>In The end of Eternity, Asimov said that there was some "inertia" in time, if something changed in the past things somewhat keep being more or less the same, as most significative changes arent isolated events but more massive trends. If french revolution didnt happened that exact day, could had happened anyway a day or a year after. The apollo program could had been cancelled in a later date anyway.<br><br>Also, if it continued everything could had changed, even things that could look unrelated. Maybe arpanet and then internet would not exist now, as all could have been more focused in space, or maybe the IBM PC never saw the light,  You know, the kind of stuff that make that if you kill a butterfly in the past, you get another president in the present</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you change a single moment in your past , will everything change ? In The end of Eternity , Asimov said that there was some " inertia " in time , if something changed in the past things somewhat keep being more or less the same , as most significative changes arent isolated events but more massive trends .
If french revolution didnt happened that exact day , could had happened anyway a day or a year after .
The apollo program could had been cancelled in a later date anyway.Also , if it continued everything could had changed , even things that could look unrelated .
Maybe arpanet and then internet would not exist now , as all could have been more focused in space , or maybe the IBM PC never saw the light , You know , the kind of stuff that make that if you kill a butterfly in the past , you get another president in the present</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you change a single moment in your past, will everything change?In The end of Eternity, Asimov said that there was some "inertia" in time, if something changed in the past things somewhat keep being more or less the same, as most significative changes arent isolated events but more massive trends.
If french revolution didnt happened that exact day, could had happened anyway a day or a year after.
The apollo program could had been cancelled in a later date anyway.Also, if it continued everything could had changed, even things that could look unrelated.
Maybe arpanet and then internet would not exist now, as all could have been more focused in space, or maybe the IBM PC never saw the light,  You know, the kind of stuff that make that if you kill a butterfly in the past, you get another president in the present</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719325</id>
	<title>We'd have another antarctica</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1247768640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... but on the Moon (and without the penguins)
<p>
What benefits would we have got? Hard to say, probably nothing tangible - just a group of half-a-dozen scientists and technicians spending a few months at a time far out of the public gaze. There might be the occasional documentary, but there's only so much footage of rocks and dust - and one patch of dirt looks a lot like any other. So I doubt there'd be much about it in the news (again, just like antarctica). Just about the only time it would make the headlines is when there's a debate about cutting funding (again), or when something goes wrong - or when there's an expose about the billions being spent on it, for not-much in the way of returns.
</p><p>
Is that what we thought we'd get?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but on the Moon ( and without the penguins ) What benefits would we have got ?
Hard to say , probably nothing tangible - just a group of half-a-dozen scientists and technicians spending a few months at a time far out of the public gaze .
There might be the occasional documentary , but there 's only so much footage of rocks and dust - and one patch of dirt looks a lot like any other .
So I doubt there 'd be much about it in the news ( again , just like antarctica ) .
Just about the only time it would make the headlines is when there 's a debate about cutting funding ( again ) , or when something goes wrong - or when there 's an expose about the billions being spent on it , for not-much in the way of returns .
Is that what we thought we 'd get ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but on the Moon (and without the penguins)

What benefits would we have got?
Hard to say, probably nothing tangible - just a group of half-a-dozen scientists and technicians spending a few months at a time far out of the public gaze.
There might be the occasional documentary, but there's only so much footage of rocks and dust - and one patch of dirt looks a lot like any other.
So I doubt there'd be much about it in the news (again, just like antarctica).
Just about the only time it would make the headlines is when there's a debate about cutting funding (again), or when something goes wrong - or when there's an expose about the billions being spent on it, for not-much in the way of returns.
Is that what we thought we'd get?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723557</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1247742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>An Atlantic hit would utterly destroy Europe to nearly Switzerland and Indiana on the US side.</i> <br> <br>

Turns out this is Joe Jackson's next money making scheme, now that his cash cow Michael is dead. Buy all the land in East Gary, wait for the strike to hit the Atlantic. Viola, instant beachfront property. Yes, he stole the idea from Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, just without the nukes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An Atlantic hit would utterly destroy Europe to nearly Switzerland and Indiana on the US side .
Turns out this is Joe Jackson 's next money making scheme , now that his cash cow Michael is dead .
Buy all the land in East Gary , wait for the strike to hit the Atlantic .
Viola , instant beachfront property .
Yes , he stole the idea from Gene Hackman 's Lex Luthor , just without the nukes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Atlantic hit would utterly destroy Europe to nearly Switzerland and Indiana on the US side.
Turns out this is Joe Jackson's next money making scheme, now that his cash cow Michael is dead.
Buy all the land in East Gary, wait for the strike to hit the Atlantic.
Viola, instant beachfront property.
Yes, he stole the idea from Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, just without the nukes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720675</id>
	<title>I'd have a flying car</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247773500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Suppose Congress had granted NASA's wish, then fast-forward 40-odd years...</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Then maybe I'd have that flying car I've always wanted...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose Congress had granted NASA 's wish , then fast-forward 40-odd years... Then maybe I 'd have that flying car I 've always wanted.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Suppose Congress had granted NASA's wish, then fast-forward 40-odd years... Then maybe I'd have that flying car I've always wanted...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719489</id>
	<title>Space travel is utter bilge</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1247769180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"It's utter bilge. I don't think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing . . . What good would it do us? If we spent the same amount of money on preparing first-class astronomical equipment we would learn much more about the universe . . . It is all rather rot" -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard\_van\_der\_Riet\_Woolley" title="wikipedia.org">Riet Wolley</a> [wikipedia.org], Astronomer Royal.
</p><p>
He was so right.
</p><p>
Basic truth: space travel with chemical rockets is just too inefficient to be useful.  Fuels are as good as they can get; we've been using liquid hydrogen since the 1960s.  It's not getting any better.  Space travel is about weight reduction, which means fragile vehicles.
(Endeavour just had some foam fall off and hit the thermal tiles during launch.  Again.)
</p><p>
Unless and until we get something better than chemical rockets, space travel isn't going to get any better.
</p><p>
If we'd launched an Orion or two in the 1950s, things might have been very different.  Everyone would know there's a better way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's utter bilge .
I do n't think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing .
. .
What good would it do us ?
If we spent the same amount of money on preparing first-class astronomical equipment we would learn much more about the universe .
. .
It is all rather rot " -- Riet Wolley [ wikipedia.org ] , Astronomer Royal .
He was so right .
Basic truth : space travel with chemical rockets is just too inefficient to be useful .
Fuels are as good as they can get ; we 've been using liquid hydrogen since the 1960s .
It 's not getting any better .
Space travel is about weight reduction , which means fragile vehicles .
( Endeavour just had some foam fall off and hit the thermal tiles during launch .
Again. ) Unless and until we get something better than chemical rockets , space travel is n't going to get any better .
If we 'd launched an Orion or two in the 1950s , things might have been very different .
Everyone would know there 's a better way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"It's utter bilge.
I don't think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing .
. .
What good would it do us?
If we spent the same amount of money on preparing first-class astronomical equipment we would learn much more about the universe .
. .
It is all rather rot" -- Riet Wolley [wikipedia.org], Astronomer Royal.
He was so right.
Basic truth: space travel with chemical rockets is just too inefficient to be useful.
Fuels are as good as they can get; we've been using liquid hydrogen since the 1960s.
It's not getting any better.
Space travel is about weight reduction, which means fragile vehicles.
(Endeavour just had some foam fall off and hit the thermal tiles during launch.
Again.)

Unless and until we get something better than chemical rockets, space travel isn't going to get any better.
If we'd launched an Orion or two in the 1950s, things might have been very different.
Everyone would know there's a better way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719955</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1247770860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you may be backwards. The high cost of lifting things into space is the most obvious reason to establish a manned colony.</p><p>Is there any reason to establish a manned colony floating in the air (here on Earth)? No. Because if you want something in the air, you put it there.</p><p>Getting all those robots, and telescopes, and as you point out correctly, repairs of existing things in orbit from Earth is daunting. In the long term: industrial facilities in space (or in a shallow well like the Moon) may make more economic sense.</p><p>You don't need to get "a lot" of people up: but enough to be self-sustaining.</p><p>But circletimessquare is also very right: the initial expendatures would be huge and the targets nebulous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you may be backwards .
The high cost of lifting things into space is the most obvious reason to establish a manned colony.Is there any reason to establish a manned colony floating in the air ( here on Earth ) ?
No. Because if you want something in the air , you put it there.Getting all those robots , and telescopes , and as you point out correctly , repairs of existing things in orbit from Earth is daunting .
In the long term : industrial facilities in space ( or in a shallow well like the Moon ) may make more economic sense.You do n't need to get " a lot " of people up : but enough to be self-sustaining.But circletimessquare is also very right : the initial expendatures would be huge and the targets nebulous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you may be backwards.
The high cost of lifting things into space is the most obvious reason to establish a manned colony.Is there any reason to establish a manned colony floating in the air (here on Earth)?
No. Because if you want something in the air, you put it there.Getting all those robots, and telescopes, and as you point out correctly, repairs of existing things in orbit from Earth is daunting.
In the long term: industrial facilities in space (or in a shallow well like the Moon) may make more economic sense.You don't need to get "a lot" of people up: but enough to be self-sustaining.But circletimessquare is also very right: the initial expendatures would be huge and the targets nebulous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721739</id>
	<title>Apollo Was The Consolation Prize</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1247777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apollo had continued, it would have stopped at Apollo 20. That was the plan. Apollo itself was the dead-end plan to win the space race. And strange as it may seem, the loss of soonest and long term success in space and the the formation of NASA were one in the same.</p><p>The alternative project "Man In Space Soonest" could have had an American in orbit well before Yuri Gagarin's flight. An excerpt from <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/manonest.htm" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/manonest.htm</a> [astronautix.com] :</p><p>"On 10 July Brigadier General Homer A Boushey of Headquarters USAF informed ARDC that Eisenhower's Bureau of the Budget, firmly in favor of placing the manned space flight program in the new civilian agency, was blocking further release of funds for the program. On 16 July the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 was passed by Congress, and NASA was created out of the NACA and some Army and Navy rocket laboratories. But ARPA told the Air Force there was still a chance the White House would support MISS if costs could be kept to under $50 million in FY 1959. They could present the project as so far along, and with so low a cost to complete, that it would be a big setback to start all over with NASA.</p><p>But BMD couldn't make the figures come out this way. Funding of only $50 million in FY 1959 would delay the first American in space to early 1962. Instead, on 24 July, General Bernard Schriever at BMD issued the sixth revision to the MISS development plan. This had a total cost of $106.6 million with the bare Atlas as the booster. Salient features included establishment of a worldwide tracking network, resolving quickly the heat sink versus ablation heat shield issue, and continuing with design of the Thor WS-117L and Thor-Able as backups in case the Atlas proved to be unreliable. Assuming immediate authorization from ARPA, Schriever promised release of the final tender documents to the contractors within 24 hours, and orbiting of the first man in space by June 1960.</p><p>The next day there was one last session with ARPA Director Johnson at the Pentagon. BMD pointed out that only full, unrestricted, immediate program approval to go ahead with MISS would give the United States a real chance to be "soonest" with a man in space. Johnson flatly refused. Eisenhower saw no valid role for the military in manned space flight. NACA didn't plan to spend more than $40 million on their manned space program in FY 1959, fiscally much more attractive than the $107 million the Air Force was asking for.</p><p>On that day - 25 July 1958 - America gave up its chance to put the first man into space. A manager like Schriever could undoubtedly have rammed the project through on the promised schedule. The collection of scientists and tinkerers at NACA had no chance."</p><p>Had MISS progressed, Neil Armstrong may still have been first on the moon. However, he would almost certainly have been the first person ride a space craft into orbit and actually fly it home. He was scheduled to take the first orbital flight of Dynasoar <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm</a> [astronautix.com] in 1964. NASA's track placed this milestone under the space shuttle, 20 years later. The 'what if' scenario changed long before the question in TFA.</p><p>Had the original visions of space exploration been carried out, we may or may not have gotten where we did by 1970, but we darn sure would have gotten there with no intention of backing down and starting over again later. Instead of Ares and Orion, we'd have had true stepping-stone space stations building and launching manned planetary missions. Recall, some of Von Braun's ideas centered on building permanent construction sites in orbit, using the 'bicycle wheel' design. Time and again he was stifled and forced to channel his enormous talent from that which made good sense to that which he would be allowed to see succeed.</p><p>The front page of Encyclopedia Astronautica <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/</a> [astronautix.com] is covered with links to the actual history, the underlying and hidden history, and the might-have-beens of the race for the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apollo had continued , it would have stopped at Apollo 20 .
That was the plan .
Apollo itself was the dead-end plan to win the space race .
And strange as it may seem , the loss of soonest and long term success in space and the the formation of NASA were one in the same.The alternative project " Man In Space Soonest " could have had an American in orbit well before Yuri Gagarin 's flight .
An excerpt from http : //www.astronautix.com/craftfam/manonest.htm [ astronautix.com ] : " On 10 July Brigadier General Homer A Boushey of Headquarters USAF informed ARDC that Eisenhower 's Bureau of the Budget , firmly in favor of placing the manned space flight program in the new civilian agency , was blocking further release of funds for the program .
On 16 July the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 was passed by Congress , and NASA was created out of the NACA and some Army and Navy rocket laboratories .
But ARPA told the Air Force there was still a chance the White House would support MISS if costs could be kept to under $ 50 million in FY 1959 .
They could present the project as so far along , and with so low a cost to complete , that it would be a big setback to start all over with NASA.But BMD could n't make the figures come out this way .
Funding of only $ 50 million in FY 1959 would delay the first American in space to early 1962 .
Instead , on 24 July , General Bernard Schriever at BMD issued the sixth revision to the MISS development plan .
This had a total cost of $ 106.6 million with the bare Atlas as the booster .
Salient features included establishment of a worldwide tracking network , resolving quickly the heat sink versus ablation heat shield issue , and continuing with design of the Thor WS-117L and Thor-Able as backups in case the Atlas proved to be unreliable .
Assuming immediate authorization from ARPA , Schriever promised release of the final tender documents to the contractors within 24 hours , and orbiting of the first man in space by June 1960.The next day there was one last session with ARPA Director Johnson at the Pentagon .
BMD pointed out that only full , unrestricted , immediate program approval to go ahead with MISS would give the United States a real chance to be " soonest " with a man in space .
Johnson flatly refused .
Eisenhower saw no valid role for the military in manned space flight .
NACA did n't plan to spend more than $ 40 million on their manned space program in FY 1959 , fiscally much more attractive than the $ 107 million the Air Force was asking for.On that day - 25 July 1958 - America gave up its chance to put the first man into space .
A manager like Schriever could undoubtedly have rammed the project through on the promised schedule .
The collection of scientists and tinkerers at NACA had no chance .
" Had MISS progressed , Neil Armstrong may still have been first on the moon .
However , he would almost certainly have been the first person ride a space craft into orbit and actually fly it home .
He was scheduled to take the first orbital flight of Dynasoar http : //www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm [ astronautix.com ] in 1964 .
NASA 's track placed this milestone under the space shuttle , 20 years later .
The 'what if ' scenario changed long before the question in TFA.Had the original visions of space exploration been carried out , we may or may not have gotten where we did by 1970 , but we darn sure would have gotten there with no intention of backing down and starting over again later .
Instead of Ares and Orion , we 'd have had true stepping-stone space stations building and launching manned planetary missions .
Recall , some of Von Braun 's ideas centered on building permanent construction sites in orbit , using the 'bicycle wheel ' design .
Time and again he was stifled and forced to channel his enormous talent from that which made good sense to that which he would be allowed to see succeed.The front page of Encyclopedia Astronautica http : //www.astronautix.com/ [ astronautix.com ] is covered with links to the actual history , the underlying and hidden history , and the might-have-beens of the race for the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apollo had continued, it would have stopped at Apollo 20.
That was the plan.
Apollo itself was the dead-end plan to win the space race.
And strange as it may seem, the loss of soonest and long term success in space and the the formation of NASA were one in the same.The alternative project "Man In Space Soonest" could have had an American in orbit well before Yuri Gagarin's flight.
An excerpt from http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/manonest.htm [astronautix.com] :"On 10 July Brigadier General Homer A Boushey of Headquarters USAF informed ARDC that Eisenhower's Bureau of the Budget, firmly in favor of placing the manned space flight program in the new civilian agency, was blocking further release of funds for the program.
On 16 July the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 was passed by Congress, and NASA was created out of the NACA and some Army and Navy rocket laboratories.
But ARPA told the Air Force there was still a chance the White House would support MISS if costs could be kept to under $50 million in FY 1959.
They could present the project as so far along, and with so low a cost to complete, that it would be a big setback to start all over with NASA.But BMD couldn't make the figures come out this way.
Funding of only $50 million in FY 1959 would delay the first American in space to early 1962.
Instead, on 24 July, General Bernard Schriever at BMD issued the sixth revision to the MISS development plan.
This had a total cost of $106.6 million with the bare Atlas as the booster.
Salient features included establishment of a worldwide tracking network, resolving quickly the heat sink versus ablation heat shield issue, and continuing with design of the Thor WS-117L and Thor-Able as backups in case the Atlas proved to be unreliable.
Assuming immediate authorization from ARPA, Schriever promised release of the final tender documents to the contractors within 24 hours, and orbiting of the first man in space by June 1960.The next day there was one last session with ARPA Director Johnson at the Pentagon.
BMD pointed out that only full, unrestricted, immediate program approval to go ahead with MISS would give the United States a real chance to be "soonest" with a man in space.
Johnson flatly refused.
Eisenhower saw no valid role for the military in manned space flight.
NACA didn't plan to spend more than $40 million on their manned space program in FY 1959, fiscally much more attractive than the $107 million the Air Force was asking for.On that day - 25 July 1958 - America gave up its chance to put the first man into space.
A manager like Schriever could undoubtedly have rammed the project through on the promised schedule.
The collection of scientists and tinkerers at NACA had no chance.
"Had MISS progressed, Neil Armstrong may still have been first on the moon.
However, he would almost certainly have been the first person ride a space craft into orbit and actually fly it home.
He was scheduled to take the first orbital flight of Dynasoar http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm [astronautix.com] in 1964.
NASA's track placed this milestone under the space shuttle, 20 years later.
The 'what if' scenario changed long before the question in TFA.Had the original visions of space exploration been carried out, we may or may not have gotten where we did by 1970, but we darn sure would have gotten there with no intention of backing down and starting over again later.
Instead of Ares and Orion, we'd have had true stepping-stone space stations building and launching manned planetary missions.
Recall, some of Von Braun's ideas centered on building permanent construction sites in orbit, using the 'bicycle wheel' design.
Time and again he was stifled and forced to channel his enormous talent from that which made good sense to that which he would be allowed to see succeed.The front page of Encyclopedia Astronautica http://www.astronautix.com/ [astronautix.com] is covered with links to the actual history, the underlying and hidden history, and the might-have-beens of the race for the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28732587</id>
	<title>Re:We would have gone bankrupt</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1247857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.<br>
Apollo was spending ~6 billion dollars per year at its peak and there were 190 million people in the US at the time.<br>
That works out to $32 per person per year, or about $175 in today's dollars.<br> <br>

Pricey yes. Bankrupt? I think not. Though I do agree that it might be better to send that money to the National Science Foundation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Apollo was spending ~ 6 billion dollars per year at its peak and there were 190 million people in the US at the time .
That works out to $ 32 per person per year , or about $ 175 in today 's dollars .
Pricey yes .
Bankrupt ? I think not .
Though I do agree that it might be better to send that money to the National Science Foundation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Apollo was spending ~6 billion dollars per year at its peak and there were 190 million people in the US at the time.
That works out to $32 per person per year, or about $175 in today's dollars.
Pricey yes.
Bankrupt? I think not.
Though I do agree that it might be better to send that money to the National Science Foundation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718999</id>
	<title>Moon Porn for sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>image what can be done in 1/6 g.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>image what can be done in 1/6 g .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>image what can be done in 1/6 g.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719343</id>
	<title>Re:What if Kennedy hadn't committed to the landing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What if Kennedy had set a lesser goal, such as orbiting the moon?</p></div></blockquote><p>There's no tangible goal to take to the people there. What do you say? "Ha! We circled a man around the moon first!"? Doesn't hold much punch.</p><p>Do you remember who the first man was to orbit the earth? The vast majority of people wouldn't be able to answer. Some might answer "John Glenn". Only a small fraction of a percent of people would correctly answer Yuri Gagarin.</p><p>Do you remember who first set foot on the moon? Do you remember what his first words were? The fact that I don't have to answer either question speaks for itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if Kennedy had set a lesser goal , such as orbiting the moon ? There 's no tangible goal to take to the people there .
What do you say ?
" Ha ! We circled a man around the moon first ! " ?
Does n't hold much punch.Do you remember who the first man was to orbit the earth ?
The vast majority of people would n't be able to answer .
Some might answer " John Glenn " .
Only a small fraction of a percent of people would correctly answer Yuri Gagarin.Do you remember who first set foot on the moon ?
Do you remember what his first words were ?
The fact that I do n't have to answer either question speaks for itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if Kennedy had set a lesser goal, such as orbiting the moon?There's no tangible goal to take to the people there.
What do you say?
"Ha! We circled a man around the moon first!"?
Doesn't hold much punch.Do you remember who the first man was to orbit the earth?
The vast majority of people wouldn't be able to answer.
Some might answer "John Glenn".
Only a small fraction of a percent of people would correctly answer Yuri Gagarin.Do you remember who first set foot on the moon?
Do you remember what his first words were?
The fact that I don't have to answer either question speaks for itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719125</id>
	<title>Small moon base</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1247767860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ISS and Hubble would probably be replaced with a small moon based research lab and observatory. While the value of the lab wouldn't be greater than the current ISS, moon-based telescopes (optical and radio) would probably far outperform anything we've got today.
</p><p>The other changes would be the trickle-down effects of the technology developed to support such a base. Specifically, higher performance and cheaper solar power arrays would probably be commonplace.
</p><p>I don't think a lunar base would be a stepping off point for a manned Mars mission. Robotics would be more or less where they are today, since the state of the art is not driven by NASA or military requirements. Unless the moon base revealed some necessity for having people on the ground, it might be an argument against further manned missions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISS and Hubble would probably be replaced with a small moon based research lab and observatory .
While the value of the lab would n't be greater than the current ISS , moon-based telescopes ( optical and radio ) would probably far outperform anything we 've got today .
The other changes would be the trickle-down effects of the technology developed to support such a base .
Specifically , higher performance and cheaper solar power arrays would probably be commonplace .
I do n't think a lunar base would be a stepping off point for a manned Mars mission .
Robotics would be more or less where they are today , since the state of the art is not driven by NASA or military requirements .
Unless the moon base revealed some necessity for having people on the ground , it might be an argument against further manned missions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISS and Hubble would probably be replaced with a small moon based research lab and observatory.
While the value of the lab wouldn't be greater than the current ISS, moon-based telescopes (optical and radio) would probably far outperform anything we've got today.
The other changes would be the trickle-down effects of the technology developed to support such a base.
Specifically, higher performance and cheaper solar power arrays would probably be commonplace.
I don't think a lunar base would be a stepping off point for a manned Mars mission.
Robotics would be more or less where they are today, since the state of the art is not driven by NASA or military requirements.
Unless the moon base revealed some necessity for having people on the ground, it might be an argument against further manned missions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719529</id>
	<title>The Lesson of Apollo</title>
	<author>sehlat</author>
	<datestamp>1247769300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, the landing itself was the doom of the Apollo program, and most of the subsequent space effort. Because they "finished the job," a huge chunk of a Federal bureaucracy (and NASA is a bureaucracy), found themselves "downsized" and punished for succeeding.</p><p>The lesson was not lost on other major endeavors. (Fusion is still "forty years away", and it was "forty years away" in 1969.) I have absolutely no doubt that other R&amp;D-oriented programs have also been handicapped or effectively destroyed by the Lesson of Apollo.</p><p>For details of an earlier example, check out Penelope's tapestry in Homer's "The Iliad."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , the landing itself was the doom of the Apollo program , and most of the subsequent space effort .
Because they " finished the job , " a huge chunk of a Federal bureaucracy ( and NASA is a bureaucracy ) , found themselves " downsized " and punished for succeeding.The lesson was not lost on other major endeavors .
( Fusion is still " forty years away " , and it was " forty years away " in 1969 .
) I have absolutely no doubt that other R&amp;D-oriented programs have also been handicapped or effectively destroyed by the Lesson of Apollo.For details of an earlier example , check out Penelope 's tapestry in Homer 's " The Iliad .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, the landing itself was the doom of the Apollo program, and most of the subsequent space effort.
Because they "finished the job," a huge chunk of a Federal bureaucracy (and NASA is a bureaucracy), found themselves "downsized" and punished for succeeding.The lesson was not lost on other major endeavors.
(Fusion is still "forty years away", and it was "forty years away" in 1969.
) I have absolutely no doubt that other R&amp;D-oriented programs have also been handicapped or effectively destroyed by the Lesson of Apollo.For details of an earlier example, check out Penelope's tapestry in Homer's "The Iliad.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28726883</id>
	<title>Stephen Baxter</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1247863500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The book "Voyage" by Stephen Baxter dealt with exactly this - he has an alternative history in which Kennedy Got Better and NASA pushed on to mars and everybody cheers.

</p><p>If that's too upbeat, in "Titan" he has an alternative alternative in which signs of life are found on Titan - unfortunately a Shuttle flight has just crashed and a religious right  president is dismantling science, but the remaining shuttles are used up to assemble last hurrah manned mission to Titan while Earth goes to hell in a handbasket.  Spookily this was written before the second Shuttle disaster and pre-Dubyah. Part of Baxter's "NASA rejected me as an astronaut/Shuttle sucks/Apollo FTW" ouvre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The book " Voyage " by Stephen Baxter dealt with exactly this - he has an alternative history in which Kennedy Got Better and NASA pushed on to mars and everybody cheers .
If that 's too upbeat , in " Titan " he has an alternative alternative in which signs of life are found on Titan - unfortunately a Shuttle flight has just crashed and a religious right president is dismantling science , but the remaining shuttles are used up to assemble last hurrah manned mission to Titan while Earth goes to hell in a handbasket .
Spookily this was written before the second Shuttle disaster and pre-Dubyah .
Part of Baxter 's " NASA rejected me as an astronaut/Shuttle sucks/Apollo FTW " ouvre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book "Voyage" by Stephen Baxter dealt with exactly this - he has an alternative history in which Kennedy Got Better and NASA pushed on to mars and everybody cheers.
If that's too upbeat, in "Titan" he has an alternative alternative in which signs of life are found on Titan - unfortunately a Shuttle flight has just crashed and a religious right  president is dismantling science, but the remaining shuttles are used up to assemble last hurrah manned mission to Titan while Earth goes to hell in a handbasket.
Spookily this was written before the second Shuttle disaster and pre-Dubyah.
Part of Baxter's "NASA rejected me as an astronaut/Shuttle sucks/Apollo FTW" ouvre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720255</id>
	<title>Re:If Apollo program had continued</title>
	<author>jdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1247771940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Yes, given that we have that now, even though we have significantly less launch capacity than the Saturn V.
2) Less frequent than what? There have been 0 trips between the ISS and the moon.
3) Yes, given that humans haven't been back to the moon since '72, that would be more frequent.  No, if there is only one method of transport, it is, by definition the most economical.  You have to have competition to have a comparison.
4) Possibly.  Von Braun had plans for a very different type of shuttle called the Saturn shuttle.
5) Yes, given that we've already done this, Dawn Mission is En Route <a href="http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/" title="nasa.gov">http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/</a> [nasa.gov]
6) I disagree, the Saturn V launcher would have made it possible to assemble a mars ship in orbit in with multiple launches comparatively cheaply.  It launched Skylab in one launch!
7) Also disagree, we've got fixed research stations on Mars in addition to the rovers, see the Mars Phoenix Lander, the Mars Pathfinder Lander (Carl Sagan Station) the Viking probes, etc.
8) Maybe.  There's limited advantage in orbital nuke stations compared to ICBMs and IRBMs.  Plus, they cost fuel to maintain and there's the danger of accidental reentry.
9) Cruise missiles are of more use in a Cold War since they don't have that nasty problem of appearing to be a strategic launch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Yes , given that we have that now , even though we have significantly less launch capacity than the Saturn V . 2 ) Less frequent than what ?
There have been 0 trips between the ISS and the moon .
3 ) Yes , given that humans have n't been back to the moon since '72 , that would be more frequent .
No , if there is only one method of transport , it is , by definition the most economical .
You have to have competition to have a comparison .
4 ) Possibly .
Von Braun had plans for a very different type of shuttle called the Saturn shuttle .
5 ) Yes , given that we 've already done this , Dawn Mission is En Route http : //dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/ [ nasa.gov ] 6 ) I disagree , the Saturn V launcher would have made it possible to assemble a mars ship in orbit in with multiple launches comparatively cheaply .
It launched Skylab in one launch !
7 ) Also disagree , we 've got fixed research stations on Mars in addition to the rovers , see the Mars Phoenix Lander , the Mars Pathfinder Lander ( Carl Sagan Station ) the Viking probes , etc .
8 ) Maybe .
There 's limited advantage in orbital nuke stations compared to ICBMs and IRBMs .
Plus , they cost fuel to maintain and there 's the danger of accidental reentry .
9 ) Cruise missiles are of more use in a Cold War since they do n't have that nasty problem of appearing to be a strategic launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Yes, given that we have that now, even though we have significantly less launch capacity than the Saturn V.
2) Less frequent than what?
There have been 0 trips between the ISS and the moon.
3) Yes, given that humans haven't been back to the moon since '72, that would be more frequent.
No, if there is only one method of transport, it is, by definition the most economical.
You have to have competition to have a comparison.
4) Possibly.
Von Braun had plans for a very different type of shuttle called the Saturn shuttle.
5) Yes, given that we've already done this, Dawn Mission is En Route http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
6) I disagree, the Saturn V launcher would have made it possible to assemble a mars ship in orbit in with multiple launches comparatively cheaply.
It launched Skylab in one launch!
7) Also disagree, we've got fixed research stations on Mars in addition to the rovers, see the Mars Phoenix Lander, the Mars Pathfinder Lander (Carl Sagan Station) the Viking probes, etc.
8) Maybe.
There's limited advantage in orbital nuke stations compared to ICBMs and IRBMs.
Plus, they cost fuel to maintain and there's the danger of accidental reentry.
9) Cruise missiles are of more use in a Cold War since they don't have that nasty problem of appearing to be a strategic launch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718989</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is, 'is there life out there?'</p><p>The answer is a profound one whether it's yes or no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is , 'is there life out there ?
'The answer is a profound one whether it 's yes or no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is, 'is there life out there?
'The answer is a profound one whether it's yes or no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718951</id>
	<title>I see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently this alternate time line would be just like a 50s Science Fiction aimed at children, awesome!  So I'll guess, the moon would be primarily inhabited by boy explorers who say "Gosh" a lot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently this alternate time line would be just like a 50s Science Fiction aimed at children , awesome !
So I 'll guess , the moon would be primarily inhabited by boy explorers who say " Gosh " a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently this alternate time line would be just like a 50s Science Fiction aimed at children, awesome!
So I'll guess, the moon would be primarily inhabited by boy explorers who say "Gosh" a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718579</id>
	<title>Nice</title>
	<author>EnterDaMatrix</author>
	<datestamp>1247765760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No mention of Walmart anywhere in this article. I like this alter-verse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of Walmart anywhere in this article .
I like this alter-verse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of Walmart anywhere in this article.
I like this alter-verse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720047</id>
	<title>Re:If Apollo program had continued</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1247771220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>8) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.</p></div><p>8.5  Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to an on the pad explosion.<br>8.75 Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to a post launch explosion.<br>8.875 Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to a satellite failing/being sabotaged.</p><p>Regardless of the waiting disasters it's generally not a good idea to put nukes somewhere you can neither defend nor maintain them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 ) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.8.5 Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to an on the pad explosion.8.75 Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to a post launch explosion.8.875 Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to a satellite failing/being sabotaged.Regardless of the waiting disasters it 's generally not a good idea to put nukes somewhere you can neither defend nor maintain them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.8.5  Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to an on the pad explosion.8.75 Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to a post launch explosion.8.875 Some part of the earth would be irradiated due to a satellite failing/being sabotaged.Regardless of the waiting disasters it's generally not a good idea to put nukes somewhere you can neither defend nor maintain them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720005</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>jrob323</author>
	<datestamp>1247771100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How bad would things have to be on Earth (notwithstanding my neighbors and their damn barking dog) before it would be preferable to live in a pressurized cavern on the moon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How bad would things have to be on Earth ( notwithstanding my neighbors and their damn barking dog ) before it would be preferable to live in a pressurized cavern on the moon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How bad would things have to be on Earth (notwithstanding my neighbors and their damn barking dog) before it would be preferable to live in a pressurized cavern on the moon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718609</id>
	<title>The Secret Studios in Nevada Would be Busy....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1247765880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Secret studios in Nevada where they faked the moon landings would be really busy, they would be having to fake not only the moon bases, but the Mars landings and the bases there as well.</p><p>Because we never made it past low earth orbit.</p><p>The Above thread is sarcastic, if you hadn't noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Secret studios in Nevada where they faked the moon landings would be really busy , they would be having to fake not only the moon bases , but the Mars landings and the bases there as well.Because we never made it past low earth orbit.The Above thread is sarcastic , if you had n't noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Secret studios in Nevada where they faked the moon landings would be really busy, they would be having to fake not only the moon bases, but the Mars landings and the bases there as well.Because we never made it past low earth orbit.The Above thread is sarcastic, if you hadn't noticed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720687</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>jtheisen</author>
	<datestamp>1247773500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivated</p></div><p>Horny, naked women discovered on Mars!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivatedHorny , naked women discovered on Mars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivatedHorny, naked women discovered on Mars!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720453</id>
	<title>What if Apollo had continued</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we'd have a permanent outpost on the moon established in the 1990's but not so many people would live there..perhaps a dozen at a time.  We'd perhaps know more about the composition of the moons crust by drilling into the rock, we'd know if there is a hot core on that moon or not, we may even discover subsurface ice or water, or caves or new types of materials.  Helium-3 may make fusion work but not on earth but rather on the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 'd have a permanent outpost on the moon established in the 1990 's but not so many people would live there..perhaps a dozen at a time .
We 'd perhaps know more about the composition of the moons crust by drilling into the rock , we 'd know if there is a hot core on that moon or not , we may even discover subsurface ice or water , or caves or new types of materials .
Helium-3 may make fusion work but not on earth but rather on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we'd have a permanent outpost on the moon established in the 1990's but not so many people would live there..perhaps a dozen at a time.
We'd perhaps know more about the composition of the moons crust by drilling into the rock, we'd know if there is a hot core on that moon or not, we may even discover subsurface ice or water, or caves or new types of materials.
Helium-3 may make fusion work but not on earth but rather on the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720467</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Look at the small one in Arizona - it is 3 miles across and a mile deep still after 50,000 years of erosion.</i></p><p>To be fair, erosion is sort of a myth in Arizona.  We get just enough rain in a year to wash off about half of the dust that settled in between storms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the small one in Arizona - it is 3 miles across and a mile deep still after 50,000 years of erosion.To be fair , erosion is sort of a myth in Arizona .
We get just enough rain in a year to wash off about half of the dust that settled in between storms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the small one in Arizona - it is 3 miles across and a mile deep still after 50,000 years of erosion.To be fair, erosion is sort of a myth in Arizona.
We get just enough rain in a year to wash off about half of the dust that settled in between storms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719011</id>
	<title>...not as nice as Wangville.</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1247767380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, apparently shipping up lava tube sealant enough to make a kilometre diameter section airtight for the city would have been trivial.</p><p>I think they would have bust their heads trying to get moon-dust concrete to cure, never mind sealing vast cathedrals of lava tubes. Never mind the moon dust problem in itself.</p><p>Even if they had sensibly chosen a 20m diameter lava tube, it would have taken years to seal off, never mind having airlocks every 50m for safety. Given the speed of ISS construction, it would have taken a few years just to get a stairway from the surface to the bottom of the lava tube.</p><p>It simply wasn't viable. It would have been cool, but nothing was known about actually going beyond trips to the moon.</p><p>However I hope it happens within my lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , apparently shipping up lava tube sealant enough to make a kilometre diameter section airtight for the city would have been trivial.I think they would have bust their heads trying to get moon-dust concrete to cure , never mind sealing vast cathedrals of lava tubes .
Never mind the moon dust problem in itself.Even if they had sensibly chosen a 20m diameter lava tube , it would have taken years to seal off , never mind having airlocks every 50m for safety .
Given the speed of ISS construction , it would have taken a few years just to get a stairway from the surface to the bottom of the lava tube.It simply was n't viable .
It would have been cool , but nothing was known about actually going beyond trips to the moon.However I hope it happens within my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, apparently shipping up lava tube sealant enough to make a kilometre diameter section airtight for the city would have been trivial.I think they would have bust their heads trying to get moon-dust concrete to cure, never mind sealing vast cathedrals of lava tubes.
Never mind the moon dust problem in itself.Even if they had sensibly chosen a 20m diameter lava tube, it would have taken years to seal off, never mind having airlocks every 50m for safety.
Given the speed of ISS construction, it would have taken a few years just to get a stairway from the surface to the bottom of the lava tube.It simply wasn't viable.
It would have been cool, but nothing was known about actually going beyond trips to the moon.However I hope it happens within my lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545</id>
	<title>If Apollo program had continued</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1247765640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Highly likely that:<br>1) We would have full time orbital manned space station at all times.<br>2) Visits between Moon and Orbital station would be LESS frequent.<br>3) Visits between Moon and Earth would be MORE frequent. (because Apollo lifts off from Earth. Public-Private partnership would see to it that NASA doesn't use the most economical way of transport)<br>4) No Space Shuttle. Rockets all the way. (Why mess with something that works)<br>5) Ion Spacecraft launched to Asteroids.<br>6) Still no man on Mars. But a permanent computerized research station on Mars that operates from fixed locations.<br>7) No Mars Rover. The Rover was a roaming answer. Fixed stations would necessitate no rover.<br>8) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.<br>9) No Cruise missiles. Why build a Mosquito when an Elephant would be cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Highly likely that : 1 ) We would have full time orbital manned space station at all times.2 ) Visits between Moon and Orbital station would be LESS frequent.3 ) Visits between Moon and Earth would be MORE frequent .
( because Apollo lifts off from Earth .
Public-Private partnership would see to it that NASA does n't use the most economical way of transport ) 4 ) No Space Shuttle .
Rockets all the way .
( Why mess with something that works ) 5 ) Ion Spacecraft launched to Asteroids.6 ) Still no man on Mars .
But a permanent computerized research station on Mars that operates from fixed locations.7 ) No Mars Rover .
The Rover was a roaming answer .
Fixed stations would necessitate no rover.8 ) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.9 ) No Cruise missiles .
Why build a Mosquito when an Elephant would be cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Highly likely that:1) We would have full time orbital manned space station at all times.2) Visits between Moon and Orbital station would be LESS frequent.3) Visits between Moon and Earth would be MORE frequent.
(because Apollo lifts off from Earth.
Public-Private partnership would see to it that NASA doesn't use the most economical way of transport)4) No Space Shuttle.
Rockets all the way.
(Why mess with something that works)5) Ion Spacecraft launched to Asteroids.6) Still no man on Mars.
But a permanent computerized research station on Mars that operates from fixed locations.7) No Mars Rover.
The Rover was a roaming answer.
Fixed stations would necessitate no rover.8) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.9) No Cruise missiles.
Why build a Mosquito when an Elephant would be cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718927</id>
	<title>Nothing too good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We would have some buildings on the Moon, a much less unmanned space exploration history, a few more advances in the relevant technology, and even bigger a debt.

</p><p>As interesting as going to the Moon can be, going there ourselves for 40 years continuously would serve little scientific purpose (cue the responses that we are meant to live in space like in all the cool scifi novels and that it should be our #1 priority regardless of reality), waste a lot of money (more than it'd be worth, scientifically) and divert resources from higher ROI science, like huge space telescopes and such.

</p><p>So yeah, it was cool while it lasted, but I won't cry over what could have been, because it's not like there could possibly have been any drive to do more after over a decade of space racing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We would have some buildings on the Moon , a much less unmanned space exploration history , a few more advances in the relevant technology , and even bigger a debt .
As interesting as going to the Moon can be , going there ourselves for 40 years continuously would serve little scientific purpose ( cue the responses that we are meant to live in space like in all the cool scifi novels and that it should be our # 1 priority regardless of reality ) , waste a lot of money ( more than it 'd be worth , scientifically ) and divert resources from higher ROI science , like huge space telescopes and such .
So yeah , it was cool while it lasted , but I wo n't cry over what could have been , because it 's not like there could possibly have been any drive to do more after over a decade of space racing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would have some buildings on the Moon, a much less unmanned space exploration history, a few more advances in the relevant technology, and even bigger a debt.
As interesting as going to the Moon can be, going there ourselves for 40 years continuously would serve little scientific purpose (cue the responses that we are meant to live in space like in all the cool scifi novels and that it should be our #1 priority regardless of reality), waste a lot of money (more than it'd be worth, scientifically) and divert resources from higher ROI science, like huge space telescopes and such.
So yeah, it was cool while it lasted, but I won't cry over what could have been, because it's not like there could possibly have been any drive to do more after over a decade of space racing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719579</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We would also have global warming (or is it "climate change") on the moon due to increased human activity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would also have global warming ( or is it " climate change " ) on the moon due to increased human activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would also have global warming (or is it "climate change") on the moon due to increased human activity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28724325</id>
	<title>What if the dark ages hadn't happened?</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1247746440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the dark ages hadn't happened we'd probably have had the space program 400 years earlier, and then maybe it wouldn't have ended.  We'd certainly have been to Mars by now, and there's no telling what else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the dark ages had n't happened we 'd probably have had the space program 400 years earlier , and then maybe it would n't have ended .
We 'd certainly have been to Mars by now , and there 's no telling what else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the dark ages hadn't happened we'd probably have had the space program 400 years earlier, and then maybe it wouldn't have ended.
We'd certainly have been to Mars by now, and there's no telling what else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718699</id>
	<title>Apollo</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1247766180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both programmes followed up on the German research, USSR took the workers, US the lead engineers and in the end the USSR was the first in space. Sputnik crisis. That was shocking for the US. The US space program was an attempt to catch up with the Soviets. So if the US had not succeeded the USSR would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both programmes followed up on the German research , USSR took the workers , US the lead engineers and in the end the USSR was the first in space .
Sputnik crisis .
That was shocking for the US .
The US space program was an attempt to catch up with the Soviets .
So if the US had not succeeded the USSR would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both programmes followed up on the German research, USSR took the workers, US the lead engineers and in the end the USSR was the first in space.
Sputnik crisis.
That was shocking for the US.
The US space program was an attempt to catch up with the Soviets.
So if the US had not succeeded the USSR would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28724899</id>
	<title>Yeah but Shuttle has benefits too</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1247750700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed with everything parent said. However, he is neglecting some the benefits of the Shuttle program, which are:<ul>
<li>Empire-building for NASA bureaucrats</li><li>Pork for well-connected defense contractors (there was NO reason why a multi-segment SRB with O-ring joints should've been chosen over a single-piece design, except that the honorable senator from Utah who controlled the space budget commitee had to deliver the bacon to his home state... and being in landlocked Utah Thiokol could not ship by barge and could only build something that fits on trains, thus the segmented design and hydrogen leaking out of O-rings on a cold day)</li><li>Employment guarantees that come with such a massive, ongoing program</li><li>Bankrupting the Soviets, who were duped into trying  to copy the Shuttle with their Buran program. Each shuttle mission costs $1.5 billion per launch; great way to get those commies to waste money!</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed with everything parent said .
However , he is neglecting some the benefits of the Shuttle program , which are : Empire-building for NASA bureaucratsPork for well-connected defense contractors ( there was NO reason why a multi-segment SRB with O-ring joints should 've been chosen over a single-piece design , except that the honorable senator from Utah who controlled the space budget commitee had to deliver the bacon to his home state... and being in landlocked Utah Thiokol could not ship by barge and could only build something that fits on trains , thus the segmented design and hydrogen leaking out of O-rings on a cold day ) Employment guarantees that come with such a massive , ongoing programBankrupting the Soviets , who were duped into trying to copy the Shuttle with their Buran program .
Each shuttle mission costs $ 1.5 billion per launch ; great way to get those commies to waste money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed with everything parent said.
However, he is neglecting some the benefits of the Shuttle program, which are:
Empire-building for NASA bureaucratsPork for well-connected defense contractors (there was NO reason why a multi-segment SRB with O-ring joints should've been chosen over a single-piece design, except that the honorable senator from Utah who controlled the space budget commitee had to deliver the bacon to his home state... and being in landlocked Utah Thiokol could not ship by barge and could only build something that fits on trains, thus the segmented design and hydrogen leaking out of O-rings on a cold day)Employment guarantees that come with such a massive, ongoing programBankrupting the Soviets, who were duped into trying  to copy the Shuttle with their Buran program.
Each shuttle mission costs $1.5 billion per launch; great way to get those commies to waste money!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719839</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you change that to <i>nothing worth shipping back to <b>the surface of</b> Earth.</i> he's completley right.  It IS conceivable that if you wanted to build something really big in Earth orbit, it would be cheaper to get the materials from the Moon.  But you'd need to be building enough that it made sense to buid a factory in Earth orbit (or on the Moon) to make it.  And our current orbital infrastructure isn't even close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you change that to nothing worth shipping back to the surface of Earth .
he 's completley right .
It IS conceivable that if you wanted to build something really big in Earth orbit , it would be cheaper to get the materials from the Moon .
But you 'd need to be building enough that it made sense to buid a factory in Earth orbit ( or on the Moon ) to make it .
And our current orbital infrastructure is n't even close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you change that to nothing worth shipping back to the surface of Earth.
he's completley right.
It IS conceivable that if you wanted to build something really big in Earth orbit, it would be cheaper to get the materials from the Moon.
But you'd need to be building enough that it made sense to buid a factory in Earth orbit (or on the Moon) to make it.
And our current orbital infrastructure isn't even close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719803</id>
	<title>Re:My guess</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1247770260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But guess what, it didn't happen so there is no point in speculating because it will never become anything more than speculating.</p></div><p>
I disagree. Speculation may be just a kind of mental masturbation, but looking back at what <em>could</em> have been sometimes gives insights about what you might want to see happen in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But guess what , it did n't happen so there is no point in speculating because it will never become anything more than speculating .
I disagree .
Speculation may be just a kind of mental masturbation , but looking back at what could have been sometimes gives insights about what you might want to see happen in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But guess what, it didn't happen so there is no point in speculating because it will never become anything more than speculating.
I disagree.
Speculation may be just a kind of mental masturbation, but looking back at what could have been sometimes gives insights about what you might want to see happen in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719113</id>
	<title>space station to be deorbited in 2016</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kind silly spending $100B on something that only lasts 6 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind silly spending $ 100B on something that only lasts 6 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind silly spending $100B on something that only lasts 6 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720949</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>glennpratt</author>
	<datestamp>1247774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the moon rocks seem to have a lot of Ti, I doubt we would ship it back... we have plenty of it hear already.  It's the 7th most abundant metal on earth and it's contained in just about everything.  It's just a pain to deal with using current processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the moon rocks seem to have a lot of Ti , I doubt we would ship it back... we have plenty of it hear already .
It 's the 7th most abundant metal on earth and it 's contained in just about everything .
It 's just a pain to deal with using current processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the moon rocks seem to have a lot of Ti, I doubt we would ship it back... we have plenty of it hear already.
It's the 7th most abundant metal on earth and it's contained in just about everything.
It's just a pain to deal with using current processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720761</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um.. lasers will never get a large payload up there, the really only feasible cargo launch system would be a rail gun like assembly with an exit out the top of a mountain. But this would not work anything alive as the G-forces would crush it during launch</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um.. lasers will never get a large payload up there , the really only feasible cargo launch system would be a rail gun like assembly with an exit out the top of a mountain .
But this would not work anything alive as the G-forces would crush it during launch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.. lasers will never get a large payload up there, the really only feasible cargo launch system would be a rail gun like assembly with an exit out the top of a mountain.
But this would not work anything alive as the G-forces would crush it during launch</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567</id>
	<title>We would have gone bankrupt</title>
	<author>flowsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1247765760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rate of spending was unsustainable; we simply could not afford it, no matter how useful the research outputs might have been. On a more prosaic level, once the Cold War posturing had been successfully implemented, the political benefits would be virtually zero - even if the science would be extremely valuable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rate of spending was unsustainable ; we simply could not afford it , no matter how useful the research outputs might have been .
On a more prosaic level , once the Cold War posturing had been successfully implemented , the political benefits would be virtually zero - even if the science would be extremely valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rate of spending was unsustainable; we simply could not afford it, no matter how useful the research outputs might have been.
On a more prosaic level, once the Cold War posturing had been successfully implemented, the political benefits would be virtually zero - even if the science would be extremely valuable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721265</id>
	<title>Re:We would have gone bankrupt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the money we kept spending anyway, on the shuttle program?  Stopping apollo didn't stop spending, it diverted it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the money we kept spending anyway , on the shuttle program ?
Stopping apollo did n't stop spending , it diverted it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the money we kept spending anyway, on the shuttle program?
Stopping apollo didn't stop spending, it diverted it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718607</id>
	<title>Johnson City is a nice place...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but it's got no atmosphere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it 's got no atmosphere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it's got no atmosphere...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</id>
	<title>we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what i mean is, just going out there just to have a look-see isn't a valid reason to spend quadrillions. we need to</p><p>1. discover an alien race, or<br>2. be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or<br>3. discover some fantastic energy source or resource out there (or drug... spice?)<br>4. more tribal chest thumping and grandstanding a la the cold war<br>etc.</p><p>these are reasons that are easy to grasp and easily capture the attention and the imagination of all. this provides the political and cultural and popular compunction to spend large sums of cash on the endeavour</p><p>sure, there are lots of reasons to go out there right now. except they are all amorphous and ill-defined and longwinded. something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivated</p><p>there really is no motivation to go out there right now. again, i mean solid, clear, urgent, and earnest motivation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what i mean is , just going out there just to have a look-see is n't a valid reason to spend quadrillions .
we need to1 .
discover an alien race , or2 .
be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason , whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin , or3 .
discover some fantastic energy source or resource out there ( or drug.. .
spice ? ) 4. more tribal chest thumping and grandstanding a la the cold waretc.these are reasons that are easy to grasp and easily capture the attention and the imagination of all .
this provides the political and cultural and popular compunction to spend large sums of cash on the endeavoursure , there are lots of reasons to go out there right now .
except they are all amorphous and ill-defined and longwinded .
something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivatedthere really is no motivation to go out there right now .
again , i mean solid , clear , urgent , and earnest motivation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what i mean is, just going out there just to have a look-see isn't a valid reason to spend quadrillions.
we need to1.
discover an alien race, or2.
be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or3.
discover some fantastic energy source or resource out there (or drug...
spice?)4. more tribal chest thumping and grandstanding a la the cold waretc.these are reasons that are easy to grasp and easily capture the attention and the imagination of all.
this provides the political and cultural and popular compunction to spend large sums of cash on the endeavoursure, there are lots of reasons to go out there right now.
except they are all amorphous and ill-defined and longwinded.
something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivatedthere really is no motivation to go out there right now.
again, i mean solid, clear, urgent, and earnest motivation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719505</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1247769240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or</p></div><p>Unfortunately, that kind of things become a motivation when it is already too late, either because is somewhat sudden, or because the "right" preparations will take time (and too much money that surely will be expent instead on trying to mitigate whatever is coming). Just suppose, to put a close date, that "something" will happen in 2012. You think that 2-3 years is enough to have i.e. a self-sustained city on the moon? An incoming asteroid, or i.e. yellowstone supervolcano, could give us far less time to prepare.

</p><p>Anyway, is too expensive right now, unless something dramatic happens that changes numbers. Be a cheap propulsion system, a space elevator, abundant and easily available energy (better yet, if that only happens with materials that could be massively found in moon), or even IAs that could do that for us at a fraction of the cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason , whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin , orUnfortunately , that kind of things become a motivation when it is already too late , either because is somewhat sudden , or because the " right " preparations will take time ( and too much money that surely will be expent instead on trying to mitigate whatever is coming ) .
Just suppose , to put a close date , that " something " will happen in 2012 .
You think that 2-3 years is enough to have i.e .
a self-sustained city on the moon ?
An incoming asteroid , or i.e .
yellowstone supervolcano , could give us far less time to prepare .
Anyway , is too expensive right now , unless something dramatic happens that changes numbers .
Be a cheap propulsion system , a space elevator , abundant and easily available energy ( better yet , if that only happens with materials that could be massively found in moon ) , or even IAs that could do that for us at a fraction of the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, orUnfortunately, that kind of things become a motivation when it is already too late, either because is somewhat sudden, or because the "right" preparations will take time (and too much money that surely will be expent instead on trying to mitigate whatever is coming).
Just suppose, to put a close date, that "something" will happen in 2012.
You think that 2-3 years is enough to have i.e.
a self-sustained city on the moon?
An incoming asteroid, or i.e.
yellowstone supervolcano, could give us far less time to prepare.
Anyway, is too expensive right now, unless something dramatic happens that changes numbers.
Be a cheap propulsion system, a space elevator, abundant and easily available energy (better yet, if that only happens with materials that could be massively found in moon), or even IAs that could do that for us at a fraction of the cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719855</id>
	<title>I know, I know!  Steampunk!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In space!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In space !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In space!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719243</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1247768280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Apollo Twenty Congress took the manned space program away from NASA and handed it over to the Navy, there are now half a dozen space stations, two moon bases, and Admiral Heinlein never let the Soviets build spacecraft.
</p><p>Or did I read the wrong article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Apollo Twenty Congress took the manned space program away from NASA and handed it over to the Navy , there are now half a dozen space stations , two moon bases , and Admiral Heinlein never let the Soviets build spacecraft .
Or did I read the wrong article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Apollo Twenty Congress took the manned space program away from NASA and handed it over to the Navy, there are now half a dozen space stations, two moon bases, and Admiral Heinlein never let the Soviets build spacecraft.
Or did I read the wrong article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719415</id>
	<title>Not apollo</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1247768880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have rather they had stuck with the dropship idea like they ran with the X-15 and now Rutan's/Branson's method, at least for light duty, low earth orbit human movers. Big dumb capsules are good for moving bulk freight, but we need a real highly reusable, fast turn around and cheap spaceplane. The shuttle is a compromise between the two and just didn't cut it. There's trucks, then cars, we need both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have rather they had stuck with the dropship idea like they ran with the X-15 and now Rutan 's/Branson 's method , at least for light duty , low earth orbit human movers .
Big dumb capsules are good for moving bulk freight , but we need a real highly reusable , fast turn around and cheap spaceplane .
The shuttle is a compromise between the two and just did n't cut it .
There 's trucks , then cars , we need both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have rather they had stuck with the dropship idea like they ran with the X-15 and now Rutan's/Branson's method, at least for light duty, low earth orbit human movers.
Big dumb capsules are good for moving bulk freight, but we need a real highly reusable, fast turn around and cheap spaceplane.
The shuttle is a compromise between the two and just didn't cut it.
There's trucks, then cars, we need both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720223</id>
	<title>Re:What if Kennedy hadn't committed to the landing</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1247771820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adding to the AC above - apparently only US thing. People in Europe generally realize who Yuri Gagarin was.</p><p>(really, did US took this "hit" so badly?...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding to the AC above - apparently only US thing .
People in Europe generally realize who Yuri Gagarin was .
( really , did US took this " hit " so badly ? .. .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding to the AC above - apparently only US thing.
People in Europe generally realize who Yuri Gagarin was.
(really, did US took this "hit" so badly?...
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720385</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247772360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No mention of Walmart anywhere in this article.</i></p><p>Until you came along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of Walmart anywhere in this article.Until you came along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of Walmart anywhere in this article.Until you came along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719081</id>
	<title>Re:If Apollo program had continued</title>
	<author>pha7boy</author>
	<datestamp>1247767680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see the connection between rocket development, moon exploration, and SALT II. Reagan would still have been a nuclear abolitionist, his meetings with Gorbachev would still have discussed the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, maybe even more so if there had ever been nuclear bases in space. </p><p>To me it's sad that what seems like a very plausible counterfactual of what would have happend had congress not hamstrung NASA in the late 1960s is now a work of science fiction. Then again, all is not necessarily lost. Maybe something can be salvaged, even if I will not live to see it come to fruition. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the connection between rocket development , moon exploration , and SALT II .
Reagan would still have been a nuclear abolitionist , his meetings with Gorbachev would still have discussed the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons , maybe even more so if there had ever been nuclear bases in space .
To me it 's sad that what seems like a very plausible counterfactual of what would have happend had congress not hamstrung NASA in the late 1960s is now a work of science fiction .
Then again , all is not necessarily lost .
Maybe something can be salvaged , even if I will not live to see it come to fruition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the connection between rocket development, moon exploration, and SALT II.
Reagan would still have been a nuclear abolitionist, his meetings with Gorbachev would still have discussed the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, maybe even more so if there had ever been nuclear bases in space.
To me it's sad that what seems like a very plausible counterfactual of what would have happend had congress not hamstrung NASA in the late 1960s is now a work of science fiction.
Then again, all is not necessarily lost.
Maybe something can be salvaged, even if I will not live to see it come to fruition. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721385</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1247776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It costs about $10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit. That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists.</p></div></blockquote><p>By the same logic - it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build a modern nuclear reactor, so there's no point in trying to build them until we can figure out a cheaper way to do it.</p><p>Of course, you're ignoring the potential output of such a program.  From asteroid mining to orbital solar collectors, the potential benefits are more than enough to make the expenditures worthwhile.  Cost is relative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It costs about $ 10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit .
That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there 's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists.By the same logic - it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build a modern nuclear reactor , so there 's no point in trying to build them until we can figure out a cheaper way to do it.Of course , you 're ignoring the potential output of such a program .
From asteroid mining to orbital solar collectors , the potential benefits are more than enough to make the expenditures worthwhile .
Cost is relative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It costs about $10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit.
That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists.By the same logic - it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build a modern nuclear reactor, so there's no point in trying to build them until we can figure out a cheaper way to do it.Of course, you're ignoring the potential output of such a program.
From asteroid mining to orbital solar collectors, the potential benefits are more than enough to make the expenditures worthwhile.
Cost is relative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723661</id>
	<title>Incremental improvements from another direction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247742900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The space shuttle was a noble goal: "Make a reusable launch vehicle, one that can be operated every few days without having to be thrown away."  "Every few days" turned into "every several months" and "without having to be thrown away" turned into "with only part of it being thrown away, part fished out of the ocean, and part torn apart and rebuilt", but the long term goal was good.  No matter how many incremental improvements you make to an expendible rocket, you either need to make the non-incremental change of adding flyback systems or you need to accept that the price of each trip will include building and discarding one of the largest and highest performance vehicles in history.  The Delta, Atlas, etc. people made the latter choice, and although iteration still led them to better satellite launchers than Shuttle, it's not something we can build a real space program on.</p><p>The trouble with the RLV alternative is that, if making a reusable orbital vehicle in shot is too hard (as I'd agree NASA proved), the only way to get there incrementally is from reusable suborbital vehicles.  Start with something like the DC-X, bump up to something that can hit Mach 10, Mach 15, Mach 20, Mach 25, increasing the size and performance as necessary.  But long before you've made enough incremental improvements to reach orbit, you'll probably have made too many for the public's patience.  "We made it to the moon in 1969!" they'll tell their Congressmen; "why are we wasting so much money" (i.e. a tiny fraction of that expense) "on rockets that can't even stay in space?"  Or worse, you'll lose the program to administrators who think "Here's a great opportunity to experiment with multi-lobed tanks, lifting bodies, linear aerospike engines, and a bunch of other untested technology all at once, just as soon as we weed the competition down to a single contract to the guys who made the best Powerpoint slides!  What could possibly go wrong? Whateration, did you say?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The space shuttle was a noble goal : " Make a reusable launch vehicle , one that can be operated every few days without having to be thrown away .
" " Every few days " turned into " every several months " and " without having to be thrown away " turned into " with only part of it being thrown away , part fished out of the ocean , and part torn apart and rebuilt " , but the long term goal was good .
No matter how many incremental improvements you make to an expendible rocket , you either need to make the non-incremental change of adding flyback systems or you need to accept that the price of each trip will include building and discarding one of the largest and highest performance vehicles in history .
The Delta , Atlas , etc .
people made the latter choice , and although iteration still led them to better satellite launchers than Shuttle , it 's not something we can build a real space program on.The trouble with the RLV alternative is that , if making a reusable orbital vehicle in shot is too hard ( as I 'd agree NASA proved ) , the only way to get there incrementally is from reusable suborbital vehicles .
Start with something like the DC-X , bump up to something that can hit Mach 10 , Mach 15 , Mach 20 , Mach 25 , increasing the size and performance as necessary .
But long before you 've made enough incremental improvements to reach orbit , you 'll probably have made too many for the public 's patience .
" We made it to the moon in 1969 !
" they 'll tell their Congressmen ; " why are we wasting so much money " ( i.e .
a tiny fraction of that expense ) " on rockets that ca n't even stay in space ?
" Or worse , you 'll lose the program to administrators who think " Here 's a great opportunity to experiment with multi-lobed tanks , lifting bodies , linear aerospike engines , and a bunch of other untested technology all at once , just as soon as we weed the competition down to a single contract to the guys who made the best Powerpoint slides !
What could possibly go wrong ?
Whateration , did you say ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The space shuttle was a noble goal: "Make a reusable launch vehicle, one that can be operated every few days without having to be thrown away.
"  "Every few days" turned into "every several months" and "without having to be thrown away" turned into "with only part of it being thrown away, part fished out of the ocean, and part torn apart and rebuilt", but the long term goal was good.
No matter how many incremental improvements you make to an expendible rocket, you either need to make the non-incremental change of adding flyback systems or you need to accept that the price of each trip will include building and discarding one of the largest and highest performance vehicles in history.
The Delta, Atlas, etc.
people made the latter choice, and although iteration still led them to better satellite launchers than Shuttle, it's not something we can build a real space program on.The trouble with the RLV alternative is that, if making a reusable orbital vehicle in shot is too hard (as I'd agree NASA proved), the only way to get there incrementally is from reusable suborbital vehicles.
Start with something like the DC-X, bump up to something that can hit Mach 10, Mach 15, Mach 20, Mach 25, increasing the size and performance as necessary.
But long before you've made enough incremental improvements to reach orbit, you'll probably have made too many for the public's patience.
"We made it to the moon in 1969!
" they'll tell their Congressmen; "why are we wasting so much money" (i.e.
a tiny fraction of that expense) "on rockets that can't even stay in space?
"  Or worse, you'll lose the program to administrators who think "Here's a great opportunity to experiment with multi-lobed tanks, lifting bodies, linear aerospike engines, and a bunch of other untested technology all at once, just as soon as we weed the competition down to a single contract to the guys who made the best Powerpoint slides!
What could possibly go wrong?
Whateration, did you say?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725077</id>
	<title>kids these days</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apollo Missions? Cold War? Back in my day, we had cable TV and the Gulf War!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apollo Missions ?
Cold War ?
Back in my day , we had cable TV and the Gulf War !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apollo Missions?
Cold War?
Back in my day, we had cable TV and the Gulf War!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28722121</id>
	<title>Re:We would have gone bankrupt</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1247736240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could have afforded it if we had cut back the military spending, and used that instead for space exploration.  And the science and technology developed would have greatly benefited our economy, unlike military spending which is pretty much a black hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could have afforded it if we had cut back the military spending , and used that instead for space exploration .
And the science and technology developed would have greatly benefited our economy , unlike military spending which is pretty much a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could have afforded it if we had cut back the military spending, and used that instead for space exploration.
And the science and technology developed would have greatly benefited our economy, unlike military spending which is pretty much a black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561</id>
	<title>What if Kennedy hadn't committed to the landing?</title>
	<author>Richard W.M. Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247765700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if Kennedy had set a lesser goal, such as orbiting the moon?
</p><p>
The Russians quite probably could have achieved with with Soyuz-based
technology.  We "know" this, sorta, because recently someone proposed
<a href="http://www.constellationservices.com/lunarexpresssmsystem.html" title="constellat...rvices.com">putting a Soyuz capsule around the moon</a> [constellat...rvices.com] for a rich billionaire with $100m to spare.
</p><p>Now you're in the situation where both superpowers are orbiting the
moon, which makes it a military race.  You can drop stuff easily from
lunar orbit down to the earth, so both powers have to remain there.
</p><p>
Assuming we hadn't ended up dead (this is a high risk alternate history)
I suspect we'd be a lot further along in space travel and technology now.
</p><p>Rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if Kennedy had set a lesser goal , such as orbiting the moon ?
The Russians quite probably could have achieved with with Soyuz-based technology .
We " know " this , sorta , because recently someone proposed putting a Soyuz capsule around the moon [ constellat...rvices.com ] for a rich billionaire with $ 100m to spare .
Now you 're in the situation where both superpowers are orbiting the moon , which makes it a military race .
You can drop stuff easily from lunar orbit down to the earth , so both powers have to remain there .
Assuming we had n't ended up dead ( this is a high risk alternate history ) I suspect we 'd be a lot further along in space travel and technology now .
Rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if Kennedy had set a lesser goal, such as orbiting the moon?
The Russians quite probably could have achieved with with Soyuz-based
technology.
We "know" this, sorta, because recently someone proposed
putting a Soyuz capsule around the moon [constellat...rvices.com] for a rich billionaire with $100m to spare.
Now you're in the situation where both superpowers are orbiting the
moon, which makes it a military race.
You can drop stuff easily from
lunar orbit down to the earth, so both powers have to remain there.
Assuming we hadn't ended up dead (this is a high risk alternate history)
I suspect we'd be a lot further along in space travel and technology now.
Rich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719193</id>
	<title>Houston we have a problem</title>
	<author>pkbarbiedoll</author>
	<datestamp>1247768100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America is going in the wrong direction.  The Apollo missions were one of many highlights of America at its peak.   Now U.S. schools barely prepare kids to be service workers, not scientists or engineers.   America doesn't teach industrial education very much anymore (why bother when other countries with lower costs of living offer the same products at cheaper rates).

<p>There are so many reasons why America as the world once it is coming to an end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America is going in the wrong direction .
The Apollo missions were one of many highlights of America at its peak .
Now U.S. schools barely prepare kids to be service workers , not scientists or engineers .
America does n't teach industrial education very much anymore ( why bother when other countries with lower costs of living offer the same products at cheaper rates ) .
There are so many reasons why America as the world once it is coming to an end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is going in the wrong direction.
The Apollo missions were one of many highlights of America at its peak.
Now U.S. schools barely prepare kids to be service workers, not scientists or engineers.
America doesn't teach industrial education very much anymore (why bother when other countries with lower costs of living offer the same products at cheaper rates).
There are so many reasons why America as the world once it is coming to an end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723095</id>
	<title>Re:A bunch of space cadet masturbation.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remember, there could have been one more moon landing with the hardware we had but NASA didn't want to launch it.</p></div></blockquote><p>There were several set of additional hardware complete or in progress - but they were off the manifest and production halted in 1968 and early 1969.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out.</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed, there was serious consideration given to canceling Apollo 17 on exactly those grounds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , there could have been one more moon landing with the hardware we had but NASA did n't want to launch it.There were several set of additional hardware complete or in progress - but they were off the manifest and production halted in 1968 and early 1969 .
    There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out.Indeed , there was serious consideration given to canceling Apollo 17 on exactly those grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, there could have been one more moon landing with the hardware we had but NASA didn't want to launch it.There were several set of additional hardware complete or in progress - but they were off the manifest and production halted in 1968 and early 1969.
  
  There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out.Indeed, there was serious consideration given to canceling Apollo 17 on exactly those grounds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718961</id>
	<title>Retirement communities on the moon</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1247767200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me to be the best use of the moon.   Hearts last longer, perhaps, in less gravity ?<br>Old rich people squander their children's inheritance to gain another 10 years living<br>on the moon.    Retirement homes on Earth are about as lonely as living on the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me to be the best use of the moon .
Hearts last longer , perhaps , in less gravity ? Old rich people squander their children 's inheritance to gain another 10 years livingon the moon .
Retirement homes on Earth are about as lonely as living on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me to be the best use of the moon.
Hearts last longer, perhaps, in less gravity ?Old rich people squander their children's inheritance to gain another 10 years livingon the moon.
Retirement homes on Earth are about as lonely as living on the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725207</id>
	<title>Re:What if Kennedy hadn't committed to the landing</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247753520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the russians had done the whole moon thing, we would have done the whole LEO thing except with 10X the warheads. I mean really, you want to send something up out of earth's gravity well into the moon's gravity well, and then back to earth? Do you have any idea how much more energy it takes to get to the moon vs. LEO? The moon is not, like, LEO plus 10 miles- It is a big deal.</p><p>Granted, having LEO nukes would have made the cold war WAY too tense for my comfort, so I'm glad it didn't happen.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the russians had done the whole moon thing , we would have done the whole LEO thing except with 10X the warheads .
I mean really , you want to send something up out of earth 's gravity well into the moon 's gravity well , and then back to earth ?
Do you have any idea how much more energy it takes to get to the moon vs. LEO ? The moon is not , like , LEO plus 10 miles- It is a big deal.Granted , having LEO nukes would have made the cold war WAY too tense for my comfort , so I 'm glad it did n't happen.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the russians had done the whole moon thing, we would have done the whole LEO thing except with 10X the warheads.
I mean really, you want to send something up out of earth's gravity well into the moon's gravity well, and then back to earth?
Do you have any idea how much more energy it takes to get to the moon vs. LEO? The moon is not, like, LEO plus 10 miles- It is a big deal.Granted, having LEO nukes would have made the cold war WAY too tense for my comfort, so I'm glad it didn't happen.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718551</id>
	<title>One of three things:</title>
	<author>itomato</author>
	<datestamp>1247765700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1: We would be whooshing around in solid fuel powered Jet Packs, and global warming would be a non-issue.</p><p>2: We would be whooshing around in liquid hydrocarbon Jet Cars, and global warming would be tripled.</p><p>3: We would be whooshing around on in intergalactic cruise ships, reclining in hovering lounge chairs, clapping for robot-delivered lunch-in-a-cup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : We would be whooshing around in solid fuel powered Jet Packs , and global warming would be a non-issue.2 : We would be whooshing around in liquid hydrocarbon Jet Cars , and global warming would be tripled.3 : We would be whooshing around on in intergalactic cruise ships , reclining in hovering lounge chairs , clapping for robot-delivered lunch-in-a-cup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: We would be whooshing around in solid fuel powered Jet Packs, and global warming would be a non-issue.2: We would be whooshing around in liquid hydrocarbon Jet Cars, and global warming would be tripled.3: We would be whooshing around on in intergalactic cruise ships, reclining in hovering lounge chairs, clapping for robot-delivered lunch-in-a-cup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719713</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1247769900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are three choices: hope that God will protect us and it will never happen to his Chosen people (whoever they are), be able to go out and prevent an impact, or be somewhere else when it comes. Right now, we are operating under the first alternative which I suspect most people will agree sucks. The second is not utterly beyond our capabilities, but it would be tough and require plenty of warning. I'm certainly in favor of a combination of the second and third alternatives. The third implies a self-sustaining outpost that could survive if Earth was wiped out. We are a long way from that being a realistic possibility.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You're forgetting something.  Do nothing - take the hit.  Sure, you stand to have perhaps millions of casualties (depending on size, strike location, etc.) but the chance of wiping out a significant fraction of the earth's human population is small.  Not zero - always edge cases for Truly Bad Things, but there are enough humans in essentially separate ecologies to survive pretty much anything as a species.<br> <br>
I think that having surviving humans in the Andes after a Big Strike is a much more likely scenario than a functional space colony for a least the next 50 - 100 years. <br> <br>
The reasons for going into space are many, but short term survival of the species isn't it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three choices : hope that God will protect us and it will never happen to his Chosen people ( whoever they are ) , be able to go out and prevent an impact , or be somewhere else when it comes .
Right now , we are operating under the first alternative which I suspect most people will agree sucks .
The second is not utterly beyond our capabilities , but it would be tough and require plenty of warning .
I 'm certainly in favor of a combination of the second and third alternatives .
The third implies a self-sustaining outpost that could survive if Earth was wiped out .
We are a long way from that being a realistic possibility .
You 're forgetting something .
Do nothing - take the hit .
Sure , you stand to have perhaps millions of casualties ( depending on size , strike location , etc .
) but the chance of wiping out a significant fraction of the earth 's human population is small .
Not zero - always edge cases for Truly Bad Things , but there are enough humans in essentially separate ecologies to survive pretty much anything as a species .
I think that having surviving humans in the Andes after a Big Strike is a much more likely scenario than a functional space colony for a least the next 50 - 100 years .
The reasons for going into space are many , but short term survival of the species is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three choices: hope that God will protect us and it will never happen to his Chosen people (whoever they are), be able to go out and prevent an impact, or be somewhere else when it comes.
Right now, we are operating under the first alternative which I suspect most people will agree sucks.
The second is not utterly beyond our capabilities, but it would be tough and require plenty of warning.
I'm certainly in favor of a combination of the second and third alternatives.
The third implies a self-sustaining outpost that could survive if Earth was wiped out.
We are a long way from that being a realistic possibility.
You're forgetting something.
Do nothing - take the hit.
Sure, you stand to have perhaps millions of casualties (depending on size, strike location, etc.
) but the chance of wiping out a significant fraction of the earth's human population is small.
Not zero - always edge cases for Truly Bad Things, but there are enough humans in essentially separate ecologies to survive pretty much anything as a species.
I think that having surviving humans in the Andes after a Big Strike is a much more likely scenario than a functional space colony for a least the next 50 - 100 years.
The reasons for going into space are many, but short term survival of the species isn't it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723791</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1247743560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All the discussions about the space program overlook a critical fact. It costs about $10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit. That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The only way a moon base or a space station or a space hotel or anything else will ever be practical is if that launch cost is reduced through new technology.</p></div><p>This is a common misconception, but when it comes down to it, you can lower the price considerably by just using current technologies in a cost-effective manner. SpaceX's Falcon 9 (to be launched in the coming year) will lower the cost per kg to one-third of the going rate, and CEO Elon Musk believes that less than $1,100/kg is "very achievable." The difference is that up until now nobody had successfully built a rocket from scratch made entirely out of components designed to be as cost-efficient as possible. Again, keep in mind that the cost of fuel is about 1\% of the cost of launching a rocket -- by minimizing the cost of components and the number of people needed to put the rocket together, you drop the overall cost substantially.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the discussions about the space program overlook a critical fact .
It costs about $ 10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit .
That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there 's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists .
... The only way a moon base or a space station or a space hotel or anything else will ever be practical is if that launch cost is reduced through new technology.This is a common misconception , but when it comes down to it , you can lower the price considerably by just using current technologies in a cost-effective manner .
SpaceX 's Falcon 9 ( to be launched in the coming year ) will lower the cost per kg to one-third of the going rate , and CEO Elon Musk believes that less than $ 1,100/kg is " very achievable .
" The difference is that up until now nobody had successfully built a rocket from scratch made entirely out of components designed to be as cost-efficient as possible .
Again , keep in mind that the cost of fuel is about 1 \ % of the cost of launching a rocket -- by minimizing the cost of components and the number of people needed to put the rocket together , you drop the overall cost substantially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the discussions about the space program overlook a critical fact.
It costs about $10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit.
That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists.
... The only way a moon base or a space station or a space hotel or anything else will ever be practical is if that launch cost is reduced through new technology.This is a common misconception, but when it comes down to it, you can lower the price considerably by just using current technologies in a cost-effective manner.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 (to be launched in the coming year) will lower the cost per kg to one-third of the going rate, and CEO Elon Musk believes that less than $1,100/kg is "very achievable.
" The difference is that up until now nobody had successfully built a rocket from scratch made entirely out of components designed to be as cost-efficient as possible.
Again, keep in mind that the cost of fuel is about 1\% of the cost of launching a rocket -- by minimizing the cost of components and the number of people needed to put the rocket together, you drop the overall cost substantially.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719241</id>
	<title>where would we be now?</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1247768280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obligatory:</p><p>Police: Are you classified as human?<br>Korben Dallas: Negative, I am a meat popsicle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory : Police : Are you classified as human ? Korben Dallas : Negative , I am a meat popsicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory:Police: Are you classified as human?Korben Dallas: Negative, I am a meat popsicle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723823</id>
	<title>Earth Orbit Rendezvous, therefore...</title>
	<author>spaceyhackerlady</author>
	<datestamp>1247743740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the Big Decisions of Project Apollo was the choice of Lunar Orbit
Rendezvous, because it had the best chance of getting to the Moon by the end of
the decade. Direct Ascent wasn't feasible, and Earth Orbit Rendezvous, while safe
and easy to get right, would take too long to develop.

</p><p>Once Apollo 11 had landed and the race to the Moon had been won, a properly-funded
NASA could have developed other space technologies. Stuff developed for EOR would have wider application,
to go to Mars, the Lagrange points, and more. The Apollo hardware, while ingenious and
effective, was a dead end. It proved a point, but it had no future.

</p><p>That same properly-funded NASA would still have a need for an Earth-to-orbit shuttle.
As part of a larger, coordinated plan, they would have come up with something quite
different from the antiques that are straining their guts out and just-barely-failing to
blow up on each launch. They would have been able to refine and rethink the design,
and would have gone through several generations by now.

</p><p>...laura</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the Big Decisions of Project Apollo was the choice of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous , because it had the best chance of getting to the Moon by the end of the decade .
Direct Ascent was n't feasible , and Earth Orbit Rendezvous , while safe and easy to get right , would take too long to develop .
Once Apollo 11 had landed and the race to the Moon had been won , a properly-funded NASA could have developed other space technologies .
Stuff developed for EOR would have wider application , to go to Mars , the Lagrange points , and more .
The Apollo hardware , while ingenious and effective , was a dead end .
It proved a point , but it had no future .
That same properly-funded NASA would still have a need for an Earth-to-orbit shuttle .
As part of a larger , coordinated plan , they would have come up with something quite different from the antiques that are straining their guts out and just-barely-failing to blow up on each launch .
They would have been able to refine and rethink the design , and would have gone through several generations by now .
...laura</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the Big Decisions of Project Apollo was the choice of Lunar Orbit
Rendezvous, because it had the best chance of getting to the Moon by the end of
the decade.
Direct Ascent wasn't feasible, and Earth Orbit Rendezvous, while safe
and easy to get right, would take too long to develop.
Once Apollo 11 had landed and the race to the Moon had been won, a properly-funded
NASA could have developed other space technologies.
Stuff developed for EOR would have wider application,
to go to Mars, the Lagrange points, and more.
The Apollo hardware, while ingenious and
effective, was a dead end.
It proved a point, but it had no future.
That same properly-funded NASA would still have a need for an Earth-to-orbit shuttle.
As part of a larger, coordinated plan, they would have come up with something quite
different from the antiques that are straining their guts out and just-barely-failing to
blow up on each launch.
They would have been able to refine and rethink the design,
and would have gone through several generations by now.
...laura</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720245</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>I'm not really here</author>
	<datestamp>1247771880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We will only ever have one of two answers to the question of 'is there life out there?'<ol> <li>1. Yes (Woo hoo!)</li><li>2. Not sure yet, only a few more trillions of worlds to search before we know definitively if all are barren of all life.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>We will only ever have one of two answers to the question of 'is there life out there ?
' 1 .
Yes ( Woo hoo ! ) 2 .
Not sure yet , only a few more trillions of worlds to search before we know definitively if all are barren of all life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will only ever have one of two answers to the question of 'is there life out there?
' 1.
Yes (Woo hoo!)2.
Not sure yet, only a few more trillions of worlds to search before we know definitively if all are barren of all life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719907</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>toolie</author>
	<datestamp>1247770680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even repairing Hubble never made any sense : it would have been a lot cheaper to build a brand new telescope every time than to pay for each repair mission.</p></div><p>Uhhh, the original telescope was suppose to cost $400M, but the actual cost was about $2.5B (about $300M was for storage, so say $2B to be conservative).  Do you really think launching a new one every time it had to be repaired (we had five repair missions so far) would be cheaper than just repairing it?  Figure about $100M per launch on top of the telescope cost.</p><p>The entire program has cost about $5B.  Your proposal would mean we would've spent about $12B in telescopes alone.  Even cutting the price of a new telescope in half, we wouldn't be breaking even compared to repairing the HST.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even repairing Hubble never made any sense : it would have been a lot cheaper to build a brand new telescope every time than to pay for each repair mission.Uhhh , the original telescope was suppose to cost $ 400M , but the actual cost was about $ 2.5B ( about $ 300M was for storage , so say $ 2B to be conservative ) .
Do you really think launching a new one every time it had to be repaired ( we had five repair missions so far ) would be cheaper than just repairing it ?
Figure about $ 100M per launch on top of the telescope cost.The entire program has cost about $ 5B .
Your proposal would mean we would 've spent about $ 12B in telescopes alone .
Even cutting the price of a new telescope in half , we would n't be breaking even compared to repairing the HST .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even repairing Hubble never made any sense : it would have been a lot cheaper to build a brand new telescope every time than to pay for each repair mission.Uhhh, the original telescope was suppose to cost $400M, but the actual cost was about $2.5B (about $300M was for storage, so say $2B to be conservative).
Do you really think launching a new one every time it had to be repaired (we had five repair missions so far) would be cheaper than just repairing it?
Figure about $100M per launch on top of the telescope cost.The entire program has cost about $5B.
Your proposal would mean we would've spent about $12B in telescopes alone.
Even cutting the price of a new telescope in half, we wouldn't be breaking even compared to repairing the HST.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720189</id>
	<title>Why so much attention on manned efforts?</title>
	<author>orcateers</author>
	<datestamp>1247771700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>experience shows that people gain a lot more knowledge per invested dollars from unmanned space-projects like voyager, hubble, mars rovers, etc. than with manned escapades like the iss and the apollo program, but we continue to focus on putting our physical flesh into space as the most culturally meaningfull product of NASA, why?<p>

As Americans, do we have a "Lewis and Clark complex"? Do we prematurely put space exploration into our existing ideas about "the frontier"? how much would we <i>learn</i> from a permanent moon-city, and would we really care if it wasn't all that much? (as long as we got to stick our flag into some more "virgin territitory")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>experience shows that people gain a lot more knowledge per invested dollars from unmanned space-projects like voyager , hubble , mars rovers , etc .
than with manned escapades like the iss and the apollo program , but we continue to focus on putting our physical flesh into space as the most culturally meaningfull product of NASA , why ?
As Americans , do we have a " Lewis and Clark complex " ?
Do we prematurely put space exploration into our existing ideas about " the frontier " ?
how much would we learn from a permanent moon-city , and would we really care if it was n't all that much ?
( as long as we got to stick our flag into some more " virgin territitory " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>experience shows that people gain a lot more knowledge per invested dollars from unmanned space-projects like voyager, hubble, mars rovers, etc.
than with manned escapades like the iss and the apollo program, but we continue to focus on putting our physical flesh into space as the most culturally meaningfull product of NASA, why?
As Americans, do we have a "Lewis and Clark complex"?
Do we prematurely put space exploration into our existing ideas about "the frontier"?
how much would we learn from a permanent moon-city, and would we really care if it wasn't all that much?
(as long as we got to stick our flag into some more "virgin territitory")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719227</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1247768220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>discover an alien race</p></div><p>all we have to do is wait for ww3 to be over and wait for vulcans to show up once we construct a warp drive in montana<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>discover an alien raceall we have to do is wait for ww3 to be over and wait for vulcans to show up once we construct a warp drive in montana : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>discover an alien raceall we have to do is wait for ww3 to be over and wait for vulcans to show up once we construct a warp drive in montana :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718895</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247766960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> With the possible exception of helium-3, the moon contains basically nothing worth shipping back to earth.</p> </div><p> <a href="http://www.lunarrepublic.com/atlas/titan\_map.shtml" title="lunarrepublic.com">Au contraire.</a> [lunarrepublic.com] The place is full of Titanium.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the possible exception of helium-3 , the moon contains basically nothing worth shipping back to earth .
Au contraire .
[ lunarrepublic.com ] The place is full of Titanium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> With the possible exception of helium-3, the moon contains basically nothing worth shipping back to earth.
Au contraire.
[lunarrepublic.com] The place is full of Titanium.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719403</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1247768880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA has existed since the late 70's largely as a corporate welfare program for defense contractors -- the companies needed a way to keep their skilled employees employed between contracts as the requirements of the cold war was shifting.</p><p>The shuttle was originally conceived as a cheap way to get to orbit, but even by the time it was first launched, the management knew that it was NEVER going to fly at the costs the public and some of congress were told to get it funded. For 30 years now the Shuttle and ISS have been used as excuses to fund each other precisely for those reasons.</p><p>Because doing things that make sense has never been a requirement of the manned space program, they continue to make ridiculous decisions for poor reasons. Fixing the Hubble, as you mentioned, is a perfect example -- they could've built and launched a new one for less than this last repair mission cost, but it got a week solid of national TV coverage to have astronauts doing it.</p><p>Shuttle missions, in general, are ridiculous -- it costs nearly as much to recertify the spacecraft between flights as it would to make a new one from scratch.</p><p>Things will start to take off when companies start doing this. There are fantastic things that NASA does with its science-focused arm, but the manned space program is one of the worst examples of government waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA has existed since the late 70 's largely as a corporate welfare program for defense contractors -- the companies needed a way to keep their skilled employees employed between contracts as the requirements of the cold war was shifting.The shuttle was originally conceived as a cheap way to get to orbit , but even by the time it was first launched , the management knew that it was NEVER going to fly at the costs the public and some of congress were told to get it funded .
For 30 years now the Shuttle and ISS have been used as excuses to fund each other precisely for those reasons.Because doing things that make sense has never been a requirement of the manned space program , they continue to make ridiculous decisions for poor reasons .
Fixing the Hubble , as you mentioned , is a perfect example -- they could 've built and launched a new one for less than this last repair mission cost , but it got a week solid of national TV coverage to have astronauts doing it.Shuttle missions , in general , are ridiculous -- it costs nearly as much to recertify the spacecraft between flights as it would to make a new one from scratch.Things will start to take off when companies start doing this .
There are fantastic things that NASA does with its science-focused arm , but the manned space program is one of the worst examples of government waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA has existed since the late 70's largely as a corporate welfare program for defense contractors -- the companies needed a way to keep their skilled employees employed between contracts as the requirements of the cold war was shifting.The shuttle was originally conceived as a cheap way to get to orbit, but even by the time it was first launched, the management knew that it was NEVER going to fly at the costs the public and some of congress were told to get it funded.
For 30 years now the Shuttle and ISS have been used as excuses to fund each other precisely for those reasons.Because doing things that make sense has never been a requirement of the manned space program, they continue to make ridiculous decisions for poor reasons.
Fixing the Hubble, as you mentioned, is a perfect example -- they could've built and launched a new one for less than this last repair mission cost, but it got a week solid of national TV coverage to have astronauts doing it.Shuttle missions, in general, are ridiculous -- it costs nearly as much to recertify the spacecraft between flights as it would to make a new one from scratch.Things will start to take off when companies start doing this.
There are fantastic things that NASA does with its science-focused arm, but the manned space program is one of the worst examples of government waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719769</id>
	<title>Re:A bunch of space cadet masturbation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to nitpick, but those 1g centerfuge rats and the Earth rats are going to be same since<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Earth is 1g.<br>On the bright side, I saved you tens of thousands of research dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to nitpick , but those 1g centerfuge rats and the Earth rats are going to be same since ... you know ... Earth is 1g.On the bright side , I saved you tens of thousands of research dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to nitpick, but those 1g centerfuge rats and the Earth rats are going to be same since ... you know ... Earth is 1g.On the bright side, I saved you tens of thousands of research dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718993</id>
	<title>Re:If Apollo program had continued</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1247767320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot warp drive and space elevator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot warp drive and space elevator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot warp drive and space elevator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719745</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently learning more about the universe isn't good enough for you.

You are what is wrong with the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently learning more about the universe is n't good enough for you .
You are what is wrong with the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently learning more about the universe isn't good enough for you.
You are what is wrong with the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583</id>
	<title>I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247765820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Had we spent more on Apollo, we would have had more stuff on the moon. It is much less clear, though, that the economic relevance of doing so would have been any brighter than it is now.<br> <br>

TFA presents a fairly rosy picture, where lifting stuff, including vationers, out of Earth's gravity is routine and (relatively) cheap. Presumably, more Apollo would have driven <i>some</i> cost reduction; but that much?<br> <br>

TFA's predictions of bustling free markets on the moon seem even less plausible. With the possible exception of helium-3, the moon contains basically nothing worth shipping back to earth. Exploiting lunar resources really only makes sense to support lunar research activities(like big huge telescopes on the dark side) which might be "private" in the sense of "conducted by people not directly employed by the feds"; but would be largely publicly supported basic research stuff.<br> <br>

I'm not seeing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had we spent more on Apollo , we would have had more stuff on the moon .
It is much less clear , though , that the economic relevance of doing so would have been any brighter than it is now .
TFA presents a fairly rosy picture , where lifting stuff , including vationers , out of Earth 's gravity is routine and ( relatively ) cheap .
Presumably , more Apollo would have driven some cost reduction ; but that much ?
TFA 's predictions of bustling free markets on the moon seem even less plausible .
With the possible exception of helium-3 , the moon contains basically nothing worth shipping back to earth .
Exploiting lunar resources really only makes sense to support lunar research activities ( like big huge telescopes on the dark side ) which might be " private " in the sense of " conducted by people not directly employed by the feds " ; but would be largely publicly supported basic research stuff .
I 'm not seeing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had we spent more on Apollo, we would have had more stuff on the moon.
It is much less clear, though, that the economic relevance of doing so would have been any brighter than it is now.
TFA presents a fairly rosy picture, where lifting stuff, including vationers, out of Earth's gravity is routine and (relatively) cheap.
Presumably, more Apollo would have driven some cost reduction; but that much?
TFA's predictions of bustling free markets on the moon seem even less plausible.
With the possible exception of helium-3, the moon contains basically nothing worth shipping back to earth.
Exploiting lunar resources really only makes sense to support lunar research activities(like big huge telescopes on the dark side) which might be "private" in the sense of "conducted by people not directly employed by the feds"; but would be largely publicly supported basic research stuff.
I'm not seeing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725907</id>
	<title>Re:The Secret Studios in Nevada Would be Busy....</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the moon landings had been faked by studios on earth, it would have looked better than it did.</p><p>I saw the original moon landing on TV as it happened, and Hollywood would have made it more sensational. AND the lead actor would not have fluffed his lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the moon landings had been faked by studios on earth , it would have looked better than it did.I saw the original moon landing on TV as it happened , and Hollywood would have made it more sensational .
AND the lead actor would not have fluffed his lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the moon landings had been faked by studios on earth, it would have looked better than it did.I saw the original moon landing on TV as it happened, and Hollywood would have made it more sensational.
AND the lead actor would not have fluffed his lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718615</id>
	<title>If the Apollo program had continued...</title>
	<author>sjfoland</author>
	<datestamp>1247765940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arizona would be littered with soundstages by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arizona would be littered with soundstages by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arizona would be littered with soundstages by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720945</id>
	<title>Re:What if Kennedy hadn't committed to the landing</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1247774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you remember who the first man was to orbit the earth? The vast majority of people wouldn't be able to answer.</p></div><p>I think you meant "The vast majority of <b>hillbillies</b> wouldn't be able to answer.". Here in Sweden I'd be surprised if more than 15\% didn't at least know he was russian and I'd be willing to bet money on at least 50\% of them knowing his name was Gagarin.</p><p>/Mikael</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you remember who the first man was to orbit the earth ?
The vast majority of people would n't be able to answer.I think you meant " The vast majority of hillbillies would n't be able to answer. " .
Here in Sweden I 'd be surprised if more than 15 \ % did n't at least know he was russian and I 'd be willing to bet money on at least 50 \ % of them knowing his name was Gagarin./Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you remember who the first man was to orbit the earth?
The vast majority of people wouldn't be able to answer.I think you meant "The vast majority of hillbillies wouldn't be able to answer.".
Here in Sweden I'd be surprised if more than 15\% didn't at least know he was russian and I'd be willing to bet money on at least 50\% of them knowing his name was Gagarin./Mikael
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723011</id>
	<title>Re:space station to be deorbited in 2016</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about $600+ billion on <a href="http://zfacts.com/p/447.html" title="zfacts.com" rel="nofollow">something</a> [zfacts.com] that's lasting about six years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about $ 600 + billion on something [ zfacts.com ] that 's lasting about six years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about $600+ billion on something [zfacts.com] that's lasting about six years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719017</id>
	<title>Re:If Apollo program had continued</title>
	<author>AKAImBatman</author>
	<datestamp>1247767440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>8) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.<br>9) No Cruise missiles. Why build a Mosquito when an Elephant would be cheaper.</p></div></blockquote><p>Read up on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt\_of\_the\_Admirals" title="wikipedia.org">Revolt of the Admirals</a> [wikipedia.org] sometime. There's a good reason why we have cruise missiles and not nukes. It's <b>not</b> for want of orbital platforms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 ) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.9 ) No Cruise missiles .
Why build a Mosquito when an Elephant would be cheaper.Read up on the Revolt of the Admirals [ wikipedia.org ] sometime .
There 's a good reason why we have cruise missiles and not nukes .
It 's not for want of orbital platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.9) No Cruise missiles.
Why build a Mosquito when an Elephant would be cheaper.Read up on the Revolt of the Admirals [wikipedia.org] sometime.
There's a good reason why we have cruise missiles and not nukes.
It's not for want of orbital platforms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721299</id>
	<title>Fact Free Post</title>
	<author>jmichaelg</author>
	<datestamp>1247776140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stopped reading your post after the first paragraph because it was so fact-free.</p><p>The crater is <a href="http://www.barringercrater.com/science/" title="barringercrater.com">1 mile wide</a> [barringercrater.com], not 3. The Barringer meteor was known to be an iron meteorite based on the debris found by the early settlers. The debris field was around 10 miles in diameter so San Francisco would have been safe. The <a href="http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/CollinsEtAl2005.pdf" title="arizona.edu">earthquake</a> [arizona.edu] the impact generated is thought to have been around a Magnitude 5, an event I've experienced more than once here in California. Exciting when it happens but not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things.</p><p>The impact would have been spectacular if you'd been within 50 miles but the rest of the folks in Arizona would have wondered wtf and then gone on with their daily activities. The folks in New Mexico probably never noticed it.</p><p>Ok I lied. I did read the rest of your post to see what other absurdities it held. And, verily, even though I'm an atheist, the good lord smiled upon my efforts...</p><p>It's not as if we're doing nothing right now. When we eventually see an asteroid headed our way that's large enough to warrant a response, odds are it'll be spotted way before impact. If it's a genuine hazard, it'll be big which means it will be visible to those <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/" title="yahoo.com">good souls</a> [yahoo.com] who make it their business to look for such a hazard.  When that happens, assuming we haven't bombed ourselves back to the stone age, we'll be able to deal with the threat then. If we've bombed ourselves to oblivion, then we're toast anyway.</p><p>In the meantime, setting up a moon base to deal with the hazard is absurd.</p><p>We'll go to the Moon on a permanent basis if and when there's money to be made. It's what drove Isabella to back Columbus and it's what convinced Congress to underwrite Lewis and Clark. Both investments paid off in spades. The Moon has yet to promise any such return which is why we never went back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped reading your post after the first paragraph because it was so fact-free.The crater is 1 mile wide [ barringercrater.com ] , not 3 .
The Barringer meteor was known to be an iron meteorite based on the debris found by the early settlers .
The debris field was around 10 miles in diameter so San Francisco would have been safe .
The earthquake [ arizona.edu ] the impact generated is thought to have been around a Magnitude 5 , an event I 've experienced more than once here in California .
Exciting when it happens but not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things.The impact would have been spectacular if you 'd been within 50 miles but the rest of the folks in Arizona would have wondered wtf and then gone on with their daily activities .
The folks in New Mexico probably never noticed it.Ok I lied .
I did read the rest of your post to see what other absurdities it held .
And , verily , even though I 'm an atheist , the good lord smiled upon my efforts...It 's not as if we 're doing nothing right now .
When we eventually see an asteroid headed our way that 's large enough to warrant a response , odds are it 'll be spotted way before impact .
If it 's a genuine hazard , it 'll be big which means it will be visible to those good souls [ yahoo.com ] who make it their business to look for such a hazard .
When that happens , assuming we have n't bombed ourselves back to the stone age , we 'll be able to deal with the threat then .
If we 've bombed ourselves to oblivion , then we 're toast anyway.In the meantime , setting up a moon base to deal with the hazard is absurd.We 'll go to the Moon on a permanent basis if and when there 's money to be made .
It 's what drove Isabella to back Columbus and it 's what convinced Congress to underwrite Lewis and Clark .
Both investments paid off in spades .
The Moon has yet to promise any such return which is why we never went back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped reading your post after the first paragraph because it was so fact-free.The crater is 1 mile wide [barringercrater.com], not 3.
The Barringer meteor was known to be an iron meteorite based on the debris found by the early settlers.
The debris field was around 10 miles in diameter so San Francisco would have been safe.
The earthquake [arizona.edu] the impact generated is thought to have been around a Magnitude 5, an event I've experienced more than once here in California.
Exciting when it happens but not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things.The impact would have been spectacular if you'd been within 50 miles but the rest of the folks in Arizona would have wondered wtf and then gone on with their daily activities.
The folks in New Mexico probably never noticed it.Ok I lied.
I did read the rest of your post to see what other absurdities it held.
And, verily, even though I'm an atheist, the good lord smiled upon my efforts...It's not as if we're doing nothing right now.
When we eventually see an asteroid headed our way that's large enough to warrant a response, odds are it'll be spotted way before impact.
If it's a genuine hazard, it'll be big which means it will be visible to those good souls [yahoo.com] who make it their business to look for such a hazard.
When that happens, assuming we haven't bombed ourselves back to the stone age, we'll be able to deal with the threat then.
If we've bombed ourselves to oblivion, then we're toast anyway.In the meantime, setting up a moon base to deal with the hazard is absurd.We'll go to the Moon on a permanent basis if and when there's money to be made.
It's what drove Isabella to back Columbus and it's what convinced Congress to underwrite Lewis and Clark.
Both investments paid off in spades.
The Moon has yet to promise any such return which is why we never went back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719075</id>
	<title>what if the Apollo program never happened</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247767620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While a great triumph for NASA, the Apollo program was chiefly devised to beat the USSR to the moon and thereby provide an immense propaganda victory over the commies. Once that was achieved, it had little practical use in developing space exploration.<br> <br>

The US actually put its own space plane on the back burner for the duration of the Apollo program. What would have happened if the Apollo program never happened, they might have continued development of the X-15 and we would have had a safe reliable Space Shuttle decades sooner.<br> <br>

'<i>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North\_American\_X-15" title="wikipedia.org">X-15</a> [wikipedia.org] rocket-powered aircraft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. set speed and altitude records in the early 1960s</i>'</htmltext>
<tokenext>While a great triumph for NASA , the Apollo program was chiefly devised to beat the USSR to the moon and thereby provide an immense propaganda victory over the commies .
Once that was achieved , it had little practical use in developing space exploration .
The US actually put its own space plane on the back burner for the duration of the Apollo program .
What would have happened if the Apollo program never happened , they might have continued development of the X-15 and we would have had a safe reliable Space Shuttle decades sooner .
'The .. X-15 [ wikipedia.org ] rocket-powered aircraft .. set speed and altitude records in the early 1960s'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While a great triumph for NASA, the Apollo program was chiefly devised to beat the USSR to the moon and thereby provide an immense propaganda victory over the commies.
Once that was achieved, it had little practical use in developing space exploration.
The US actually put its own space plane on the back burner for the duration of the Apollo program.
What would have happened if the Apollo program never happened, they might have continued development of the X-15 and we would have had a safe reliable Space Shuttle decades sooner.
'The .. X-15 [wikipedia.org] rocket-powered aircraft .. set speed and altitude records in the early 1960s'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719399</id>
	<title>I have a BETTER idea Than N.A.S.A.: +1, Helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called <a href="http://www.energia.ru/english/" title="energia.ru" rel="nofollow">Energia</a> [energia.ru]</p><p>Hopefully, after the Shuttle is retired, N.A.S.A. will<br>outsource their launches to Energia rather than the U.S.-based fly-by-night private space launch companies.</p><p>Yours In Kazakhstan,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called Energia [ energia.ru ] Hopefully , after the Shuttle is retired , N.A.S.A .
willoutsource their launches to Energia rather than the U.S.-based fly-by-night private space launch companies.Yours In Kazakhstan,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called Energia [energia.ru]Hopefully, after the Shuttle is retired, N.A.S.A.
willoutsource their launches to Energia rather than the U.S.-based fly-by-night private space launch companies.Yours In Kazakhstan,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28724419</id>
	<title>Re:Johnson City is a nice place...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson\_City,\_New\_York" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson\_City,\_New\_York</a> [wikipedia.org] , you insensitive clod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson \ _City , \ _New \ _York [ wikipedia.org ] , you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson\_City,\_New\_York [wikipedia.org] , you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725281</id>
	<title>Re:A bunch of space cadet masturbation.</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>were you to raise ten generations of rats in a 1-g centerfuge and ten generations on Earth if the centerfuge rats would be healthy by comparison.</p></div><p>Errrr.... I hope that's a typo, but 1 G *is* earth gravity. Your control and your test group are the same, bud.</p><p>-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>were you to raise ten generations of rats in a 1-g centerfuge and ten generations on Earth if the centerfuge rats would be healthy by comparison.Errrr.... I hope that 's a typo , but 1 G * is * earth gravity .
Your control and your test group are the same , bud.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>were you to raise ten generations of rats in a 1-g centerfuge and ten generations on Earth if the centerfuge rats would be healthy by comparison.Errrr.... I hope that's a typo, but 1 G *is* earth gravity.
Your control and your test group are the same, bud.-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718617</id>
	<title>The plot of IronSky wouldnt make sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and then Slashdotters wouldnt be able to welcome their Nazi<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and then Slashdotters wouldnt be able to welcome their Nazi ... oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and then Slashdotters wouldnt be able to welcome their Nazi ... oh wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725259</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247753880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The shuttle does science in a mini-hotel. The real heavy lifting costs considerably less than your quote. The shuttle allows us the flexibility and facilities to learn *what to do* with the cheaper launch capabilities out there. The U.S. and Russia are not the only space powers...</p><p>-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The shuttle does science in a mini-hotel .
The real heavy lifting costs considerably less than your quote .
The shuttle allows us the flexibility and facilities to learn * what to do * with the cheaper launch capabilities out there .
The U.S. and Russia are not the only space powers...-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shuttle does science in a mini-hotel.
The real heavy lifting costs considerably less than your quote.
The shuttle allows us the flexibility and facilities to learn *what to do* with the cheaper launch capabilities out there.
The U.S. and Russia are not the only space powers...-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720043</id>
	<title>Re:Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps Orion (atomic pulse jets) would've been restarted as pressure mounted for cheap delta-v?  One can only imagine where we would be now.  Sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Orion ( atomic pulse jets ) would 've been restarted as pressure mounted for cheap delta-v ?
One can only imagine where we would be now .
Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Orion (atomic pulse jets) would've been restarted as pressure mounted for cheap delta-v?
One can only imagine where we would be now.
Sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719375</id>
	<title>Story in Asimov's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall a story in either <a href="http://www.asimovs.com/" title="asimovs.com" rel="nofollow">Asimov's</a> [asimovs.com] or <a href="http://www.analogsf.com/" title="analogsf.com" rel="nofollow">Analog</a> [analogsf.com] that posited this same idea.  A single year extension and they discover ice on the lunar poles, then differences back home (Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson as presidents) and a culmination with Walter Cronkite doing a live remote on the lunar surface to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first landing.  One of the underlying themes was people in that alternate future wishing history had taken a slightly different course and even more had been accomplished.

Anyone else remember this story?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall a story in either Asimov 's [ asimovs.com ] or Analog [ analogsf.com ] that posited this same idea .
A single year extension and they discover ice on the lunar poles , then differences back home ( Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson as presidents ) and a culmination with Walter Cronkite doing a live remote on the lunar surface to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first landing .
One of the underlying themes was people in that alternate future wishing history had taken a slightly different course and even more had been accomplished .
Anyone else remember this story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall a story in either Asimov's [asimovs.com] or Analog [analogsf.com] that posited this same idea.
A single year extension and they discover ice on the lunar poles, then differences back home (Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson as presidents) and a culmination with Walter Cronkite doing a live remote on the lunar surface to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first landing.
One of the underlying themes was people in that alternate future wishing history had taken a slightly different course and even more had been accomplished.
Anyone else remember this story?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720241</id>
	<title>Iterations</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1247771880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we are daydreaming about what might have been, I'd like to imagine an alternate history where NASA didn't stop iterating.</p><p>NASA got the Saturn V through an iterative development cycle.  Get Werner von Braun, have him build rockets very similar to ones he had built before; fly them, collect data, improve the design.  Fly the new ones, collect data, improve the design.  Over and over.</p><p>And then, for the Space Shuttle, NASA essentially said "We don't need to do that test and improve cycle anymore; we are just going to design the Space Shuttle on paper, build it, and be done."  NASA's unsung heroes of rocket surgery managed to make it work, but that's a triumph of hard work and overtime against management stupidity.</p><p>It would have been cheaper to keep the test/improve cycle going than to spend ten years building the shuttle and flying nothing.  According to Wikipedia, the Shuttle program will have cost $174 billion by its conclusion in 2010; the Saturn V program cost $32 to $45 billion in today's dollars ($6.5 billion in 1960's dollars; the inflation is depressing, isn't it?).  But at the time the Shuttle project was started, the Saturn V had already been paid for; just keeping it flying would have cost even less than those numbers suggest.  And besides, you wouldn't need a Saturn V for every flight; just for ones where you need that kind of crazy lift capacity.</p><p>It would actually have been far cheaper to keep flying expendables, but keep developing them, and hopefully iterate into something reusable.  Take the rockets from the 1960's, and spend 20 years flying and improving them, and what would you have in the 1980's?  A lot more stuff flying, more safely, and a lot cheaper.</p><p>The Shuttle was a mistake, of management more than anything else.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we are daydreaming about what might have been , I 'd like to imagine an alternate history where NASA did n't stop iterating.NASA got the Saturn V through an iterative development cycle .
Get Werner von Braun , have him build rockets very similar to ones he had built before ; fly them , collect data , improve the design .
Fly the new ones , collect data , improve the design .
Over and over.And then , for the Space Shuttle , NASA essentially said " We do n't need to do that test and improve cycle anymore ; we are just going to design the Space Shuttle on paper , build it , and be done .
" NASA 's unsung heroes of rocket surgery managed to make it work , but that 's a triumph of hard work and overtime against management stupidity.It would have been cheaper to keep the test/improve cycle going than to spend ten years building the shuttle and flying nothing .
According to Wikipedia , the Shuttle program will have cost $ 174 billion by its conclusion in 2010 ; the Saturn V program cost $ 32 to $ 45 billion in today 's dollars ( $ 6.5 billion in 1960 's dollars ; the inflation is depressing , is n't it ? ) .
But at the time the Shuttle project was started , the Saturn V had already been paid for ; just keeping it flying would have cost even less than those numbers suggest .
And besides , you would n't need a Saturn V for every flight ; just for ones where you need that kind of crazy lift capacity.It would actually have been far cheaper to keep flying expendables , but keep developing them , and hopefully iterate into something reusable .
Take the rockets from the 1960 's , and spend 20 years flying and improving them , and what would you have in the 1980 's ?
A lot more stuff flying , more safely , and a lot cheaper.The Shuttle was a mistake , of management more than anything else.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we are daydreaming about what might have been, I'd like to imagine an alternate history where NASA didn't stop iterating.NASA got the Saturn V through an iterative development cycle.
Get Werner von Braun, have him build rockets very similar to ones he had built before; fly them, collect data, improve the design.
Fly the new ones, collect data, improve the design.
Over and over.And then, for the Space Shuttle, NASA essentially said "We don't need to do that test and improve cycle anymore; we are just going to design the Space Shuttle on paper, build it, and be done.
"  NASA's unsung heroes of rocket surgery managed to make it work, but that's a triumph of hard work and overtime against management stupidity.It would have been cheaper to keep the test/improve cycle going than to spend ten years building the shuttle and flying nothing.
According to Wikipedia, the Shuttle program will have cost $174 billion by its conclusion in 2010; the Saturn V program cost $32 to $45 billion in today's dollars ($6.5 billion in 1960's dollars; the inflation is depressing, isn't it?).
But at the time the Shuttle project was started, the Saturn V had already been paid for; just keeping it flying would have cost even less than those numbers suggest.
And besides, you wouldn't need a Saturn V for every flight; just for ones where you need that kind of crazy lift capacity.It would actually have been far cheaper to keep flying expendables, but keep developing them, and hopefully iterate into something reusable.
Take the rockets from the 1960's, and spend 20 years flying and improving them, and what would you have in the 1980's?
A lot more stuff flying, more safely, and a lot cheaper.The Shuttle was a mistake, of management more than anything else.steveha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721745</id>
	<title>Pure Hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Even if, like 90 per cent of the population, you were born on Earth, you can't easily go back. "</p><p>I can't imagine what hell it would be to live on a gray, airless rock, stuck inside a hollowed out lava tube while a lush blue and green planet is just 250,000 miles away.</p><p>The moon would be a nice place to visit, but I sure as he#\% wouldn't want to live there permanently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Even if , like 90 per cent of the population , you were born on Earth , you ca n't easily go back .
" I ca n't imagine what hell it would be to live on a gray , airless rock , stuck inside a hollowed out lava tube while a lush blue and green planet is just 250,000 miles away.The moon would be a nice place to visit , but I sure as he # \ % would n't want to live there permanently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Even if, like 90 per cent of the population, you were born on Earth, you can't easily go back.
"I can't imagine what hell it would be to live on a gray, airless rock, stuck inside a hollowed out lava tube while a lush blue and green planet is just 250,000 miles away.The moon would be a nice place to visit, but I sure as he#\% wouldn't want to live there permanently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725307</id>
	<title>Re:space station to be deorbited in 2016</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm... It's not 2010 yet, and the thing is already flying with people in it. 6 years=fail. Try again.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... It 's not 2010 yet , and the thing is already flying with people in it .
6 years = fail .
Try again.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... It's not 2010 yet, and the thing is already flying with people in it.
6 years=fail.
Try again.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721381</id>
	<title>Blowing stuff up is not a space program.</title>
	<author>dicobalt</author>
	<datestamp>1247776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to break the news to you.  We need a vehicle that isn't 80\% gastank.  Isn't on the perpetual verge of constant failure.  Doesn't need a freakin "mission control" just to keep it running in such precarious states.  We need artificial gravity.  We need to develop matter conversion.  We need cheap sublight propulsion that actually allows real system wide navigational sublight speeds and doesn't explode crazy amounts of stuff thereby being extremely breakable.  Need to replace NASA R&amp;D with Physics researchers, that is the only way these basic physical problems are going to be solved.</p><p>So explode all the stuff you want, you aren't going to get anywhere with it.  If rockets are the pinnacle of spaceflight then the human race is doomed.  That's an actual fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to break the news to you .
We need a vehicle that is n't 80 \ % gastank .
Is n't on the perpetual verge of constant failure .
Does n't need a freakin " mission control " just to keep it running in such precarious states .
We need artificial gravity .
We need to develop matter conversion .
We need cheap sublight propulsion that actually allows real system wide navigational sublight speeds and does n't explode crazy amounts of stuff thereby being extremely breakable .
Need to replace NASA R&amp;D with Physics researchers , that is the only way these basic physical problems are going to be solved.So explode all the stuff you want , you are n't going to get anywhere with it .
If rockets are the pinnacle of spaceflight then the human race is doomed .
That 's an actual fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to break the news to you.
We need a vehicle that isn't 80\% gastank.
Isn't on the perpetual verge of constant failure.
Doesn't need a freakin "mission control" just to keep it running in such precarious states.
We need artificial gravity.
We need to develop matter conversion.
We need cheap sublight propulsion that actually allows real system wide navigational sublight speeds and doesn't explode crazy amounts of stuff thereby being extremely breakable.
Need to replace NASA R&amp;D with Physics researchers, that is the only way these basic physical problems are going to be solved.So explode all the stuff you want, you aren't going to get anywhere with it.
If rockets are the pinnacle of spaceflight then the human race is doomed.
That's an actual fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28732291</id>
	<title>Re:A bunch of space cadet masturbation.</title>
	<author>dem0n1</author>
	<datestamp>1247855940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out.  What if we had done a few more missions and 19 left us with dead astronauts on the moon when the LM couldn't lift off?  Do you think we'd have continued at that point?</p></div><p>That would ensure at least one more mission to return the astronauts to Earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out .
What if we had done a few more missions and 19 left us with dead astronauts on the moon when the LM could n't lift off ?
Do you think we 'd have continued at that point ? That would ensure at least one more mission to return the astronauts to Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a significant concern inside of NASA that our flawless luck of moon launches would run out.
What if we had done a few more missions and 19 left us with dead astronauts on the moon when the LM couldn't lift off?
Do you think we'd have continued at that point?That would ensure at least one more mission to return the astronauts to Earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723615</id>
	<title>No V-ger for one thing!</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1247742660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No bald babes projected by obscenely hybridized Voyager 6, because who needs robots when Manned Space Flight takes up soooooo much GDP that the Roddenberries have to realize the whole Q arc on YouTube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No bald babes projected by obscenely hybridized Voyager 6 , because who needs robots when Manned Space Flight takes up soooooo much GDP that the Roddenberries have to realize the whole Q arc on YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No bald babes projected by obscenely hybridized Voyager 6, because who needs robots when Manned Space Flight takes up soooooo much GDP that the Roddenberries have to realize the whole Q arc on YouTube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718923</id>
	<title>Simularities Bizzaro World</title>
	<author>chazd1</author>
	<datestamp>1247767020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We would still be driving around the planet in gasoline driven speedsters. </p><p>We would not have not cured world hunger.</p><p>We would have more than enough nuclear warheads to destroy the planet. </p><p>Wars would not have been abolished. </p><p>The 747 wouldn't still be the largest airliner. </p><p>Oh yeah.. wait a minute, where have I been? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We would still be driving around the planet in gasoline driven speedsters .
We would not have not cured world hunger.We would have more than enough nuclear warheads to destroy the planet .
Wars would not have been abolished .
The 747 would n't still be the largest airliner .
Oh yeah.. wait a minute , where have I been ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would still be driving around the planet in gasoline driven speedsters.
We would not have not cured world hunger.We would have more than enough nuclear warheads to destroy the planet.
Wars would not have been abolished.
The 747 wouldn't still be the largest airliner.
Oh yeah.. wait a minute, where have I been? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719477</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1247769120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what the space program lacks now is that grand, unifying sense of adventure.  Getting there and seeing what's out there are the kind of thing EVERYBODY can get behind -- there's no specific religious, political or racial bias to outer space exploration.</p><p>One thing we've stopped figuring out and stopped doing due our own personal greed are the grand, public gestures of government that provide some kind of bigger purpose.  People stopped what they were doing to watch the NASA launches and the Apollo missions; literally -- cars pulled over to listen to the radio, people gathered round and took in its majesty.  Kids wanted to be astronauts.  It looked like we were *going somewhere* as a civilization.</p><p>Now we've sharpened our pencil and realized the "better" science is robots, shuttle missions and other non-inspiring projects designed by bean counters, not visionaries.  And what do we have?  An underfunded, bureaucratic NASA seen as a cash soak and a civilization bent on narcissism, egocentric enrichment and sectarian bias.</p><p>I say, send guys to the moon and beyond.  Yes, it's expensive (think of the good engineering jobs!), yes the science isn't as "good" as your robots and deep space cameras, but my god, we could USE the civilization-enhancing awe and purpose.  North Korea and Iran lambasting our cultural decline?  OK fine, but we're reaching for the stars, not getting lost fighting the unwinnable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what the space program lacks now is that grand , unifying sense of adventure .
Getting there and seeing what 's out there are the kind of thing EVERYBODY can get behind -- there 's no specific religious , political or racial bias to outer space exploration.One thing we 've stopped figuring out and stopped doing due our own personal greed are the grand , public gestures of government that provide some kind of bigger purpose .
People stopped what they were doing to watch the NASA launches and the Apollo missions ; literally -- cars pulled over to listen to the radio , people gathered round and took in its majesty .
Kids wanted to be astronauts .
It looked like we were * going somewhere * as a civilization.Now we 've sharpened our pencil and realized the " better " science is robots , shuttle missions and other non-inspiring projects designed by bean counters , not visionaries .
And what do we have ?
An underfunded , bureaucratic NASA seen as a cash soak and a civilization bent on narcissism , egocentric enrichment and sectarian bias.I say , send guys to the moon and beyond .
Yes , it 's expensive ( think of the good engineering jobs !
) , yes the science is n't as " good " as your robots and deep space cameras , but my god , we could USE the civilization-enhancing awe and purpose .
North Korea and Iran lambasting our cultural decline ?
OK fine , but we 're reaching for the stars , not getting lost fighting the unwinnable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what the space program lacks now is that grand, unifying sense of adventure.
Getting there and seeing what's out there are the kind of thing EVERYBODY can get behind -- there's no specific religious, political or racial bias to outer space exploration.One thing we've stopped figuring out and stopped doing due our own personal greed are the grand, public gestures of government that provide some kind of bigger purpose.
People stopped what they were doing to watch the NASA launches and the Apollo missions; literally -- cars pulled over to listen to the radio, people gathered round and took in its majesty.
Kids wanted to be astronauts.
It looked like we were *going somewhere* as a civilization.Now we've sharpened our pencil and realized the "better" science is robots, shuttle missions and other non-inspiring projects designed by bean counters, not visionaries.
And what do we have?
An underfunded, bureaucratic NASA seen as a cash soak and a civilization bent on narcissism, egocentric enrichment and sectarian bias.I say, send guys to the moon and beyond.
Yes, it's expensive (think of the good engineering jobs!
), yes the science isn't as "good" as your robots and deep space cameras, but my god, we could USE the civilization-enhancing awe and purpose.
North Korea and Iran lambasting our cultural decline?
OK fine, but we're reaching for the stars, not getting lost fighting the unwinnable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719589</id>
	<title>Re:What if Kennedy hadn't committed to the landing</title>
	<author>salimma</author>
	<datestamp>1247769540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no need to weaponize the moon -- anything you launch for there would have to clear the lunar gravitation field, and then travel hundreds of thousands of miles. The goal during Reagan's Star Wars era is to militarize near space -- lasers achieve greater intensities at a nearer distance, projectiles get accelerated "for free" by the earth's gravitational field, and below geostationary orbit, you can position a satellite anywhere on the planet within hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no need to weaponize the moon -- anything you launch for there would have to clear the lunar gravitation field , and then travel hundreds of thousands of miles .
The goal during Reagan 's Star Wars era is to militarize near space -- lasers achieve greater intensities at a nearer distance , projectiles get accelerated " for free " by the earth 's gravitational field , and below geostationary orbit , you can position a satellite anywhere on the planet within hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no need to weaponize the moon -- anything you launch for there would have to clear the lunar gravitation field, and then travel hundreds of thousands of miles.
The goal during Reagan's Star Wars era is to militarize near space -- lasers achieve greater intensities at a nearer distance, projectiles get accelerated "for free" by the earth's gravitational field, and below geostationary orbit, you can position a satellite anywhere on the planet within hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720493</id>
	<title>Apollo with more stamina?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He would have beaten Rocky in both movies.  That's simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He would have beaten Rocky in both movies .
That 's simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He would have beaten Rocky in both movies.
That's simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718559</id>
	<title>Consequences</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1247765700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'd all be dead from toxic levels of perchlorate in our drinking water?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'd all be dead from toxic levels of perchlorate in our drinking water ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'd all be dead from toxic levels of perchlorate in our drinking water?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719131</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>cmowire</author>
	<datestamp>1247767920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aluminum, Iron, and Titanium.  All in sufficient quantities to be worth extracting.  And putting a mass driver to get it up to space cheaply is not in anybody's backyard, especially if you do it on the dark side of the moon.  For building large things in space (like a version of Iridium where the ERP was the same as a cellphone tower's or solar power satellites or space habitats or any number of other things) it's cheaper to mass-driver it from the moon and have a refinery in orbit than to ship it up from Earth, given that you can't be in somebody's backyard or use nuclear rockets in the atmosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aluminum , Iron , and Titanium .
All in sufficient quantities to be worth extracting .
And putting a mass driver to get it up to space cheaply is not in anybody 's backyard , especially if you do it on the dark side of the moon .
For building large things in space ( like a version of Iridium where the ERP was the same as a cellphone tower 's or solar power satellites or space habitats or any number of other things ) it 's cheaper to mass-driver it from the moon and have a refinery in orbit than to ship it up from Earth , given that you ca n't be in somebody 's backyard or use nuclear rockets in the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aluminum, Iron, and Titanium.
All in sufficient quantities to be worth extracting.
And putting a mass driver to get it up to space cheaply is not in anybody's backyard, especially if you do it on the dark side of the moon.
For building large things in space (like a version of Iridium where the ERP was the same as a cellphone tower's or solar power satellites or space habitats or any number of other things) it's cheaper to mass-driver it from the moon and have a refinery in orbit than to ship it up from Earth, given that you can't be in somebody's backyard or use nuclear rockets in the atmosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28729523</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sceptical.</title>
	<author>holmstar</author>
	<datestamp>1247844300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[sarcasm] <br>Yeah... warming up all of that atmosphere that exists on the moon...<br> [/sarcasm]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ sarcasm ] Yeah... warming up all of that atmosphere that exists on the moon... [ /sarcasm ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[sarcasm] Yeah... warming up all of that atmosphere that exists on the moon... [/sarcasm]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723041</id>
	<title>Re:we need a definitive goal</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Getting there and seeing what's out there are the kind of thing EVERYBODY can get behind -- there's no specific religious, political or racial bias to outer space exploration.</p></div></blockquote><p>True, but meaningless.  While there is no bias to space exploration <i>per se</i>, there are plenty of arguments against spending the money, and plenty of people who believe those arguments.  (And I can't convince myself they are entirely wrong.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>One thing we've stopped figuring out and stopped doing due our own personal greed are the grand, public gestures of government that provide some kind of bigger purpose.</p></div></blockquote><p>With regards to Apollo, we can't stop doing something we never started doing in the first place.  Apollo was a Cold War pissing contest, nothing more and nothing less.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>It looked like we were *going somewhere* as a civilization.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a delusion based on the unfounded assumption that Apollo was something it wasn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting there and seeing what 's out there are the kind of thing EVERYBODY can get behind -- there 's no specific religious , political or racial bias to outer space exploration.True , but meaningless .
While there is no bias to space exploration per se , there are plenty of arguments against spending the money , and plenty of people who believe those arguments .
( And I ca n't convince myself they are entirely wrong .
)     One thing we 've stopped figuring out and stopped doing due our own personal greed are the grand , public gestures of government that provide some kind of bigger purpose.With regards to Apollo , we ca n't stop doing something we never started doing in the first place .
Apollo was a Cold War pissing contest , nothing more and nothing less .
    It looked like we were * going somewhere * as a civilization.That 's a delusion based on the unfounded assumption that Apollo was something it was n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting there and seeing what's out there are the kind of thing EVERYBODY can get behind -- there's no specific religious, political or racial bias to outer space exploration.True, but meaningless.
While there is no bias to space exploration per se, there are plenty of arguments against spending the money, and plenty of people who believe those arguments.
(And I can't convince myself they are entirely wrong.
)
  
  One thing we've stopped figuring out and stopped doing due our own personal greed are the grand, public gestures of government that provide some kind of bigger purpose.With regards to Apollo, we can't stop doing something we never started doing in the first place.
Apollo was a Cold War pissing contest, nothing more and nothing less.
  
  It looked like we were *going somewhere* as a civilization.That's a delusion based on the unfounded assumption that Apollo was something it wasn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725155</id>
	<title>Johnson City?  Oh, Please!</title>
	<author>heironymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be called Moonbase Alpha.</p><p>Life always imitates art.  Consider the name of the first space shuttle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be called Moonbase Alpha.Life always imitates art .
Consider the name of the first space shuttle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be called Moonbase Alpha.Life always imitates art.
Consider the name of the first space shuttle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721339</id>
	<title>I know what would have happened....</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1247776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mankind would establish the first permanent settlement on the moon which would logically be called "Alpha".</p><p>And because several hundred technicians and scientists would be working in this base, NASA would have to build special Earth-Moon transport ships that, in honour of the first Moon landing would be called "Eagles".</p><p>These Eagle craft would have interchangeable central pods that could either carry passengers or transport nuclear waste to the Moon so it could be buried on the dark side. Unfortunately, almost 30 years to the day of the first moon landing, on September 13th 1999, the build up waste would cause a massive explosion that would hurl the moon out of Earth's orbit, taking with it the moonbase people deep into the universe.</p><p>Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mankind would establish the first permanent settlement on the moon which would logically be called " Alpha " .And because several hundred technicians and scientists would be working in this base , NASA would have to build special Earth-Moon transport ships that , in honour of the first Moon landing would be called " Eagles " .These Eagle craft would have interchangeable central pods that could either carry passengers or transport nuclear waste to the Moon so it could be buried on the dark side .
Unfortunately , almost 30 years to the day of the first moon landing , on September 13th 1999 , the build up waste would cause a massive explosion that would hurl the moon out of Earth 's orbit , taking with it the moonbase people deep into the universe.Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mankind would establish the first permanent settlement on the moon which would logically be called "Alpha".And because several hundred technicians and scientists would be working in this base, NASA would have to build special Earth-Moon transport ships that, in honour of the first Moon landing would be called "Eagles".These Eagle craft would have interchangeable central pods that could either carry passengers or transport nuclear waste to the Moon so it could be buried on the dark side.
Unfortunately, almost 30 years to the day of the first moon landing, on September 13th 1999, the build up waste would cause a massive explosion that would hurl the moon out of Earth's orbit, taking with it the moonbase people deep into the universe.Oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917</id>
	<title>Rosy bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the discussions about the space program overlook a critical fact.  It costs about $10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit.  That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists.  If every kilo costs 10 grand, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to send robots and equipment into space than to send people.  Even repairing Hubble never made any sense : it would have been a lot cheaper to build a brand new telescope every time than to pay for each repair mission.</p><p>The only way a moon base or a space station or a space hotel or anything else will ever be practical is if that launch cost is reduced through new technology.  Personally, out of all the proposals I've ever seen, only one new technology makes the slightest bit of sense : laser launch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the discussions about the space program overlook a critical fact .
It costs about $ 10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit .
That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there 's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists .
If every kilo costs 10 grand , it makes a heck of a lot more sense to send robots and equipment into space than to send people .
Even repairing Hubble never made any sense : it would have been a lot cheaper to build a brand new telescope every time than to pay for each repair mission.The only way a moon base or a space station or a space hotel or anything else will ever be practical is if that launch cost is reduced through new technology .
Personally , out of all the proposals I 've ever seen , only one new technology makes the slightest bit of sense : laser launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the discussions about the space program overlook a critical fact.
It costs about $10,000 a kilogram or more to lift anything into low earth orbit.
That means that the entire manned space program is virtually useless : there's no point in learning how to put people into space and have them survive if no affordable way for a lot of people and supplies to go into space exists.
If every kilo costs 10 grand, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to send robots and equipment into space than to send people.
Even repairing Hubble never made any sense : it would have been a lot cheaper to build a brand new telescope every time than to pay for each repair mission.The only way a moon base or a space station or a space hotel or anything else will ever be practical is if that launch cost is reduced through new technology.
Personally, out of all the proposals I've ever seen, only one new technology makes the slightest bit of sense : laser launch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719317</id>
	<title>Re:The Secret Studios in Nevada Would be Busy....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The space shuttle never made it past low earth orbit.  Other launch vehicles do make it past low earth orbit, take geosynchronous satellites for example or craft that travels other planets.  Some of the communication satellites are as big as a bus the lunar landers were no larger.  The lunar landers also had rockets made for them can can no longer be made which is why we are making new rockets for possible mars missions.  We made it to the moon, it was hard, lives were lost in the progress and many new technologies resulted from the missions,  Mars/moon missions would be no different, if we don't push the boundaries our civilization will die.  There may also be resources out there that we can use that don't exist on the earth but how will we know about them if we don't even try to find them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The space shuttle never made it past low earth orbit .
Other launch vehicles do make it past low earth orbit , take geosynchronous satellites for example or craft that travels other planets .
Some of the communication satellites are as big as a bus the lunar landers were no larger .
The lunar landers also had rockets made for them can can no longer be made which is why we are making new rockets for possible mars missions .
We made it to the moon , it was hard , lives were lost in the progress and many new technologies resulted from the missions , Mars/moon missions would be no different , if we do n't push the boundaries our civilization will die .
There may also be resources out there that we can use that do n't exist on the earth but how will we know about them if we do n't even try to find them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The space shuttle never made it past low earth orbit.
Other launch vehicles do make it past low earth orbit, take geosynchronous satellites for example or craft that travels other planets.
Some of the communication satellites are as big as a bus the lunar landers were no larger.
The lunar landers also had rockets made for them can can no longer be made which is why we are making new rockets for possible mars missions.
We made it to the moon, it was hard, lives were lost in the progress and many new technologies resulted from the missions,  Mars/moon missions would be no different, if we don't push the boundaries our civilization will die.
There may also be resources out there that we can use that don't exist on the earth but how will we know about them if we don't even try to find them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719249</id>
	<title>We would all be dead now.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247768340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More missions would have lead to colonization of the moon, and would inevitably lead to us finding the secret alien outpost, which would piss them off and force them to eradicate us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More missions would have lead to colonization of the moon , and would inevitably lead to us finding the secret alien outpost , which would piss them off and force them to eradicate us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More missions would have lead to colonization of the moon, and would inevitably lead to us finding the secret alien outpost, which would piss them off and force them to eradicate us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721283</id>
	<title>The grass is always greener.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247776020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if the Apollo program had continued we'd be spared endless repeats of the question "what if the Apollo program had continued?".  Instead, we'd have endless repeates of the question "what if Apollo had been canceled and NASA built a reusable system?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if the Apollo program had continued we 'd be spared endless repeats of the question " what if the Apollo program had continued ? " .
Instead , we 'd have endless repeates of the question " what if Apollo had been canceled and NASA built a reusable system ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if the Apollo program had continued we'd be spared endless repeats of the question "what if the Apollo program had continued?".
Instead, we'd have endless repeates of the question "what if Apollo had been canceled and NASA built a reusable system?
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718711</id>
	<title>My guess</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1247766240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We would now try to colonize the moon with all the negative side-effects you can imagine. But guess what, it didn't happen so there is no point in speculating because it will never become anything more than speculating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We would now try to colonize the moon with all the negative side-effects you can imagine .
But guess what , it did n't happen so there is no point in speculating because it will never become anything more than speculating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would now try to colonize the moon with all the negative side-effects you can imagine.
But guess what, it didn't happen so there is no point in speculating because it will never become anything more than speculating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28722067</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Toorcamp could have been held in a decommissioned lunar rocket tube this years instead of out in the Washington wasteland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Toorcamp could have been held in a decommissioned lunar rocket tube this years instead of out in the Washington wasteland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toorcamp could have been held in a decommissioned lunar rocket tube this years instead of out in the Washington wasteland.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28732291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28722121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28724419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28724899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28729523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28732587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1448231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28724899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28724419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28722121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28732587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28732291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28729523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28721385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28725259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28723791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28720017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28719163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1448231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1448231.28718551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
