<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_1619256</id>
	<title>"Frickin' Fantastic" Launch of NASA's Ares I-X Rocket</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256749320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"With a hiss and roar, NASA's <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html">Ares I-X</a> rocket <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46827">blasted into the atmosphere this morning</a> at about 11:33 am EST, taking with it a variety of test equipment and sensors but also high hopes for the future of the US space agency. The short test flight &mdash; about 2 minutes &mdash; will provide NASA an early opportunity to look at hardware, models, facilities and ground operations associated with the mostly new Ares I launch vehicle.  The mission went off without a hitch &mdash; 'frickin' fantastic' was how one NASA executive classified it on NASA TV &mdash; as the upper stage simulator and first stage separated at approximately 130,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean. The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " With a hiss and roar , NASA 's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11 : 33 am EST , taking with it a variety of test equipment and sensors but also high hopes for the future of the US space agency .
The short test flight    about 2 minutes    will provide NASA an early opportunity to look at hardware , models , facilities and ground operations associated with the mostly new Ares I launch vehicle .
The mission went off without a hitch    'frickin ' fantastic ' was how one NASA executive classified it on NASA TV    as the upper stage simulator and first stage separated at approximately 130,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean .
The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "With a hiss and roar, NASA's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11:33 am EST, taking with it a variety of test equipment and sensors but also high hopes for the future of the US space agency.
The short test flight — about 2 minutes — will provide NASA an early opportunity to look at hardware, models, facilities and ground operations associated with the mostly new Ares I launch vehicle.
The mission went off without a hitch — 'frickin' fantastic' was how one NASA executive classified it on NASA TV — as the upper stage simulator and first stage separated at approximately 130,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean.
The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</id>
	<title>Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Mordstrom</author>
	<datestamp>1256753520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am just glad I was not riding in that simulator.  Did anyone else notice the separation, and the flight path of the (in the future to be occupied) simulator?  The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation.  It could have been the camera angle I suppose, but that front section should have continued on, correct?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am just glad I was not riding in that simulator .
Did anyone else notice the separation , and the flight path of the ( in the future to be occupied ) simulator ?
The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation .
It could have been the camera angle I suppose , but that front section should have continued on , correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am just glad I was not riding in that simulator.
Did anyone else notice the separation, and the flight path of the (in the future to be occupied) simulator?
The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation.
It could have been the camera angle I suppose, but that front section should have continued on, correct?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899341</id>
	<title>Clever</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1256753340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean.""
</p><p>
And threw "water spray" all over Iran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean .
" " And threw " water spray " all over Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"The unpowered simulator splashed down in the ocean.
""

And threw "water spray" all over Iran.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899835</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1256755140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, yes if it went awry and that's not a bad thing, then it was 'frikin fantastic'. Its like crash testing cars. Yes, the car is crashed, but we know know more information about how it will affect the occupants so we can build safer cars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes if it went awry and that 's not a bad thing , then it was 'frikin fantastic' .
Its like crash testing cars .
Yes , the car is crashed , but we know know more information about how it will affect the occupants so we can build safer cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes if it went awry and that's not a bad thing, then it was 'frikin fantastic'.
Its like crash testing cars.
Yes, the car is crashed, but we know know more information about how it will affect the occupants so we can build safer cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899549</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Necron69</author>
	<datestamp>1256754120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The upper stage was clearly hit by the first stage and left tumbling after the separation. In the NASA feed, they had several minutes of continued video from the upper stage with a cartwheeling background, but I'm assuming that it had no attitude control. Glad nobody was riding in it.</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The upper stage was clearly hit by the first stage and left tumbling after the separation .
In the NASA feed , they had several minutes of continued video from the upper stage with a cartwheeling background , but I 'm assuming that it had no attitude control .
Glad nobody was riding in it.Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upper stage was clearly hit by the first stage and left tumbling after the separation.
In the NASA feed, they had several minutes of continued video from the upper stage with a cartwheeling background, but I'm assuming that it had no attitude control.
Glad nobody was riding in it.Necron69</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</id>
	<title>Put Up Or Shut Up</title>
	<author>loose electron</author>
	<datestamp>1256754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee.. That's nice....</p><p>I wish NASA would do one of several things:<br>1. Concentrate on robotic missions and other non-manned science.<br>2. Put together a serious push for a Mars mission.</p><p>Things that I feel are an utter waste of time and money:<br>1. Going back to the moon purely to go back.<br>2. LEO (Low earth orbit) projects and questionable ISS science fair projects.</p><p>Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again. Or make a real effort in exo-planet research and searching for life around other star systems.  (I did not say "intelligent life, or infer anything about aliens and flyingf saucers there!) The tools are available for both.</p><p>Also, manned missions to Mars are not "cost effective" but you can't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the "boots on the ground" of a live mission.  Best bang for the buck there comes from the unmanned and robotic research.</p><p>Sad to say, NASA, for the most part has become another government bureaucracy. I would like to be proven wrong and see them return to what the did from 1960-1970, but the congressional money path probably won't happen again.</p><p>From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen. Too bad there were a lot of other ugly things going on at the time, (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.) but history allows us to remember the great and suppress the ugly.</p><p>How about a space elevator project? Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept. Well, the laughing seems to have died down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee.. That 's nice....I wish NASA would do one of several things : 1 .
Concentrate on robotic missions and other non-manned science.2 .
Put together a serious push for a Mars mission.Things that I feel are an utter waste of time and money : 1 .
Going back to the moon purely to go back.2 .
LEO ( Low earth orbit ) projects and questionable ISS science fair projects.Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again .
Or make a real effort in exo-planet research and searching for life around other star systems .
( I did not say " intelligent life , or infer anything about aliens and flyingf saucers there !
) The tools are available for both.Also , manned missions to Mars are not " cost effective " but you ca n't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the " boots on the ground " of a live mission .
Best bang for the buck there comes from the unmanned and robotic research.Sad to say , NASA , for the most part has become another government bureaucracy .
I would like to be proven wrong and see them return to what the did from 1960-1970 , but the congressional money path probably wo n't happen again.From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen .
Too bad there were a lot of other ugly things going on at the time , ( Vietnam , Watergate , etc .
) but history allows us to remember the great and suppress the ugly.How about a space elevator project ?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept .
Well , the laughing seems to have died down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee.. That's nice....I wish NASA would do one of several things:1.
Concentrate on robotic missions and other non-manned science.2.
Put together a serious push for a Mars mission.Things that I feel are an utter waste of time and money:1.
Going back to the moon purely to go back.2.
LEO (Low earth orbit) projects and questionable ISS science fair projects.Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again.
Or make a real effort in exo-planet research and searching for life around other star systems.
(I did not say "intelligent life, or infer anything about aliens and flyingf saucers there!
) The tools are available for both.Also, manned missions to Mars are not "cost effective" but you can't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the "boots on the ground" of a live mission.
Best bang for the buck there comes from the unmanned and robotic research.Sad to say, NASA, for the most part has become another government bureaucracy.
I would like to be proven wrong and see them return to what the did from 1960-1970, but the congressional money path probably won't happen again.From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.
Too bad there were a lot of other ugly things going on at the time, (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.
) but history allows us to remember the great and suppress the ugly.How about a space elevator project?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept.
Well, the laughing seems to have died down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904845</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256737080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider"</p><p>We will always have the poor."</p><p>And that's why we have to fling the poor into a hyperbolic escape trajectory.</p><p>It's for science!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider " We will always have the poor .
" And that 's why we have to fling the poor into a hyperbolic escape trajectory.It 's for science !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider"We will always have the poor.
"And that's why we have to fling the poor into a hyperbolic escape trajectory.It's for science!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899995</id>
	<title>NASA's priorities....?</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1256755800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great.  First we <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/08/15/1436217.shtml" title="slashdot.org">bomb the moon, looking for water.</a> [slashdot.org]  Then we bomb the Atlantic Ocean.  Were we looking for Moons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
First we bomb the moon , looking for water .
[ slashdot.org ] Then we bomb the Atlantic Ocean .
Were we looking for Moons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
First we bomb the moon, looking for water.
[slashdot.org]  Then we bomb the Atlantic Ocean.
Were we looking for Moons?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901589</id>
	<title>Re:Frickin' Fantastic</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1256762580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, the "frickin' fantastic" quote was directed to the flight control crew, and was in the form of "You all did frickin' fantastic."  It had no bearing whatsoever on the rocket's flight at all.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the " frickin ' fantastic " quote was directed to the flight control crew , and was in the form of " You all did frickin ' fantastic .
" It had no bearing whatsoever on the rocket 's flight at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the "frickin' fantastic" quote was directed to the flight control crew, and was in the form of "You all did frickin' fantastic.
"  It had no bearing whatsoever on the rocket's flight at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899825</id>
	<title>Re:Test flight examination?</title>
	<author>terrymr</author>
	<datestamp>1256755140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are quite a lot of tests planned over the next few years - Today was first stage performance / guidance / separation &amp; recovery testing - the rest of the rocket was just a mock-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are quite a lot of tests planned over the next few years - Today was first stage performance / guidance / separation &amp; recovery testing - the rest of the rocket was just a mock-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are quite a lot of tests planned over the next few years - Today was first stage performance / guidance / separation &amp; recovery testing - the rest of the rocket was just a mock-up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903179</id>
	<title>Re:Some notes regarding the launch</title>
	<author>bondjamesbond</author>
	<datestamp>1256727300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bill Gates could buy 100 of these rockets.  A bit of perspective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates could buy 100 of these rockets .
A bit of perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates could buy 100 of these rockets.
A bit of perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29919567</id>
	<title>Big woop</title>
	<author>marc\_jager</author>
	<datestamp>1256827320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big friggin woop!
I'm so impressed - in 2010 we have a rocket that doesn't work when in 1969 we had one that took us to the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big friggin woop !
I 'm so impressed - in 2010 we have a rocket that does n't work when in 1969 we had one that took us to the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big friggin woop!
I'm so impressed - in 2010 we have a rocket that doesn't work when in 1969 we had one that took us to the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903931</id>
	<title>Re:Some notes regarding the launch</title>
	<author>DeafScribe</author>
	<datestamp>1256731560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where do you get the $1-2 billion per launch figure? That seems insanely expensive.

NASA's <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle\_faq.html#at" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">number for average shuttle launch cost is $450 million</a> [nasa.gov]. The cost to build Endeavor was $1.7 billion.

You're saying a simple launch of Ares I could amount to more than the expense of constructing a Shuttle?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you get the $ 1-2 billion per launch figure ?
That seems insanely expensive .
NASA 's number for average shuttle launch cost is $ 450 million [ nasa.gov ] .
The cost to build Endeavor was $ 1.7 billion .
You 're saying a simple launch of Ares I could amount to more than the expense of constructing a Shuttle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you get the $1-2 billion per launch figure?
That seems insanely expensive.
NASA's number for average shuttle launch cost is $450 million [nasa.gov].
The cost to build Endeavor was $1.7 billion.
You're saying a simple launch of Ares I could amount to more than the expense of constructing a Shuttle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901579</id>
	<title>Re:What happened during stage separation?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1256762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Very cool looking rocket, more narrow exhaust plume than I'm used to seeing, interesting angled ascent (it didn't go up straight vertically like a shuttle).</p></div></blockquote><p>The Shuttle doesn't go straight up either - it starts to pitch over within a few seconds after launch, exactly as the Ares 1-X did.  The Shuttle's pitchover is often less obvious because of the geometry of the cameras and because it's usually launched on a trajectory much further north or south of the due eastward one flown by the 1-X.<br>
&nbsp; <br>That being said, the 1-X did pitch over further than the Shuttle, I suspect it did this so that it could produce the same aerodynamic effects as the full vehicle will experience, despite having a lower performing first stage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very cool looking rocket , more narrow exhaust plume than I 'm used to seeing , interesting angled ascent ( it did n't go up straight vertically like a shuttle ) .The Shuttle does n't go straight up either - it starts to pitch over within a few seconds after launch , exactly as the Ares 1-X did .
The Shuttle 's pitchover is often less obvious because of the geometry of the cameras and because it 's usually launched on a trajectory much further north or south of the due eastward one flown by the 1-X .
  That being said , the 1-X did pitch over further than the Shuttle , I suspect it did this so that it could produce the same aerodynamic effects as the full vehicle will experience , despite having a lower performing first stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very cool looking rocket, more narrow exhaust plume than I'm used to seeing, interesting angled ascent (it didn't go up straight vertically like a shuttle).The Shuttle doesn't go straight up either - it starts to pitch over within a few seconds after launch, exactly as the Ares 1-X did.
The Shuttle's pitchover is often less obvious because of the geometry of the cameras and because it's usually launched on a trajectory much further north or south of the due eastward one flown by the 1-X.
  That being said, the 1-X did pitch over further than the Shuttle, I suspect it did this so that it could produce the same aerodynamic effects as the full vehicle will experience, despite having a lower performing first stage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903053</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>twiddlingbits</author>
	<datestamp>1256726700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We had 3rd Stage and Command Module Engine restart on Apollo missions, nothing new there except 30 yrs has passed. I guess those who designed those engines have passed on. Show me a solid rocket booster you can restart and I'll be impressed. WTF.."Manned space flight isn't out of the experimental stage"..guess you missed all the missions to the Moon. It isn't Star Trek but it's not experimental either, maybe Stage I.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We had 3rd Stage and Command Module Engine restart on Apollo missions , nothing new there except 30 yrs has passed .
I guess those who designed those engines have passed on .
Show me a solid rocket booster you can restart and I 'll be impressed .
WTF.. " Manned space flight is n't out of the experimental stage " ..guess you missed all the missions to the Moon .
It is n't Star Trek but it 's not experimental either , maybe Stage I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had 3rd Stage and Command Module Engine restart on Apollo missions, nothing new there except 30 yrs has passed.
I guess those who designed those engines have passed on.
Show me a solid rocket booster you can restart and I'll be impressed.
WTF.."Manned space flight isn't out of the experimental stage"..guess you missed all the missions to the Moon.
It isn't Star Trek but it's not experimental either, maybe Stage I.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899573</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is also the NASA that is facing such intense political pressure to justify the continuation of its manned spaceflight program -- and the NASA that Feynman slammed for its veneer-over-veracity attitude surrounding the Challenger disaster.</p><p>Maybe they've changed their tune; maybe not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also the NASA that is facing such intense political pressure to justify the continuation of its manned spaceflight program -- and the NASA that Feynman slammed for its veneer-over-veracity attitude surrounding the Challenger disaster.Maybe they 've changed their tune ; maybe not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also the NASA that is facing such intense political pressure to justify the continuation of its manned spaceflight program -- and the NASA that Feynman slammed for its veneer-over-veracity attitude surrounding the Challenger disaster.Maybe they've changed their tune; maybe not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29910355</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks Mr. Engineer for reminding people the properties of telephoto lens which can show objects right on top of each other while they may be more than a hundred feet apart. I find it rather amusing here that in fact, this is the exact opposite mistake Moon Hoax believers do when the say the LM appears only 8 feet tall with that wide angle lens they used on the moon.</p><p>And if this stage was rigged very much like the Shuttles SRBs, and like the other sensors' data, those images were probably also recorded onboard. And the same as for those SRB flight images, they're posted only a couple of days later, when they finally get their hands on the sucker.</p><p>A photo/film/TV camera operator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks Mr. Engineer for reminding people the properties of telephoto lens which can show objects right on top of each other while they may be more than a hundred feet apart .
I find it rather amusing here that in fact , this is the exact opposite mistake Moon Hoax believers do when the say the LM appears only 8 feet tall with that wide angle lens they used on the moon.And if this stage was rigged very much like the Shuttles SRBs , and like the other sensors ' data , those images were probably also recorded onboard .
And the same as for those SRB flight images , they 're posted only a couple of days later , when they finally get their hands on the sucker.A photo/film/TV camera operator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks Mr. Engineer for reminding people the properties of telephoto lens which can show objects right on top of each other while they may be more than a hundred feet apart.
I find it rather amusing here that in fact, this is the exact opposite mistake Moon Hoax believers do when the say the LM appears only 8 feet tall with that wide angle lens they used on the moon.And if this stage was rigged very much like the Shuttles SRBs, and like the other sensors' data, those images were probably also recorded onboard.
And the same as for those SRB flight images, they're posted only a couple of days later, when they finally get their hands on the sucker.A photo/film/TV camera operator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900859</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame NASA</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1256759220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA has always been "another government bureaucracy". The difference between the 60's and now: in the 60's, we had 1) a clear goal to aim for, and 2) sufficient funding to achieve the goal.</p></div><p>The other big caveat to keep in mind about NASA is that it's basically politically impossible for them to fire anybody, meaning its really difficult for them to restructure towards any goals other than their status quo. That's another big differences between the NASA of the 60s and the NASA of today -- during the space race NASA was able to hire the best and brightest for its goals, whereas nowadays any plan NASA has needs to figure out what to do with the multiple layers of middle management which have accumulated (and been unable to fire, regardless of competency or lack thereof) over the decades and the thousands of Space Shuttle maintenance personnel. Any attempts at redirecting NASA that doesn't keep all of the civil servants or contractors hired will be massively opposed by the entrenched congressmen representing the impacted districts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA has always been " another government bureaucracy " .
The difference between the 60 's and now : in the 60 's , we had 1 ) a clear goal to aim for , and 2 ) sufficient funding to achieve the goal.The other big caveat to keep in mind about NASA is that it 's basically politically impossible for them to fire anybody , meaning its really difficult for them to restructure towards any goals other than their status quo .
That 's another big differences between the NASA of the 60s and the NASA of today -- during the space race NASA was able to hire the best and brightest for its goals , whereas nowadays any plan NASA has needs to figure out what to do with the multiple layers of middle management which have accumulated ( and been unable to fire , regardless of competency or lack thereof ) over the decades and the thousands of Space Shuttle maintenance personnel .
Any attempts at redirecting NASA that does n't keep all of the civil servants or contractors hired will be massively opposed by the entrenched congressmen representing the impacted districts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA has always been "another government bureaucracy".
The difference between the 60's and now: in the 60's, we had 1) a clear goal to aim for, and 2) sufficient funding to achieve the goal.The other big caveat to keep in mind about NASA is that it's basically politically impossible for them to fire anybody, meaning its really difficult for them to restructure towards any goals other than their status quo.
That's another big differences between the NASA of the 60s and the NASA of today -- during the space race NASA was able to hire the best and brightest for its goals, whereas nowadays any plan NASA has needs to figure out what to do with the multiple layers of middle management which have accumulated (and been unable to fire, regardless of competency or lack thereof) over the decades and the thousands of Space Shuttle maintenance personnel.
Any attempts at redirecting NASA that doesn't keep all of the civil servants or contractors hired will be massively opposed by the entrenched congressmen representing the impacted districts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900403</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hum, I happen to live in Spain, and I do disagree with you.</p><p>Yes, let' s keep all eggs on a single basket, close all space exploration, until all problems are solved!</p><p>ugh, man, get a hand on reality.  This is space exploration, absolutely needed. Why not stop the totally useless wars? Afganistan, Irak, etc, etc, etc</p><p>Just few days of operation there, pay for this kind of testing, and of course, would end any hunger in Africa, and any habitage problem in Spain you seem to mention here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hum , I happen to live in Spain , and I do disagree with you.Yes , let ' s keep all eggs on a single basket , close all space exploration , until all problems are solved ! ugh , man , get a hand on reality .
This is space exploration , absolutely needed .
Why not stop the totally useless wars ?
Afganistan , Irak , etc , etc , etcJust few days of operation there , pay for this kind of testing , and of course , would end any hunger in Africa , and any habitage problem in Spain you seem to mention here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hum, I happen to live in Spain, and I do disagree with you.Yes, let' s keep all eggs on a single basket, close all space exploration, until all problems are solved!ugh, man, get a hand on reality.
This is space exploration, absolutely needed.
Why not stop the totally useless wars?
Afganistan, Irak, etc, etc, etcJust few days of operation there, pay for this kind of testing, and of course, would end any hunger in Africa, and any habitage problem in Spain you seem to mention here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901799</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1256763540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is also the possibility that the finished rocket, with the full 5-segment booster, will separate at a higher altitude and thus the tumble won't be a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also the possibility that the finished rocket , with the full 5-segment booster , will separate at a higher altitude and thus the tumble wo n't be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also the possibility that the finished rocket, with the full 5-segment booster, will separate at a higher altitude and thus the tumble won't be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303</id>
	<title>Test flight examination?</title>
	<author>skgrey</author>
	<datestamp>1256753220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So do they recover all of the parts and go over them closely to look for stress fractures/bad parts/etc?
<br> <br>
When they are developing a new rocket, I would certainly hope they do more than a few of these test flights. One successful test flight doesn't thrill me. Multiple test flights utilizing different manufacturing runs of critical parts does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So do they recover all of the parts and go over them closely to look for stress fractures/bad parts/etc ?
When they are developing a new rocket , I would certainly hope they do more than a few of these test flights .
One successful test flight does n't thrill me .
Multiple test flights utilizing different manufacturing runs of critical parts does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do they recover all of the parts and go over them closely to look for stress fractures/bad parts/etc?
When they are developing a new rocket, I would certainly hope they do more than a few of these test flights.
One successful test flight doesn't thrill me.
Multiple test flights utilizing different manufacturing runs of critical parts does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657</id>
	<title>What happened during stage separation?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was watching the launch with my kids on NASATV, and just when the stages separated, the leading stage started to tumble, and NASATV went black.  When they came back in 20 seconds or so, they were following the larger stage on its descent.</p><p>I have to say, the supersonic vapor plume around the rocket during acceleration was awesome.  I said to my kids, "look, they just broke the sound barrier," and the announcer came on with "passing Mach 1".</p><p>Very cool looking rocket, more narrow exhaust plume than I'm used to seeing, interesting angled ascent (it didn't go up straight vertically like a shuttle). We like to rag on NASA, but if this is really a an under-3-year project, who am I to cast stones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was watching the launch with my kids on NASATV , and just when the stages separated , the leading stage started to tumble , and NASATV went black .
When they came back in 20 seconds or so , they were following the larger stage on its descent.I have to say , the supersonic vapor plume around the rocket during acceleration was awesome .
I said to my kids , " look , they just broke the sound barrier , " and the announcer came on with " passing Mach 1 " .Very cool looking rocket , more narrow exhaust plume than I 'm used to seeing , interesting angled ascent ( it did n't go up straight vertically like a shuttle ) .
We like to rag on NASA , but if this is really a an under-3-year project , who am I to cast stones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was watching the launch with my kids on NASATV, and just when the stages separated, the leading stage started to tumble, and NASATV went black.
When they came back in 20 seconds or so, they were following the larger stage on its descent.I have to say, the supersonic vapor plume around the rocket during acceleration was awesome.
I said to my kids, "look, they just broke the sound barrier," and the announcer came on with "passing Mach 1".Very cool looking rocket, more narrow exhaust plume than I'm used to seeing, interesting angled ascent (it didn't go up straight vertically like a shuttle).
We like to rag on NASA, but if this is really a an under-3-year project, who am I to cast stones?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901775</id>
	<title>Re:Put Up Or Shut Up</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1256763420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, manned missions to Mars are not "cost effective" but you can't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the "boots on the ground" of a live mission.  Best bang for the buck there comes from the unmanned and robotic research.</p><p>From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.</p><p>How about a space elevator project? Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept. Well, the laughing seems to have died down.</p></div><p>[Quotes sliced up to minimize]</p><p>Start from the middle and touch the top: You know that slight feeling of vertigo, the flush of warmth, the urge to laugh and the filling of the eyes when stuff like Armstrong's first step, Apollo 13's recovery at sea and the Apollo-Soyuz handshake happened? That's what human space exploration is about. It was never about the science. Sure, while they're there and they have some time on their hands, best to give them something to do that produces hard results that can be shown to those with hard questions. But to think that 'justifies' anything even in part is to fool one's self. Humans explore because, there is no because, exploration is a defining trait humanity. We have always done this and always will or else suffer stagnation and decline. We've explored enough of the Earth to know its nature, yet exploration continues. Exploration, discovery and triumph over natural adversity feed the human spirit, something as necessary for future survival as sustainable agriculture is for a population at 3 times the carrying capacity of the planet without technological assistance and still growing. For science, robots can't be beat. But you can't compare science and the needs of the human spirit. There is no 'cost effective' to be found there. Manned space flight is a continuation of an activity that defines us and is carrying on a legacy that has made us what we are. The future of what we will be rests in large part in the acceleration seats, orbiting structures, and especially the descent, stay and return modules yet to be built. Not many have the balls to admit stuff like this in public. Sit down to a private meal with anyone who's been there and see how easily the conversation turns that direction and what gets said. Even those who're tasked with overseeing major portions of the programs that put others up there will say the same. Knowing, feeling and performing this activity is instinctive, because despite the lack of Human Spirit 101, these people seem to come up with the same things to say.</p><p>We stopped laughing at the elevator when it became clear that (1) vibrations of any sort and the actions of the atmosphere and spinning Earth would inevitably induce oscillations which would make it at best a very difficult ride and most likely result in a pile of broken pieces of carbon nanotube material, and (2) the ride that would almost certainly never occur would take weeks or months, requiring a life support and supply system that'd make the elevator too heavy to use. Developing the technology necessary for an elevator would require stripping all the funding from space flight, manned and robotic, as well as many other programs. In fact the costs would be so high that it would take an enormous sacrifice on the part of the citizens. If they stopped spending any money on pizza, cosmetics and porn, totals of which have been between one and two orders of magnitude greater than NASA's budget ever since Mercury, and sent all that money in, we might then have enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , manned missions to Mars are not " cost effective " but you ca n't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the " boots on the ground " of a live mission .
Best bang for the buck there comes from the unmanned and robotic research.From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.How about a space elevator project ?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept .
Well , the laughing seems to have died down .
[ Quotes sliced up to minimize ] Start from the middle and touch the top : You know that slight feeling of vertigo , the flush of warmth , the urge to laugh and the filling of the eyes when stuff like Armstrong 's first step , Apollo 13 's recovery at sea and the Apollo-Soyuz handshake happened ?
That 's what human space exploration is about .
It was never about the science .
Sure , while they 're there and they have some time on their hands , best to give them something to do that produces hard results that can be shown to those with hard questions .
But to think that 'justifies ' anything even in part is to fool one 's self .
Humans explore because , there is no because , exploration is a defining trait humanity .
We have always done this and always will or else suffer stagnation and decline .
We 've explored enough of the Earth to know its nature , yet exploration continues .
Exploration , discovery and triumph over natural adversity feed the human spirit , something as necessary for future survival as sustainable agriculture is for a population at 3 times the carrying capacity of the planet without technological assistance and still growing .
For science , robots ca n't be beat .
But you ca n't compare science and the needs of the human spirit .
There is no 'cost effective ' to be found there .
Manned space flight is a continuation of an activity that defines us and is carrying on a legacy that has made us what we are .
The future of what we will be rests in large part in the acceleration seats , orbiting structures , and especially the descent , stay and return modules yet to be built .
Not many have the balls to admit stuff like this in public .
Sit down to a private meal with anyone who 's been there and see how easily the conversation turns that direction and what gets said .
Even those who 're tasked with overseeing major portions of the programs that put others up there will say the same .
Knowing , feeling and performing this activity is instinctive , because despite the lack of Human Spirit 101 , these people seem to come up with the same things to say.We stopped laughing at the elevator when it became clear that ( 1 ) vibrations of any sort and the actions of the atmosphere and spinning Earth would inevitably induce oscillations which would make it at best a very difficult ride and most likely result in a pile of broken pieces of carbon nanotube material , and ( 2 ) the ride that would almost certainly never occur would take weeks or months , requiring a life support and supply system that 'd make the elevator too heavy to use .
Developing the technology necessary for an elevator would require stripping all the funding from space flight , manned and robotic , as well as many other programs .
In fact the costs would be so high that it would take an enormous sacrifice on the part of the citizens .
If they stopped spending any money on pizza , cosmetics and porn , totals of which have been between one and two orders of magnitude greater than NASA 's budget ever since Mercury , and sent all that money in , we might then have enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, manned missions to Mars are not "cost effective" but you can't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the "boots on the ground" of a live mission.
Best bang for the buck there comes from the unmanned and robotic research.From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.How about a space elevator project?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept.
Well, the laughing seems to have died down.
[Quotes sliced up to minimize]Start from the middle and touch the top: You know that slight feeling of vertigo, the flush of warmth, the urge to laugh and the filling of the eyes when stuff like Armstrong's first step, Apollo 13's recovery at sea and the Apollo-Soyuz handshake happened?
That's what human space exploration is about.
It was never about the science.
Sure, while they're there and they have some time on their hands, best to give them something to do that produces hard results that can be shown to those with hard questions.
But to think that 'justifies' anything even in part is to fool one's self.
Humans explore because, there is no because, exploration is a defining trait humanity.
We have always done this and always will or else suffer stagnation and decline.
We've explored enough of the Earth to know its nature, yet exploration continues.
Exploration, discovery and triumph over natural adversity feed the human spirit, something as necessary for future survival as sustainable agriculture is for a population at 3 times the carrying capacity of the planet without technological assistance and still growing.
For science, robots can't be beat.
But you can't compare science and the needs of the human spirit.
There is no 'cost effective' to be found there.
Manned space flight is a continuation of an activity that defines us and is carrying on a legacy that has made us what we are.
The future of what we will be rests in large part in the acceleration seats, orbiting structures, and especially the descent, stay and return modules yet to be built.
Not many have the balls to admit stuff like this in public.
Sit down to a private meal with anyone who's been there and see how easily the conversation turns that direction and what gets said.
Even those who're tasked with overseeing major portions of the programs that put others up there will say the same.
Knowing, feeling and performing this activity is instinctive, because despite the lack of Human Spirit 101, these people seem to come up with the same things to say.We stopped laughing at the elevator when it became clear that (1) vibrations of any sort and the actions of the atmosphere and spinning Earth would inevitably induce oscillations which would make it at best a very difficult ride and most likely result in a pile of broken pieces of carbon nanotube material, and (2) the ride that would almost certainly never occur would take weeks or months, requiring a life support and supply system that'd make the elevator too heavy to use.
Developing the technology necessary for an elevator would require stripping all the funding from space flight, manned and robotic, as well as many other programs.
In fact the costs would be so high that it would take an enormous sacrifice on the part of the citizens.
If they stopped spending any money on pizza, cosmetics and porn, totals of which have been between one and two orders of magnitude greater than NASA's budget ever since Mercury, and sent all that money in, we might then have enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900639</id>
	<title>Never happened</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1256758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was all staged, the shadows are not right and the flag is waving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was all staged , the shadows are not right and the flag is waving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was all staged, the shadows are not right and the flag is waving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339</id>
	<title>Don't blame NASA</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256757180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sad to say, NASA, for the most part has become another government bureaucracy.</p></div></blockquote><p>NASA has always been "another government bureaucracy". The difference between the 60's and now: in the 60's, we had 1) a clear goal to aim for, and 2) sufficient funding to achieve the goal. In recent years we've had neither of these things... and that's not NASA's fault, it's the fault of Congress and the President.</p><p>And regarding the space elevator: the laughter has died down, and been replaced with... nothing. That's because there's nothing to talk about. We still don't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it. Nor do we know if other technical obstacles to building one can be overcome. Nor do we have even the slightest idea what it would cost (and won't until we solve the first two issues). And if you don't know the cost, you can't evaluate whether it's more cost effective than just using rockets. All of which means there's no basis to proceed with a project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad to say , NASA , for the most part has become another government bureaucracy.NASA has always been " another government bureaucracy " .
The difference between the 60 's and now : in the 60 's , we had 1 ) a clear goal to aim for , and 2 ) sufficient funding to achieve the goal .
In recent years we 've had neither of these things... and that 's not NASA 's fault , it 's the fault of Congress and the President.And regarding the space elevator : the laughter has died down , and been replaced with... nothing. That 's because there 's nothing to talk about .
We still do n't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it .
Nor do we know if other technical obstacles to building one can be overcome .
Nor do we have even the slightest idea what it would cost ( and wo n't until we solve the first two issues ) .
And if you do n't know the cost , you ca n't evaluate whether it 's more cost effective than just using rockets .
All of which means there 's no basis to proceed with a project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad to say, NASA, for the most part has become another government bureaucracy.NASA has always been "another government bureaucracy".
The difference between the 60's and now: in the 60's, we had 1) a clear goal to aim for, and 2) sufficient funding to achieve the goal.
In recent years we've had neither of these things... and that's not NASA's fault, it's the fault of Congress and the President.And regarding the space elevator: the laughter has died down, and been replaced with... nothing. That's because there's nothing to talk about.
We still don't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it.
Nor do we know if other technical obstacles to building one can be overcome.
Nor do we have even the slightest idea what it would cost (and won't until we solve the first two issues).
And if you don't know the cost, you can't evaluate whether it's more cost effective than just using rockets.
All of which means there's no basis to proceed with a project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899601</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>agentgonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1256754300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares\_1-y" title="wikipedia.org">Ares 1-Y</a> [wikipedia.org] in 2013</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ares 1-Y [ wikipedia.org ] in 2013</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ares 1-Y [wikipedia.org] in 2013</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899659</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1256754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The simulator was not powered in this test, so I would assusme if it had been it would have had engines that would have fired to cause it to continue it's trajectory and achieve and maintain orbit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simulator was not powered in this test , so I would assusme if it had been it would have had engines that would have fired to cause it to continue it 's trajectory and achieve and maintain orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simulator was not powered in this test, so I would assusme if it had been it would have had engines that would have fired to cause it to continue it's trajectory and achieve and maintain orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905987</id>
	<title>Re:Put Up Or Shut Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no money for NASA to do anything great anymore.  All the money is being used to fund social welfare programs of the 70s.  Those social programs without progress will bankrupt and destroy the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no money for NASA to do anything great anymore .
All the money is being used to fund social welfare programs of the 70s .
Those social programs without progress will bankrupt and destroy the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no money for NASA to do anything great anymore.
All the money is being used to fund social welfare programs of the 70s.
Those social programs without progress will bankrupt and destroy the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899713</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1256754720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only a total mathematically impaired moron would call the NASA budget "endless resources".</p><p>Try fixing the schools first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a total mathematically impaired moron would call the NASA budget " endless resources " .Try fixing the schools first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a total mathematically impaired moron would call the NASA budget "endless resources".Try fixing the schools first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902897</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one,</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1256725860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The SRBs are not the problem, it was putting the crew compartment <i>beside</i> them that was the problem. An Apollo-style capsule on top can use its abort rocket (that pointy thing on top of the capsule) to quickly get away from a failing booster. If it had been possible to put the boosters and ET below the shuttle, neither accident would have been fatal.
</p><p>In the first accident, if it had been possible to instantly detach from the SRBs and ET, it might have been difficult for the ponderous shuttle to turn to an attitude capable of a safe landing, but that's still not the fault of using SRBs. The second accident wouldn't have happened with a capsule rocket, because the heat shield is inherently protected during launch due to its position in the middle of the stack.
</p><p>I don't know how you can blame the SRBs for the second accident. The foam came from the ET. Requiring the Shuttle ET to use CFC-free foam (the amount of CFCs in one ET's worth of foam is probably infinitesimal compared to even one day's sales of spray cans and foam manufacturing) contributed to the foam problems that caused the second accident.
</p><p>Maybe you should read an actual shuttle accident report sometime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The SRBs are not the problem , it was putting the crew compartment beside them that was the problem .
An Apollo-style capsule on top can use its abort rocket ( that pointy thing on top of the capsule ) to quickly get away from a failing booster .
If it had been possible to put the boosters and ET below the shuttle , neither accident would have been fatal .
In the first accident , if it had been possible to instantly detach from the SRBs and ET , it might have been difficult for the ponderous shuttle to turn to an attitude capable of a safe landing , but that 's still not the fault of using SRBs .
The second accident would n't have happened with a capsule rocket , because the heat shield is inherently protected during launch due to its position in the middle of the stack .
I do n't know how you can blame the SRBs for the second accident .
The foam came from the ET .
Requiring the Shuttle ET to use CFC-free foam ( the amount of CFCs in one ET 's worth of foam is probably infinitesimal compared to even one day 's sales of spray cans and foam manufacturing ) contributed to the foam problems that caused the second accident .
Maybe you should read an actual shuttle accident report sometime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SRBs are not the problem, it was putting the crew compartment beside them that was the problem.
An Apollo-style capsule on top can use its abort rocket (that pointy thing on top of the capsule) to quickly get away from a failing booster.
If it had been possible to put the boosters and ET below the shuttle, neither accident would have been fatal.
In the first accident, if it had been possible to instantly detach from the SRBs and ET, it might have been difficult for the ponderous shuttle to turn to an attitude capable of a safe landing, but that's still not the fault of using SRBs.
The second accident wouldn't have happened with a capsule rocket, because the heat shield is inherently protected during launch due to its position in the middle of the stack.
I don't know how you can blame the SRBs for the second accident.
The foam came from the ET.
Requiring the Shuttle ET to use CFC-free foam (the amount of CFCs in one ET's worth of foam is probably infinitesimal compared to even one day's sales of spray cans and foam manufacturing) contributed to the foam problems that caused the second accident.
Maybe you should read an actual shuttle accident report sometime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899927</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"endless resources" to NASA. ahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.</p><p>Even with the very tiny amount of money the US spends on its space program (compared to something like military spending or social security) the human race as a whole has benefited significantly from the things we have learned while doing it. Not just that the moon is grey and barren, or that ants still make anthills in zero gravity, but new materials, new ways to do old things, new computing, new understanding about the universe, a better understanding of the sun and outer planets and greater understanding of the building blocks of the earth itself.</p><p>It wasn't just some wasted hole that they poured money into to piss off the Russians.</p><p>Space exploration and the whole area around how to actually explore space needs much more funding than it currently has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" endless resources " to NASA .
ahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait , you were serious , let me laugh even harder .
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.Even with the very tiny amount of money the US spends on its space program ( compared to something like military spending or social security ) the human race as a whole has benefited significantly from the things we have learned while doing it .
Not just that the moon is grey and barren , or that ants still make anthills in zero gravity , but new materials , new ways to do old things , new computing , new understanding about the universe , a better understanding of the sun and outer planets and greater understanding of the building blocks of the earth itself.It was n't just some wasted hole that they poured money into to piss off the Russians.Space exploration and the whole area around how to actually explore space needs much more funding than it currently has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"endless resources" to NASA.
ahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.Even with the very tiny amount of money the US spends on its space program (compared to something like military spending or social security) the human race as a whole has benefited significantly from the things we have learned while doing it.
Not just that the moon is grey and barren, or that ants still make anthills in zero gravity, but new materials, new ways to do old things, new computing, new understanding about the universe, a better understanding of the sun and outer planets and greater understanding of the building blocks of the earth itself.It wasn't just some wasted hole that they poured money into to piss off the Russians.Space exploration and the whole area around how to actually explore space needs much more funding than it currently has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908141</id>
	<title>Re:Test flight examination?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256815500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alliant Techsystems &amp; Boeing (who built Ares-1) are private companies contracted by NASA to do stuff (same as SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and other companies).</p><p>SpaceX has a NASA contract worth $1.6 billion &amp; $100 million contract from the USAF.  Their motor design is based on the LEM engine - so its not like they're on a shoestring budget and designing stuff from scratch.</p><p>The $10 billion is for the whole of the Constellation program - Ares, Altair &amp; Orion - not just for Ares-1-X, whose main purpose was to prove that the technology works.</p><p>Ares-1 has a similar launch capacity of a Delta-IV Heavy (which is a large beast) so they're pushing the envelope to make 'smaller' rockets launch larger loads.  Ares-V will be able to launch 1.5 times the weight of a Saturn V cargo &amp; almost 8 times that of the Shuttle.</p><p>If we want to go back to the Moon and to Mars we need to move larger amounts of stuff into orbit and beyond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alliant Techsystems &amp; Boeing ( who built Ares-1 ) are private companies contracted by NASA to do stuff ( same as SpaceX , Scaled Composites , and other companies ) .SpaceX has a NASA contract worth $ 1.6 billion &amp; $ 100 million contract from the USAF .
Their motor design is based on the LEM engine - so its not like they 're on a shoestring budget and designing stuff from scratch.The $ 10 billion is for the whole of the Constellation program - Ares , Altair &amp; Orion - not just for Ares-1-X , whose main purpose was to prove that the technology works.Ares-1 has a similar launch capacity of a Delta-IV Heavy ( which is a large beast ) so they 're pushing the envelope to make 'smaller ' rockets launch larger loads .
Ares-V will be able to launch 1.5 times the weight of a Saturn V cargo &amp; almost 8 times that of the Shuttle.If we want to go back to the Moon and to Mars we need to move larger amounts of stuff into orbit and beyond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alliant Techsystems &amp; Boeing (who built Ares-1) are private companies contracted by NASA to do stuff (same as SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and other companies).SpaceX has a NASA contract worth $1.6 billion &amp; $100 million contract from the USAF.
Their motor design is based on the LEM engine - so its not like they're on a shoestring budget and designing stuff from scratch.The $10 billion is for the whole of the Constellation program - Ares, Altair &amp; Orion - not just for Ares-1-X, whose main purpose was to prove that the technology works.Ares-1 has a similar launch capacity of a Delta-IV Heavy (which is a large beast) so they're pushing the envelope to make 'smaller' rockets launch larger loads.
Ares-V will be able to launch 1.5 times the weight of a Saturn V cargo &amp; almost 8 times that of the Shuttle.If we want to go back to the Moon and to Mars we need to move larger amounts of stuff into orbit and beyond.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903139</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame NASA</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1256727120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We still don't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it.</p></div><p>Hey, give the guy a break. At least he didn't say that we should go to the moon to mine Helium-3 to use in fusion reactors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We still do n't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it.Hey , give the guy a break .
At least he did n't say that we should go to the moon to mine Helium-3 to use in fusion reactors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still don't have the technology to produce carbon nanofibers in anything like the lengths that would be required to build it.Hey, give the guy a break.
At least he didn't say that we should go to the moon to mine Helium-3 to use in fusion reactors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899899</id>
	<title>Are the problems with Ares resolved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I originally understood the Ares rocket to be based around (somewhat outdated) solid propellant technology, meaning the the boosters can't be shut-down, controlled properly once lit, and suffer from severe resonance of the structure of the rocket from combustion instability of the solid propellant. As for solid propellant itself, this is a total nightmare - voids in the propellant, controlling grain size, differences in batch quality, effect of temperature, and binding of the propellant to inhibitors, insulation materials, and coatings. These sort of problems effectively make it impossible to 'man rate' this type of booster (at least without unacceptable risks - although I'm sure the politicos will protest at such engineering assessments!).<br>I was wondering if anyone knows if NASA has redesigned the Ares around more modern style staged combustion engines that use a liquid propellant, so that it will actually be safe for manned missions?<br>If not, I fear that this will be the end of the US space program, which has become a particularly sad and pathetic shadow of that of other more successful countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I originally understood the Ares rocket to be based around ( somewhat outdated ) solid propellant technology , meaning the the boosters ca n't be shut-down , controlled properly once lit , and suffer from severe resonance of the structure of the rocket from combustion instability of the solid propellant .
As for solid propellant itself , this is a total nightmare - voids in the propellant , controlling grain size , differences in batch quality , effect of temperature , and binding of the propellant to inhibitors , insulation materials , and coatings .
These sort of problems effectively make it impossible to 'man rate ' this type of booster ( at least without unacceptable risks - although I 'm sure the politicos will protest at such engineering assessments !
) .I was wondering if anyone knows if NASA has redesigned the Ares around more modern style staged combustion engines that use a liquid propellant , so that it will actually be safe for manned missions ? If not , I fear that this will be the end of the US space program , which has become a particularly sad and pathetic shadow of that of other more successful countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I originally understood the Ares rocket to be based around (somewhat outdated) solid propellant technology, meaning the the boosters can't be shut-down, controlled properly once lit, and suffer from severe resonance of the structure of the rocket from combustion instability of the solid propellant.
As for solid propellant itself, this is a total nightmare - voids in the propellant, controlling grain size, differences in batch quality, effect of temperature, and binding of the propellant to inhibitors, insulation materials, and coatings.
These sort of problems effectively make it impossible to 'man rate' this type of booster (at least without unacceptable risks - although I'm sure the politicos will protest at such engineering assessments!
).I was wondering if anyone knows if NASA has redesigned the Ares around more modern style staged combustion engines that use a liquid propellant, so that it will actually be safe for manned missions?If not, I fear that this will be the end of the US space program, which has become a particularly sad and pathetic shadow of that of other more successful countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900549</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1256757900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades? Huh? Progress?</p></div><p>Technically speaking, the US has been able to build new human-capable rockets for decades as well, with the Atlas V, Delta IV, and SpaceX Falcon 9 (scheduled for later this year). The difference is that those are private companies. This has been NASA's first newly designed rocket launched in ~30 years (albeit a suborbital rocket), although one wonders if it's truly necessary for NASA to spend $35-$45 billion to try to duplicate the capability already provided by US companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades ?
Huh ? Progress ? Technically speaking , the US has been able to build new human-capable rockets for decades as well , with the Atlas V , Delta IV , and SpaceX Falcon 9 ( scheduled for later this year ) .
The difference is that those are private companies .
This has been NASA 's first newly designed rocket launched in ~ 30 years ( albeit a suborbital rocket ) , although one wonders if it 's truly necessary for NASA to spend $ 35- $ 45 billion to try to duplicate the capability already provided by US companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades?
Huh? Progress?Technically speaking, the US has been able to build new human-capable rockets for decades as well, with the Atlas V, Delta IV, and SpaceX Falcon 9 (scheduled for later this year).
The difference is that those are private companies.
This has been NASA's first newly designed rocket launched in ~30 years (albeit a suborbital rocket), although one wonders if it's truly necessary for NASA to spend $35-$45 billion to try to duplicate the capability already provided by US companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153</id>
	<title>Some notes regarding the launch</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1256756400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some items to note:</p><ul> <li>The <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091026-nasa-ares-1-x-rocket.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">rocket</a> [nationalgeographic.com] [nationalgeographic.com] was the <a href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/091024-ares1x-worlds-tallest-rockets.html" title="space.com">tallest</a> [space.com] [space.com] (and possibly most expensive, at $450 million) suborbital rocket ever assembled, consisting of a solid rocket motor from the Space Shuttle and an Atlas V avionics system, with a non-functional upper stage put on top.</li><li>The Ares I-X has roughly the same shape (but different internal components) compared to NASA's planned medium-lift Ares I, which is scheduled to be completed after 2017 with an estimated cost of $1-$2 billion per launch. A lot of people have been calling this a flight test of the Ares I, but considering how drastically different the Ares I would be in flight, it's really quite a stretch, and it also unfortunately doesn't address any of the biggest potential problems with the Ares I (5-segment booster vibration properties, launch abort survivability, etc.). If anything, it's more similar to a full-size wind tunnel test.</li><li>Even though the fate of the Ares I itself (and the overall <a href="http://thespacereview.com/article/1499/1" title="thespacereview.com">future direction</a> [thespacereview.com] [thespacereview.com] of NASA spaceflight) is uncertain, the &gt;700 sensors on the Ares I-X should provide data useful for <a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091026preview/" title="spaceflightnow.com">validating computer models</a> [spaceflightnow.com] [spaceflightnow.com] used by NASA."</li><li>For all its faults, it's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA, as its the first new launch vehicle design they've attempted to launch in 30 years, after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane). Actually, now that I think about it, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell\_Douglas\_DC-X" title="wikipedia.org">DC-X</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] successfully launched, although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to (and canceled by) NASA. Of course, one could still ask why NASA is trying to internally design a new vehicle when the private sector has a much better track record over the past 30 years of bringing new launch vehicle designs into service, but I imagine it's still been a learning experience for NASA. Hopefully they'll learn the right lessons from it, whatever those are.</li></ul><p>(I largely copied this from a comment I made yesterday, but it still seems pertinent)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some items to note : The rocket [ nationalgeographic.com ] [ nationalgeographic.com ] was the tallest [ space.com ] [ space.com ] ( and possibly most expensive , at $ 450 million ) suborbital rocket ever assembled , consisting of a solid rocket motor from the Space Shuttle and an Atlas V avionics system , with a non-functional upper stage put on top.The Ares I-X has roughly the same shape ( but different internal components ) compared to NASA 's planned medium-lift Ares I , which is scheduled to be completed after 2017 with an estimated cost of $ 1- $ 2 billion per launch .
A lot of people have been calling this a flight test of the Ares I , but considering how drastically different the Ares I would be in flight , it 's really quite a stretch , and it also unfortunately does n't address any of the biggest potential problems with the Ares I ( 5-segment booster vibration properties , launch abort survivability , etc. ) .
If anything , it 's more similar to a full-size wind tunnel test.Even though the fate of the Ares I itself ( and the overall future direction [ thespacereview.com ] [ thespacereview.com ] of NASA spaceflight ) is uncertain , the &gt; 700 sensors on the Ares I-X should provide data useful for validating computer models [ spaceflightnow.com ] [ spaceflightnow.com ] used by NASA .
" For all its faults , it 's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA , as its the first new launch vehicle design they 've attempted to launch in 30 years , after a long string of failed designs ( X-30 , X-33 , X-34 , National Launch System , Space Launch Initiative , Orbital Space Plane ) .
Actually , now that I think about it , the DC-X [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] successfully launched , although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to ( and canceled by ) NASA .
Of course , one could still ask why NASA is trying to internally design a new vehicle when the private sector has a much better track record over the past 30 years of bringing new launch vehicle designs into service , but I imagine it 's still been a learning experience for NASA .
Hopefully they 'll learn the right lessons from it , whatever those are .
( I largely copied this from a comment I made yesterday , but it still seems pertinent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some items to note: The rocket [nationalgeographic.com] [nationalgeographic.com] was the tallest [space.com] [space.com] (and possibly most expensive, at $450 million) suborbital rocket ever assembled, consisting of a solid rocket motor from the Space Shuttle and an Atlas V avionics system, with a non-functional upper stage put on top.The Ares I-X has roughly the same shape (but different internal components) compared to NASA's planned medium-lift Ares I, which is scheduled to be completed after 2017 with an estimated cost of $1-$2 billion per launch.
A lot of people have been calling this a flight test of the Ares I, but considering how drastically different the Ares I would be in flight, it's really quite a stretch, and it also unfortunately doesn't address any of the biggest potential problems with the Ares I (5-segment booster vibration properties, launch abort survivability, etc.).
If anything, it's more similar to a full-size wind tunnel test.Even though the fate of the Ares I itself (and the overall future direction [thespacereview.com] [thespacereview.com] of NASA spaceflight) is uncertain, the &gt;700 sensors on the Ares I-X should provide data useful for validating computer models [spaceflightnow.com] [spaceflightnow.com] used by NASA.
"For all its faults, it's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA, as its the first new launch vehicle design they've attempted to launch in 30 years, after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane).
Actually, now that I think about it, the DC-X [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] successfully launched, although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to (and canceled by) NASA.
Of course, one could still ask why NASA is trying to internally design a new vehicle when the private sector has a much better track record over the past 30 years of bringing new launch vehicle designs into service, but I imagine it's still been a learning experience for NASA.
Hopefully they'll learn the right lessons from it, whatever those are.
(I largely copied this from a comment I made yesterday, but it still seems pertinent)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899843</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1256755200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aY0tX8UysIaM" title="bloomberg.com">$23.7 <b>t</b>rillion of taxpayer exposure</a> [bloomberg.com] for all of the bailout programs, which has so far cost us <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=armOzfkwtCA4" title="bloomberg.com">over $12.8 <b>t</b>rillion.</a> [bloomberg.com]</p><p>Most economists say that all of this money has just postponed the inevitable and done nothing to truly fix the situation.</p><p>With $12.8 trillion we could launch one of those rockets every day for over 70 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to the $ 23.7 trillion of taxpayer exposure [ bloomberg.com ] for all of the bailout programs , which has so far cost us over $ 12.8 trillion .
[ bloomberg.com ] Most economists say that all of this money has just postponed the inevitable and done nothing to truly fix the situation.With $ 12.8 trillion we could launch one of those rockets every day for over 70 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to the $23.7 trillion of taxpayer exposure [bloomberg.com] for all of the bailout programs, which has so far cost us over $12.8 trillion.
[bloomberg.com]Most economists say that all of this money has just postponed the inevitable and done nothing to truly fix the situation.With $12.8 trillion we could launch one of those rockets every day for over 70 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If all went well, when's the next launch and what are its goals?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If all went well , when 's the next launch and what are its goals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all went well, when's the next launch and what are its goals?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899479</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.. "nothing of value"

<a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm" title="howstuffworks.com" rel="nofollow">http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm</a> [howstuffworks.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah.. " nothing of value " http : //science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm [ howstuffworks.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.. "nothing of value"

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm [howstuffworks.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908057</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256813880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And regarding the space elevator: the laughter has died down, and been replaced with... nothing.</p></div><p>Sounds fine so far.  We still don't have the technical capacity to build one - but technologies are being developed that might make it practical, and though they're still a long way off, they're close enough that we can't simply laugh off the concept.  There are still 50 years for Arthur C Clarke to be right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And regarding the space elevator : the laughter has died down , and been replaced with... nothing.Sounds fine so far .
We still do n't have the technical capacity to build one - but technologies are being developed that might make it practical , and though they 're still a long way off , they 're close enough that we ca n't simply laugh off the concept .
There are still 50 years for Arthur C Clarke to be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And regarding the space elevator: the laughter has died down, and been replaced with... nothing.Sounds fine so far.
We still don't have the technical capacity to build one - but technologies are being developed that might make it practical, and though they're still a long way off, they're close enough that we can't simply laugh off the concept.
There are still 50 years for Arthur C Clarke to be right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899339</id>
	<title>'frickin fantastic!'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I guess you can keep your job."</p><p>"You betcha!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I guess you can keep your job .
" " You betcha !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I guess you can keep your job.
""You betcha!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899901</id>
	<title>tumble motor</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1256755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go back and listen to the audio.  (unless they made this part up for you tin-foil hat types)
After burnout, they separated, and ignited a "tumble motor" to send both parts off on another direction so they wouldn't bump into each other.
The rocket motor was the important part, and was recovered.  The "mass simulator", the upper section was not recovered and was expendable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go back and listen to the audio .
( unless they made this part up for you tin-foil hat types ) After burnout , they separated , and ignited a " tumble motor " to send both parts off on another direction so they would n't bump into each other .
The rocket motor was the important part , and was recovered .
The " mass simulator " , the upper section was not recovered and was expendable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go back and listen to the audio.
(unless they made this part up for you tin-foil hat types)
After burnout, they separated, and ignited a "tumble motor" to send both parts off on another direction so they wouldn't bump into each other.
The rocket motor was the important part, and was recovered.
The "mass simulator", the upper section was not recovered and was expendable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902653</id>
	<title>Re:Test flight examination?</title>
	<author>Iron Condor</author>
	<datestamp>1256724660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And it only took them 3 years and $10 billion to launch a modified solid rocket booster with a mass simulator on it.  Amazing how fast NASA can develop new technology.  Its a good thing they aren't relying on private industry like SpaceX which can make comparable rockets for 1/100 of the cost...</p></div><p>...taking three times as long and blowing up four times before they get a single launch straight.

</p><p>I'm not an astronaut. But if I were one, I'd much rather travel in a vehicle that was designed and built by people who know what they're doing (even if at elevated cost) such that the first test launch was a success right there. Because that indicates proper engineering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it only took them 3 years and $ 10 billion to launch a modified solid rocket booster with a mass simulator on it .
Amazing how fast NASA can develop new technology .
Its a good thing they are n't relying on private industry like SpaceX which can make comparable rockets for 1/100 of the cost......taking three times as long and blowing up four times before they get a single launch straight .
I 'm not an astronaut .
But if I were one , I 'd much rather travel in a vehicle that was designed and built by people who know what they 're doing ( even if at elevated cost ) such that the first test launch was a success right there .
Because that indicates proper engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it only took them 3 years and $10 billion to launch a modified solid rocket booster with a mass simulator on it.
Amazing how fast NASA can develop new technology.
Its a good thing they aren't relying on private industry like SpaceX which can make comparable rockets for 1/100 of the cost......taking three times as long and blowing up four times before they get a single launch straight.
I'm not an astronaut.
But if I were one, I'd much rather travel in a vehicle that was designed and built by people who know what they're doing (even if at elevated cost) such that the first test launch was a success right there.
Because that indicates proper engineering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902981</id>
	<title>Re:Some notes regarding the launch</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1256726280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly makes a 5-segment booster's properties significantly different from a 4-segment booster with a dummy 5th segment of the same weight and shape on top? Until that fifth segment worth of propellant lights, I can't see how there can be much difference, nor how it can be much different than when the 4th segment lights, other than having a little farther to travel through the tube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly makes a 5-segment booster 's properties significantly different from a 4-segment booster with a dummy 5th segment of the same weight and shape on top ?
Until that fifth segment worth of propellant lights , I ca n't see how there can be much difference , nor how it can be much different than when the 4th segment lights , other than having a little farther to travel through the tube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly makes a 5-segment booster's properties significantly different from a 4-segment booster with a dummy 5th segment of the same weight and shape on top?
Until that fifth segment worth of propellant lights, I can't see how there can be much difference, nor how it can be much different than when the 4th segment lights, other than having a little farther to travel through the tube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904903</id>
	<title>Re:Some notes regarding the launch</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256737380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane)."</p><p>The conspiracy-theory / Popular-Mechanics / Aviatian Week reader part of me says "yeah right those were 'failed' designs, I bet the USAF is very happy with their new Aurora which they are using to fight the Jupiter moon Martians in their grand alliance against the Zeta Reticulans, or to enforce parking violations in downtown Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Either would be cool".</p><p>But then the realist-pessimist part of me says "if it would be cool, it's probably not happening, and the US military-industrial complex probably really has just been building $1000 paperclips for forty years."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" after a long string of failed designs ( X-30 , X-33 , X-34 , National Launch System , Space Launch Initiative , Orbital Space Plane ) .
" The conspiracy-theory / Popular-Mechanics / Aviatian Week reader part of me says " yeah right those were 'failed ' designs , I bet the USAF is very happy with their new Aurora which they are using to fight the Jupiter moon Martians in their grand alliance against the Zeta Reticulans , or to enforce parking violations in downtown Moose Jaw , Saskatchewan .
Either would be cool " .But then the realist-pessimist part of me says " if it would be cool , it 's probably not happening , and the US military-industrial complex probably really has just been building $ 1000 paperclips for forty years .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane).
"The conspiracy-theory / Popular-Mechanics / Aviatian Week reader part of me says "yeah right those were 'failed' designs, I bet the USAF is very happy with their new Aurora which they are using to fight the Jupiter moon Martians in their grand alliance against the Zeta Reticulans, or to enforce parking violations in downtown Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
Either would be cool".But then the realist-pessimist part of me says "if it would be cool, it's probably not happening, and the US military-industrial complex probably really has just been building $1000 paperclips for forty years.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899431</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1256753760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was no rocket attached to the simulator and hence no method to stabalize it's flight, at least that I what I assumed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no rocket attached to the simulator and hence no method to stabalize it 's flight , at least that I what I assumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no rocket attached to the simulator and hence no method to stabalize it's flight, at least that I what I assumed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900055</id>
	<title>Congrats NASA</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1256755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did Bolden even bother to be on hand for this?</p><p>It's flight hardware now.  Can't call it a 'boondoggle' or whatever media-speak they had been using.  That much more poisonous a pill to swallow when they kill it.</p><p>Also, the 'thrust oscillation' theory is on it's last leg.  The 5 segment ATK ground test showed no threatening oscillation.  This launch won't either.  Won't stop any of you from prattling on about it, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did Bolden even bother to be on hand for this ? It 's flight hardware now .
Ca n't call it a 'boondoggle ' or whatever media-speak they had been using .
That much more poisonous a pill to swallow when they kill it.Also , the 'thrust oscillation ' theory is on it 's last leg .
The 5 segment ATK ground test showed no threatening oscillation .
This launch wo n't either .
Wo n't stop any of you from prattling on about it , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did Bolden even bother to be on hand for this?It's flight hardware now.
Can't call it a 'boondoggle' or whatever media-speak they had been using.
That much more poisonous a pill to swallow when they kill it.Also, the 'thrust oscillation' theory is on it's last leg.
The 5 segment ATK ground test showed no threatening oscillation.
This launch won't either.
Won't stop any of you from prattling on about it, however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900255</id>
	<title>Looked like a fight to me</title>
	<author>elkto</author>
	<datestamp>1256756820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The positive: Judging from the downward looking onboard camera, the vibrations and oscillations I was expecting were minimal at best. Great job!
<br>
BUT: The first part of the flight looked like a fight between the booster and the attitude control system. It was some time before the booster settled down. I could see a couple guys talking about it in the launch room. An absolutely visible cant to the bird. Probably gave the RSO the jitters!
<br>
Separation: Gads, the booster swung around as planned due to the rockets firing, but the top stage swung around just as quickly. Certainly would want data on that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The positive : Judging from the downward looking onboard camera , the vibrations and oscillations I was expecting were minimal at best .
Great job !
BUT : The first part of the flight looked like a fight between the booster and the attitude control system .
It was some time before the booster settled down .
I could see a couple guys talking about it in the launch room .
An absolutely visible cant to the bird .
Probably gave the RSO the jitters !
Separation : Gads , the booster swung around as planned due to the rockets firing , but the top stage swung around just as quickly .
Certainly would want data on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The positive: Judging from the downward looking onboard camera, the vibrations and oscillations I was expecting were minimal at best.
Great job!
BUT: The first part of the flight looked like a fight between the booster and the attitude control system.
It was some time before the booster settled down.
I could see a couple guys talking about it in the launch room.
An absolutely visible cant to the bird.
Probably gave the RSO the jitters!
Separation: Gads, the booster swung around as planned due to the rockets firing, but the top stage swung around just as quickly.
Certainly would want data on that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899743</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>isaac338</author>
	<datestamp>1256754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok here is my question...</p><p>They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades? Huh? Progress? I will gladly be corrected, but it just seems to me that this is a step backwards in comparison to the stuff that they were doing before...</p></div><p>Russia has NOT been launching Atlas rockets for decades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok here is my question...They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades ?
Huh ? Progress ?
I will gladly be corrected , but it just seems to me that this is a step backwards in comparison to the stuff that they were doing before...Russia has NOT been launching Atlas rockets for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok here is my question...They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades?
Huh? Progress?
I will gladly be corrected, but it just seems to me that this is a step backwards in comparison to the stuff that they were doing before...Russia has NOT been launching Atlas rockets for decades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900327</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off, as others have indicated there was no second stage, so what happened here isn't anything like what would happen with a manned capsule. Secondly... you think they're kidding when they do that whole "spinning in 3 axis" simulation thing? It's hardly ideal but astronauts are trained to deal with the situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , as others have indicated there was no second stage , so what happened here is n't anything like what would happen with a manned capsule .
Secondly... you think they 're kidding when they do that whole " spinning in 3 axis " simulation thing ?
It 's hardly ideal but astronauts are trained to deal with the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, as others have indicated there was no second stage, so what happened here isn't anything like what would happen with a manned capsule.
Secondly... you think they're kidding when they do that whole "spinning in 3 axis" simulation thing?
It's hardly ideal but astronauts are trained to deal with the situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899757</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1256754900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US has been doing it for decades too. But new rocket designs are <i>always</i> at least a bit dicey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has been doing it for decades too .
But new rocket designs are always at least a bit dicey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has been doing it for decades too.
But new rocket designs are always at least a bit dicey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899547</id>
	<title>Re:Test flight examination?</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1256754120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will probably do all that, but the big thing in this flight was to characterize the structural dynamics -frequencies and amount of the flexing of the structure. They did that by doing programmed attitude changes that put forces on the structure, and then use accelerometers and gyros to see how much flex there was, at what frequencies it happens, and how quickly it damped out. Those things are all critical for both stress analysis, and control system design.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will probably do all that , but the big thing in this flight was to characterize the structural dynamics -frequencies and amount of the flexing of the structure .
They did that by doing programmed attitude changes that put forces on the structure , and then use accelerometers and gyros to see how much flex there was , at what frequencies it happens , and how quickly it damped out .
Those things are all critical for both stress analysis , and control system design .
        Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will probably do all that, but the big thing in this flight was to characterize the structural dynamics -frequencies and amount of the flexing of the structure.
They did that by doing programmed attitude changes that put forces on the structure, and then use accelerometers and gyros to see how much flex there was, at what frequencies it happens, and how quickly it damped out.
Those things are all critical for both stress analysis, and control system design.
        Brett</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904019</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256732100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and it looked smoother than we may have expected. No obvious pogo-ing, for example.</p></div><p>Pogo is a phenomenon of liquid fueled rockets. I understand it's an up/down oscillation that feedbacks into the inlet pressure for a turbopump. Thrust oscillation is a low frequency (around 15 hertz IIRC) vibration due to resonance of some sort of eddies in the exhaust chamber of the solid rocket motor (SRM) first stage. It should become more pronounced as the propellant in the SRM is used up. The related problem with the Ares I-X setup is that the mass of the fifth segment is inert, hence, we shouldn't see the full effects of thrust oscillation with this prototype.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and it looked smoother than we may have expected .
No obvious pogo-ing , for example.Pogo is a phenomenon of liquid fueled rockets .
I understand it 's an up/down oscillation that feedbacks into the inlet pressure for a turbopump .
Thrust oscillation is a low frequency ( around 15 hertz IIRC ) vibration due to resonance of some sort of eddies in the exhaust chamber of the solid rocket motor ( SRM ) first stage .
It should become more pronounced as the propellant in the SRM is used up .
The related problem with the Ares I-X setup is that the mass of the fifth segment is inert , hence , we should n't see the full effects of thrust oscillation with this prototype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it looked smoother than we may have expected.
No obvious pogo-ing, for example.Pogo is a phenomenon of liquid fueled rockets.
I understand it's an up/down oscillation that feedbacks into the inlet pressure for a turbopump.
Thrust oscillation is a low frequency (around 15 hertz IIRC) vibration due to resonance of some sort of eddies in the exhaust chamber of the solid rocket motor (SRM) first stage.
It should become more pronounced as the propellant in the SRM is used up.
The related problem with the Ares I-X setup is that the mass of the fifth segment is inert, hence, we shouldn't see the full effects of thrust oscillation with this prototype.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900385</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1256757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want everyone on Slashdot to send me the entire contents of their bank account. In return, I solemnly swear I will spend almost all of it on trying to create a handheld device capable of diagnosing cancer. It would clearly be of great benefit to the human race. What? What's that? But it's <b>for science!</b> Are you against progress, you knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnon barbarian? How could you be against it if it's <b>for science!</b>?<br> <br>
It's just welfare for people who drink expensive bourbon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want everyone on Slashdot to send me the entire contents of their bank account .
In return , I solemnly swear I will spend almost all of it on trying to create a handheld device capable of diagnosing cancer .
It would clearly be of great benefit to the human race .
What ? What 's that ?
But it 's for science !
Are you against progress , you knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnon barbarian ?
How could you be against it if it 's for science ! ?
It 's just welfare for people who drink expensive bourbon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want everyone on Slashdot to send me the entire contents of their bank account.
In return, I solemnly swear I will spend almost all of it on trying to create a handheld device capable of diagnosing cancer.
It would clearly be of great benefit to the human race.
What? What's that?
But it's for science!
Are you against progress, you knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnon barbarian?
How could you be against it if it's for science!?
It's just welfare for people who drink expensive bourbon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899257</id>
	<title>But it wasn't as cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the guy in the background of the control room that did the sad wee celebratory dance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the guy in the background of the control room that did the sad wee celebratory dance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the guy in the background of the control room that did the sad wee celebratory dance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901921</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>ianare</author>
	<datestamp>1256720880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The newly discovered continent has all manner of valuable and exotic fruits, vegetables and animals. The savages living there are in need of being converted to christianity and having their gold and silver plundered. There is trading to be done. There is rich farmland and vast unexplored forests teeming with game. Why it's a whole new world (tm), and ours for the taking!</p><p>vs.</p><p>We can spend billions of dollars to send no more than 4 people to a barren, desolate place where they will die almost instantly if there are any problems with their complex and expensive life support equipment. In return we get invaluable scientific knowledge and practical experience in living under such conditions.</p><p>I ask you - which is the easier 'sell' to the public?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The newly discovered continent has all manner of valuable and exotic fruits , vegetables and animals .
The savages living there are in need of being converted to christianity and having their gold and silver plundered .
There is trading to be done .
There is rich farmland and vast unexplored forests teeming with game .
Why it 's a whole new world ( tm ) , and ours for the taking ! vs.We can spend billions of dollars to send no more than 4 people to a barren , desolate place where they will die almost instantly if there are any problems with their complex and expensive life support equipment .
In return we get invaluable scientific knowledge and practical experience in living under such conditions.I ask you - which is the easier 'sell ' to the public ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The newly discovered continent has all manner of valuable and exotic fruits, vegetables and animals.
The savages living there are in need of being converted to christianity and having their gold and silver plundered.
There is trading to be done.
There is rich farmland and vast unexplored forests teeming with game.
Why it's a whole new world (tm), and ours for the taking!vs.We can spend billions of dollars to send no more than 4 people to a barren, desolate place where they will die almost instantly if there are any problems with their complex and expensive life support equipment.
In return we get invaluable scientific knowledge and practical experience in living under such conditions.I ask you - which is the easier 'sell' to the public?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905179</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>jayteedee</author>
	<datestamp>1256739540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They need a clean, non-rotational separation before the second stage engine fires and can fully stabilize the flight path"</p><p>There is no such thing as a clean, non-rotational separation during a staging event.  ALL vehicle I have ever worked on have rather dramatic forces, both linear and rotational, acting on both stages during a sep.  Some of the cleanest are using linear shape charges to explosively cut the metal holding the stages together, but other systems such as V-Bands and pneumatic pistons have all been tried and have their own problems.  And even if the sep systems doesn't impart energy, there is always the aero load.  These birds are typically unstable during a sep.  Think heavy fuel, located at rear of vehicle - wrong end.  It was always a race to warm up the engines (about 0.5 to 2 seconds) and slew the TVC (have to wait to clear the interstage) and catch the vehicle before it tumbled.</p><p>And yes, I am a rocket scientist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They need a clean , non-rotational separation before the second stage engine fires and can fully stabilize the flight path " There is no such thing as a clean , non-rotational separation during a staging event .
ALL vehicle I have ever worked on have rather dramatic forces , both linear and rotational , acting on both stages during a sep. Some of the cleanest are using linear shape charges to explosively cut the metal holding the stages together , but other systems such as V-Bands and pneumatic pistons have all been tried and have their own problems .
And even if the sep systems does n't impart energy , there is always the aero load .
These birds are typically unstable during a sep. Think heavy fuel , located at rear of vehicle - wrong end .
It was always a race to warm up the engines ( about 0.5 to 2 seconds ) and slew the TVC ( have to wait to clear the interstage ) and catch the vehicle before it tumbled.And yes , I am a rocket scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They need a clean, non-rotational separation before the second stage engine fires and can fully stabilize the flight path"There is no such thing as a clean, non-rotational separation during a staging event.
ALL vehicle I have ever worked on have rather dramatic forces, both linear and rotational, acting on both stages during a sep.  Some of the cleanest are using linear shape charges to explosively cut the metal holding the stages together, but other systems such as V-Bands and pneumatic pistons have all been tried and have their own problems.
And even if the sep systems doesn't impart energy, there is always the aero load.
These birds are typically unstable during a sep.  Think heavy fuel, located at rear of vehicle - wrong end.
It was always a race to warm up the engines (about 0.5 to 2 seconds) and slew the TVC (have to wait to clear the interstage) and catch the vehicle before it tumbled.And yes, I am a rocket scientist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900643</id>
	<title>Re:Are the problems with Ares resolved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I originally understood the Ares rocket to be based around (somewhat outdated) solid propellant technology, meaning the the boosters can't be shut-down, controlled properly once lit, and suffer from severe resonance of the structure of the rocket from combustion instability of the solid propellant.</p> </div><p>You forgot to add: and are cheaper and simpler than liquid rockets.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As for solid propellant itself, this is a total nightmare - voids in the propellant, controlling grain size, differences in batch quality, effect of temperature, and binding of the propellant to inhibitors, insulation materials, and coatings.</p> </div><p>No.  You're living in the past.  Primarily due to vast amounts of money put into solid-fuel rocket technology development by the military (for long-storage, launch-on-short-notice ICBMs, and for surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles), solids are very far down the learning curve.  Their reliability record is just as good as liquids, and they're much simpler-- basically, light and go.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>These sort of problems effectively make it impossible to 'man rate' this type of booster (at least without unacceptable risks - although I'm sure the politicos will protest at such engineering assessments!).</p></div><p>No.  Again, solids have a launch reliability record that's pretty much equal to the reliability of liquids.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I was wondering if anyone knows if NASA has redesigned the Ares around more modern style staged combustion engines that use a liquid propellant, so that it will actually be safe for manned missions?</p></div><p>You seem to have the misapprehension that liquids are "more modern" than solids.  This is not the case.  Their development has been roughly comparable.  In fact, it's barely recalled anymore, but the "Jet Propulsion" for which the "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" originally got its name was in developing this fuel technology for World-War 2 JATO boosters.
</p><p>The Ares-1 has a solid motor for the first stage-- simple, high thrust, low cost-- and a liquid motor for the second-- more expensive, better performance but lower thrust.  This makes engineering sense; you want the liquid on top (where weight is most important), and the solid on the bottom (where thrust is most important).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I originally understood the Ares rocket to be based around ( somewhat outdated ) solid propellant technology , meaning the the boosters ca n't be shut-down , controlled properly once lit , and suffer from severe resonance of the structure of the rocket from combustion instability of the solid propellant .
You forgot to add : and are cheaper and simpler than liquid rockets .
As for solid propellant itself , this is a total nightmare - voids in the propellant , controlling grain size , differences in batch quality , effect of temperature , and binding of the propellant to inhibitors , insulation materials , and coatings .
No. You 're living in the past .
Primarily due to vast amounts of money put into solid-fuel rocket technology development by the military ( for long-storage , launch-on-short-notice ICBMs , and for surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles ) , solids are very far down the learning curve .
Their reliability record is just as good as liquids , and they 're much simpler-- basically , light and go .
These sort of problems effectively make it impossible to 'man rate ' this type of booster ( at least without unacceptable risks - although I 'm sure the politicos will protest at such engineering assessments ! ) .No .
Again , solids have a launch reliability record that 's pretty much equal to the reliability of liquids.I was wondering if anyone knows if NASA has redesigned the Ares around more modern style staged combustion engines that use a liquid propellant , so that it will actually be safe for manned missions ? You seem to have the misapprehension that liquids are " more modern " than solids .
This is not the case .
Their development has been roughly comparable .
In fact , it 's barely recalled anymore , but the " Jet Propulsion " for which the " Jet Propulsion Laboratory " originally got its name was in developing this fuel technology for World-War 2 JATO boosters .
The Ares-1 has a solid motor for the first stage-- simple , high thrust , low cost-- and a liquid motor for the second-- more expensive , better performance but lower thrust .
This makes engineering sense ; you want the liquid on top ( where weight is most important ) , and the solid on the bottom ( where thrust is most important ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I originally understood the Ares rocket to be based around (somewhat outdated) solid propellant technology, meaning the the boosters can't be shut-down, controlled properly once lit, and suffer from severe resonance of the structure of the rocket from combustion instability of the solid propellant.
You forgot to add: and are cheaper and simpler than liquid rockets.
As for solid propellant itself, this is a total nightmare - voids in the propellant, controlling grain size, differences in batch quality, effect of temperature, and binding of the propellant to inhibitors, insulation materials, and coatings.
No.  You're living in the past.
Primarily due to vast amounts of money put into solid-fuel rocket technology development by the military (for long-storage, launch-on-short-notice ICBMs, and for surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles), solids are very far down the learning curve.
Their reliability record is just as good as liquids, and they're much simpler-- basically, light and go.
These sort of problems effectively make it impossible to 'man rate' this type of booster (at least without unacceptable risks - although I'm sure the politicos will protest at such engineering assessments!).No.
Again, solids have a launch reliability record that's pretty much equal to the reliability of liquids.I was wondering if anyone knows if NASA has redesigned the Ares around more modern style staged combustion engines that use a liquid propellant, so that it will actually be safe for manned missions?You seem to have the misapprehension that liquids are "more modern" than solids.
This is not the case.
Their development has been roughly comparable.
In fact, it's barely recalled anymore, but the "Jet Propulsion" for which the "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" originally got its name was in developing this fuel technology for World-War 2 JATO boosters.
The Ares-1 has a solid motor for the first stage-- simple, high thrust, low cost-- and a liquid motor for the second-- more expensive, better performance but lower thrust.
This makes engineering sense; you want the liquid on top (where weight is most important), and the solid on the bottom (where thrust is most important).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901525</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256762340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's supposed to tumble. How the hell do you think the escape system on the capsule would save you otherwise? Someone said it's complicated. I watched the NASA channel a couple of days ago and saw the simulation. The real thing looks pretty much the same to me. You want to make sure it separates like that in an emergency. The Apollo program had much the same thing. The front section was just a dummy load much like Saturn 1 had.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn\_I" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn\_I</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Read. The first four Saturn 1's were sub orbital.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's supposed to tumble .
How the hell do you think the escape system on the capsule would save you otherwise ?
Someone said it 's complicated .
I watched the NASA channel a couple of days ago and saw the simulation .
The real thing looks pretty much the same to me .
You want to make sure it separates like that in an emergency .
The Apollo program had much the same thing .
The front section was just a dummy load much like Saturn 1 had.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn \ _I [ wikipedia.org ] Read .
The first four Saturn 1 's were sub orbital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's supposed to tumble.
How the hell do you think the escape system on the capsule would save you otherwise?
Someone said it's complicated.
I watched the NASA channel a couple of days ago and saw the simulation.
The real thing looks pretty much the same to me.
You want to make sure it separates like that in an emergency.
The Apollo program had much the same thing.
The front section was just a dummy load much like Saturn 1 had.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn\_I [wikipedia.org]Read.
The first four Saturn 1's were sub orbital.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904069</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one,</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1256732460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd blame the use of cryogenic fuel for Columbia. That's where the icing came from, and without the LH2 and LOX there would be no need for the exterior insulation.</p><p>I agree with you on the legacy components angle 100\%, though.  Appointing a former Thiokol exec to determine what the new transport should look like and being surprised it uses shuttle style SRBs are not compatible actions. I'd have preferred a ground up approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd blame the use of cryogenic fuel for Columbia .
That 's where the icing came from , and without the LH2 and LOX there would be no need for the exterior insulation.I agree with you on the legacy components angle 100 \ % , though .
Appointing a former Thiokol exec to determine what the new transport should look like and being surprised it uses shuttle style SRBs are not compatible actions .
I 'd have preferred a ground up approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd blame the use of cryogenic fuel for Columbia.
That's where the icing came from, and without the LH2 and LOX there would be no need for the exterior insulation.I agree with you on the legacy components angle 100\%, though.
Appointing a former Thiokol exec to determine what the new transport should look like and being surprised it uses shuttle style SRBs are not compatible actions.
I'd have preferred a ground up approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900309</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'm jealous too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm jealous too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm jealous too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900971</id>
	<title>Re:What happened during stage separation?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We like to rag on NASA, but if this is really a an under-3-year project, who am I to cast stones?</p></div><p>It could have been a man-rated Delta IV Heavy. Opportunity cost is why I continue to rag on NASA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We like to rag on NASA , but if this is really a an under-3-year project , who am I to cast stones ? It could have been a man-rated Delta IV Heavy .
Opportunity cost is why I continue to rag on NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We like to rag on NASA, but if this is really a an under-3-year project, who am I to cast stones?It could have been a man-rated Delta IV Heavy.
Opportunity cost is why I continue to rag on NASA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902845</id>
	<title>Telemetry Issues...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1256725560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the <a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/status.html" title="spaceflightnow.com">Mission Status Log</a> [spaceflightnow.com] on Spaceflightnow.com there appeared to be some telemetry acquisition issues as late as t + 6:30 (min:sec) mission elapsed time. I am not sure how the launch vehicle was designed or what it's asset acquisition profile was supposed to look like, however, for Atlas V and Delta IV launches I know that acquisition and vehicle state data can start dumping to ground resources at least as early as t + 100 sec (with lag of course). Does anyone know if this test launch was designed with a full communications package on board, or whether or not the Ares acquisition profile is designed to fly this long without a telemetry dump to the ground? It seems very dubious to me and, if it is an error, it is a major one. Having a launch vehicle fail to establish a proper data connection with ground assets for ~5:00 + minutes could mean anything from an incorrect roll attitude to a power system failure to software state failure.
<br> <br>
If the telemetry acquisition timing wasn't planned for or accounted for, I would say that the Ares team has some major debugging to do, which, of course, means some extra time and money =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Mission Status Log [ spaceflightnow.com ] on Spaceflightnow.com there appeared to be some telemetry acquisition issues as late as t + 6 : 30 ( min : sec ) mission elapsed time .
I am not sure how the launch vehicle was designed or what it 's asset acquisition profile was supposed to look like , however , for Atlas V and Delta IV launches I know that acquisition and vehicle state data can start dumping to ground resources at least as early as t + 100 sec ( with lag of course ) .
Does anyone know if this test launch was designed with a full communications package on board , or whether or not the Ares acquisition profile is designed to fly this long without a telemetry dump to the ground ?
It seems very dubious to me and , if it is an error , it is a major one .
Having a launch vehicle fail to establish a proper data connection with ground assets for ~ 5 : 00 + minutes could mean anything from an incorrect roll attitude to a power system failure to software state failure .
If the telemetry acquisition timing was n't planned for or accounted for , I would say that the Ares team has some major debugging to do , which , of course , means some extra time and money = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Mission Status Log [spaceflightnow.com] on Spaceflightnow.com there appeared to be some telemetry acquisition issues as late as t + 6:30 (min:sec) mission elapsed time.
I am not sure how the launch vehicle was designed or what it's asset acquisition profile was supposed to look like, however, for Atlas V and Delta IV launches I know that acquisition and vehicle state data can start dumping to ground resources at least as early as t + 100 sec (with lag of course).
Does anyone know if this test launch was designed with a full communications package on board, or whether or not the Ares acquisition profile is designed to fly this long without a telemetry dump to the ground?
It seems very dubious to me and, if it is an error, it is a major one.
Having a launch vehicle fail to establish a proper data connection with ground assets for ~5:00 + minutes could mean anything from an incorrect roll attitude to a power system failure to software state failure.
If the telemetry acquisition timing wasn't planned for or accounted for, I would say that the Ares team has some major debugging to do, which, of course, means some extra time and money =)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901023</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, the liftoff was NASA's <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/397615main\_200910280001HQ\_full.jpg" title="nasa.gov">Image of the Day</a> [nasa.gov] (full sized image linked). The Image of the Day page is <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html" title="nasa.gov">here</a> [nasa.gov]. Two more images of the day of the Aries:</p><p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/397262main\_200910260007HQ\_full.jpg" title="nasa.gov">Ares I-X at the Launch Pad</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/396717main\_2009-4805\_full.jpg" title="nasa.gov">Building the Aries</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>There are sure to be more pictures of Aries the rest of the week. That site has some amazing photos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the liftoff was NASA 's Image of the Day [ nasa.gov ] ( full sized image linked ) .
The Image of the Day page is here [ nasa.gov ] .
Two more images of the day of the Aries : Ares I-X at the Launch Pad [ nasa.gov ] Building the Aries [ nasa.gov ] There are sure to be more pictures of Aries the rest of the week .
That site has some amazing photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the liftoff was NASA's Image of the Day [nasa.gov] (full sized image linked).
The Image of the Day page is here [nasa.gov].
Two more images of the day of the Aries:Ares I-X at the Launch Pad [nasa.gov]Building the Aries [nasa.gov]There are sure to be more pictures of Aries the rest of the week.
That site has some amazing photos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>SerpentMage</author>
	<datestamp>1256754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok here is my question...</p><p>They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades? Huh? Progress? I will gladly be corrected, but it just seems to me that this is a step backwards in comparison to the stuff that they were doing before...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok here is my question...They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades ?
Huh ? Progress ?
I will gladly be corrected , but it just seems to me that this is a step backwards in comparison to the stuff that they were doing before.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok here is my question...They are excited about things that other countries like Russia have been doing for decades?
Huh? Progress?
I will gladly be corrected, but it just seems to me that this is a step backwards in comparison to the stuff that they were doing before...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>ausoleil</author>
	<datestamp>1256754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The booster is supposed to tumble after separation, that is its design.  Look at its closest twin, the Shuttle SRBs, and you will notice that they tumble immediately after they are separated.</p><p>That is by design.  On the shuttle,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,illiseconds after SRB separation, 16 solid-fueled separation motors, four in the forward section of each SRB and four in the aft skirt of each SRB, are fired for just over one second to help carry the SRB's away from the rest of the Shuttle. Each of the separation motors can produce a thrust of about 22,000 pounds.</p><p>The SRB's continue to ascend in a slow, tumbling motion for about 75 seconds after SRB separation, to a maximum altitude of about 220,000 feet. The SRB's then begin to quickly fall toward the Atlantic Ocean.</p><p>The Ares SRB derivative uses a very similar system.  That in mind, 1st stage tumbling is okay.</p><p>As for second stage tumbling, that was almost certainly due to being an unpowered can, for all intents and purposes.  While the mockup used in today's flight has the same mass and aerodynamic shape as the real thing, it does not have thrust.</p><p>There may also have been some contact, and it is there that something could well be learned.  Could be that a stronger retro motor is needed on the second stage coupled with a stronger sep motor on the 2nd.  That will come out in the reports that will be filed later.</p><p>This was a test, after all, and a good one: it proved that Ares can fly.  It flew quite well for some time, and it looked smoother than we may have expected.  No obvious pogo-ing, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The booster is supposed to tumble after separation , that is its design .
Look at its closest twin , the Shuttle SRBs , and you will notice that they tumble immediately after they are separated.That is by design .
On the shuttle , ,illiseconds after SRB separation , 16 solid-fueled separation motors , four in the forward section of each SRB and four in the aft skirt of each SRB , are fired for just over one second to help carry the SRB 's away from the rest of the Shuttle .
Each of the separation motors can produce a thrust of about 22,000 pounds.The SRB 's continue to ascend in a slow , tumbling motion for about 75 seconds after SRB separation , to a maximum altitude of about 220,000 feet .
The SRB 's then begin to quickly fall toward the Atlantic Ocean.The Ares SRB derivative uses a very similar system .
That in mind , 1st stage tumbling is okay.As for second stage tumbling , that was almost certainly due to being an unpowered can , for all intents and purposes .
While the mockup used in today 's flight has the same mass and aerodynamic shape as the real thing , it does not have thrust.There may also have been some contact , and it is there that something could well be learned .
Could be that a stronger retro motor is needed on the second stage coupled with a stronger sep motor on the 2nd .
That will come out in the reports that will be filed later.This was a test , after all , and a good one : it proved that Ares can fly .
It flew quite well for some time , and it looked smoother than we may have expected .
No obvious pogo-ing , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The booster is supposed to tumble after separation, that is its design.
Look at its closest twin, the Shuttle SRBs, and you will notice that they tumble immediately after they are separated.That is by design.
On the shuttle, ,illiseconds after SRB separation, 16 solid-fueled separation motors, four in the forward section of each SRB and four in the aft skirt of each SRB, are fired for just over one second to help carry the SRB's away from the rest of the Shuttle.
Each of the separation motors can produce a thrust of about 22,000 pounds.The SRB's continue to ascend in a slow, tumbling motion for about 75 seconds after SRB separation, to a maximum altitude of about 220,000 feet.
The SRB's then begin to quickly fall toward the Atlantic Ocean.The Ares SRB derivative uses a very similar system.
That in mind, 1st stage tumbling is okay.As for second stage tumbling, that was almost certainly due to being an unpowered can, for all intents and purposes.
While the mockup used in today's flight has the same mass and aerodynamic shape as the real thing, it does not have thrust.There may also have been some contact, and it is there that something could well be learned.
Could be that a stronger retro motor is needed on the second stage coupled with a stronger sep motor on the 2nd.
That will come out in the reports that will be filed later.This was a test, after all, and a good one: it proved that Ares can fly.
It flew quite well for some time, and it looked smoother than we may have expected.
No obvious pogo-ing, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900393</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did anyone else notice the separation, and the flight path of the (in the future to be occupied) simulator?  The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation.</p></div><p>I was puzzled by that as well, but it turns out that was deliberate-- the stages were designed to tumble after separation in order to increase the atmospheric drag, to bring them down closer to shore.
</p><p>From <a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091026preview/" title="spaceflightnow.com" rel="nofollow">spaceflightnow.com</a> [spaceflightnow.com]:
</p><p>[separation occurs and then] "A few seconds later, four more motors will ignite to put the first stage in a yawing tumble similar to what solid rocket boosters experience after being jettisoned during shuttle launches.
<br>
"We need that to happen so the parachutes will properly deploy," said Jon Cowart, Ares 1-X deputy mission manager. "If we don't get it spinning enough, there's always a chance they might get fouled on the rocket." "</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else notice the separation , and the flight path of the ( in the future to be occupied ) simulator ?
The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation.I was puzzled by that as well , but it turns out that was deliberate-- the stages were designed to tumble after separation in order to increase the atmospheric drag , to bring them down closer to shore .
From spaceflightnow.com [ spaceflightnow.com ] : [ separation occurs and then ] " A few seconds later , four more motors will ignite to put the first stage in a yawing tumble similar to what solid rocket boosters experience after being jettisoned during shuttle launches .
" We need that to happen so the parachutes will properly deploy , " said Jon Cowart , Ares 1-X deputy mission manager .
" If we do n't get it spinning enough , there 's always a chance they might get fouled on the rocket .
" "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else notice the separation, and the flight path of the (in the future to be occupied) simulator?
The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation.I was puzzled by that as well, but it turns out that was deliberate-- the stages were designed to tumble after separation in order to increase the atmospheric drag, to bring them down closer to shore.
From spaceflightnow.com [spaceflightnow.com]:
[separation occurs and then] "A few seconds later, four more motors will ignite to put the first stage in a yawing tumble similar to what solid rocket boosters experience after being jettisoned during shuttle launches.
"We need that to happen so the parachutes will properly deploy," said Jon Cowart, Ares 1-X deputy mission manager.
"If we don't get it spinning enough, there's always a chance they might get fouled on the rocket.
" "
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905033</id>
	<title>Re:Some notes regarding the launch</title>
	<author>Graymalkin</author>
	<datestamp>1256738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best way to explain this is with pictures so take a look at this <a href="http://www.markwaki.com/images/Close\%20Ups\%20&amp;\%20High\%20Res/ARES\%20I\%20CUTAWAY\%20HR.jpg" title="markwaki.com">Ares I cutaway</a> [markwaki.com]. A solid rocket motor does not burn from one end to the other like a candle but is instead a hollow tube of rocket fuel. An igniter mechanism in the hollow central tube ignites the fuel and it burns from the inside out. The exhaust travels down the hollow central tube to produce thrust. The thickness of the fuel walls determines how long the engine will burn and the overall length will determine the amount of thrust it produces.</p><p>With respect to a Shuttle SRB, notice from the image that the hollow center of the rocket motor isn't a simple tube but tapers in some places. This tapered shape affects how the fuel burns, since you can't adjust the flow of fuel and oxidizer with a pump in a solid rocket you throttle the thrust by changing the amount of burnable surface area. The existing Shuttle SRBs with four stages have a very particular and well known internal shape that are optimal for helping launch the Shuttle. Increasing the length of the tube means you need to change the geometry of all of the segments. This change in geometry means you have to recalculate all of the dynamics of the engine, everything from the specific mixture of the fuel to the amount of time needed to cure the binding agent will end up changing. This means data on nearly thirty years of Shuttle launches is useless for the Ares and can only help validate some portions of computer models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best way to explain this is with pictures so take a look at this Ares I cutaway [ markwaki.com ] .
A solid rocket motor does not burn from one end to the other like a candle but is instead a hollow tube of rocket fuel .
An igniter mechanism in the hollow central tube ignites the fuel and it burns from the inside out .
The exhaust travels down the hollow central tube to produce thrust .
The thickness of the fuel walls determines how long the engine will burn and the overall length will determine the amount of thrust it produces.With respect to a Shuttle SRB , notice from the image that the hollow center of the rocket motor is n't a simple tube but tapers in some places .
This tapered shape affects how the fuel burns , since you ca n't adjust the flow of fuel and oxidizer with a pump in a solid rocket you throttle the thrust by changing the amount of burnable surface area .
The existing Shuttle SRBs with four stages have a very particular and well known internal shape that are optimal for helping launch the Shuttle .
Increasing the length of the tube means you need to change the geometry of all of the segments .
This change in geometry means you have to recalculate all of the dynamics of the engine , everything from the specific mixture of the fuel to the amount of time needed to cure the binding agent will end up changing .
This means data on nearly thirty years of Shuttle launches is useless for the Ares and can only help validate some portions of computer models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best way to explain this is with pictures so take a look at this Ares I cutaway [markwaki.com].
A solid rocket motor does not burn from one end to the other like a candle but is instead a hollow tube of rocket fuel.
An igniter mechanism in the hollow central tube ignites the fuel and it burns from the inside out.
The exhaust travels down the hollow central tube to produce thrust.
The thickness of the fuel walls determines how long the engine will burn and the overall length will determine the amount of thrust it produces.With respect to a Shuttle SRB, notice from the image that the hollow center of the rocket motor isn't a simple tube but tapers in some places.
This tapered shape affects how the fuel burns, since you can't adjust the flow of fuel and oxidizer with a pump in a solid rocket you throttle the thrust by changing the amount of burnable surface area.
The existing Shuttle SRBs with four stages have a very particular and well known internal shape that are optimal for helping launch the Shuttle.
Increasing the length of the tube means you need to change the geometry of all of the segments.
This change in geometry means you have to recalculate all of the dynamics of the engine, everything from the specific mixture of the fuel to the amount of time needed to cure the binding agent will end up changing.
This means data on nearly thirty years of Shuttle launches is useless for the Ares and can only help validate some portions of computer models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906125</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tumble I get the concept for the engines.  On the video?   Are you kidding?</p><p>I've watched the space shuttle SRB separation and understand the purpose.  This looked like my kids throwing their shoes upstairs.....and hitting their mom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tumble I get the concept for the engines .
On the video ?
Are you kidding ? I 've watched the space shuttle SRB separation and understand the purpose .
This looked like my kids throwing their shoes upstairs.....and hitting their mom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tumble I get the concept for the engines.
On the video?
Are you kidding?I've watched the space shuttle SRB separation and understand the purpose.
This looked like my kids throwing their shoes upstairs.....and hitting their mom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904221</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1256733420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no restart of the second stage.  There is an air-start of the second stage, something that has proved difficult with the Space Shuttle Main Engine--hence, the J-2X engine.
<br> <br>
When the second stage is exhausted, the Ares I will still crash into the earth.  The motor on the payload is fired to achieve orbit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no restart of the second stage .
There is an air-start of the second stage , something that has proved difficult with the Space Shuttle Main Engine--hence , the J-2X engine .
When the second stage is exhausted , the Ares I will still crash into the earth .
The motor on the payload is fired to achieve orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no restart of the second stage.
There is an air-start of the second stage, something that has proved difficult with the Space Shuttle Main Engine--hence, the J-2X engine.
When the second stage is exhausted, the Ares I will still crash into the earth.
The motor on the payload is fired to achieve orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901439</id>
	<title>Re:Put Up Or Shut Up</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1256761860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's funny how you don't want NASA to go to the moon 'just to go back', but you're OK with them going to Mars 'just to go there'.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.</p></div></blockquote><p>And here, the real reason stands revealed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again.It 's funny how you do n't want NASA to go to the moon 'just to go back ' , but you 're OK with them going to Mars 'just to go there' .
    From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.And here , the real reason stands revealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again.It's funny how you don't want NASA to go to the moon 'just to go back', but you're OK with them going to Mars 'just to go there'.
  
  From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.And here, the real reason stands revealed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901713</id>
	<title>Re:What happened during stage separation?</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1256763240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed that too. I think its because the upper stage is literally a dummy and has no active control. We've known all along the design is not aerodynamically stable, so it isn't surprising it started tumbling. The same thing will likely happen with Ares 1-Y as its upper stage still has no engines, and you will have to wait till the first Ares I flight proper to see it separate 'nicely'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that too .
I think its because the upper stage is literally a dummy and has no active control .
We 've known all along the design is not aerodynamically stable , so it is n't surprising it started tumbling .
The same thing will likely happen with Ares 1-Y as its upper stage still has no engines , and you will have to wait till the first Ares I flight proper to see it separate 'nicely' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that too.
I think its because the upper stage is literally a dummy and has no active control.
We've known all along the design is not aerodynamically stable, so it isn't surprising it started tumbling.
The same thing will likely happen with Ares 1-Y as its upper stage still has no engines, and you will have to wait till the first Ares I flight proper to see it separate 'nicely'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903329</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1256727960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It appeared that not all eight of the retro-rockets fired. They were designed to slow the first stage enough to separate the two stages, before the "tumble rockets" fired. From the footage, the retro-rocket flame is visibly asymmetrical. It appeared that only a few of the retro-rockets fired on one side of the aft skirt fairing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Reviewing the <a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/081221ares1xlinedrawing.pdf" title="spaceflightnow.com">configuration</a> [spaceflightnow.com] of the Ares I-X, shows the separation and tumble motors to be assembled in two groups rather than symmetrically disposed about the skirt - given the extreme angle at which the booster was viewed from the ground, I'd <i>expect</i> it to look asymmetrical.  In fact, the video released by NASA seems to be looking right at one of the two packages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appeared that not all eight of the retro-rockets fired .
They were designed to slow the first stage enough to separate the two stages , before the " tumble rockets " fired .
From the footage , the retro-rocket flame is visibly asymmetrical .
It appeared that only a few of the retro-rockets fired on one side of the aft skirt fairing.Reviewing the configuration [ spaceflightnow.com ] of the Ares I-X , shows the separation and tumble motors to be assembled in two groups rather than symmetrically disposed about the skirt - given the extreme angle at which the booster was viewed from the ground , I 'd expect it to look asymmetrical .
In fact , the video released by NASA seems to be looking right at one of the two packages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appeared that not all eight of the retro-rockets fired.
They were designed to slow the first stage enough to separate the two stages, before the "tumble rockets" fired.
From the footage, the retro-rocket flame is visibly asymmetrical.
It appeared that only a few of the retro-rockets fired on one side of the aft skirt fairing.Reviewing the configuration [spaceflightnow.com] of the Ares I-X, shows the separation and tumble motors to be assembled in two groups rather than symmetrically disposed about the skirt - given the extreme angle at which the booster was viewed from the ground, I'd expect it to look asymmetrical.
In fact, the video released by NASA seems to be looking right at one of the two packages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906273</id>
	<title>Re:Some notes regarding the launch</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1256747880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For all its faults, it's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA, as its the first new launch vehicle design they've attempted to launch in 30 years, after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane). Actually, now that I think about it, the DC-X [wikipedia.org] successfully launched, although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to (and canceled by) NASA.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Usually, NASA stops developing something because Congress cuts its budget and it becomes a choice between funding something you <b>know</b> you can fly right now, or fund something in the development pipeline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all its faults , it 's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA , as its the first new launch vehicle design they 've attempted to launch in 30 years , after a long string of failed designs ( X-30 , X-33 , X-34 , National Launch System , Space Launch Initiative , Orbital Space Plane ) .
Actually , now that I think about it , the DC-X [ wikipedia.org ] successfully launched , although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to ( and canceled by ) NASA .
Usually , NASA stops developing something because Congress cuts its budget and it becomes a choice between funding something you know you can fly right now , or fund something in the development pipeline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all its faults, it's still worth noting that this is somewhat of an accomplishment for NASA, as its the first new launch vehicle design they've attempted to launch in 30 years, after a long string of failed designs (X-30, X-33, X-34, National Launch System, Space Launch Initiative, Orbital Space Plane).
Actually, now that I think about it, the DC-X [wikipedia.org] successfully launched, although I suppose that was constructed by McDonnell Douglas for the DOD before it was transferred to (and canceled by) NASA.
Usually, NASA stops developing something because Congress cuts its budget and it becomes a choice between funding something you know you can fly right now, or fund something in the development pipeline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256759580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an aerospace engineer - I work on planes, but the concepts are familiar and common.</p><p>The upper stage DID tumble immediately. The other three aerospace engineers and test pilots watching with me also immediately said "That didn't look right."</p><p>The high-zoom ground tracking camera and onboard cameras showed it much better during the replays, where it's clear the separation wasn't as clean as it should have been. But it did not look like the stages hit each other.</p><p>It appeared that not all eight of the retro-rockets fired. They were designed to slow the first stage enough to separate the two stages, before the "tumble rockets" fired. From the footage, the retro-rocket flame is visibly asymmetrical. It appeared that only a few of the retro-rockets fired on one side of the aft skirt fairing. As a result, I suspect that the initial separation was not purely fore-aft, but included a healthy rotational component which nudged the second "dummy" stage in a similar slow tumble.</p><p>Some comments on this board say "no worries"; the second stage was just an unpowered dummy mass, and the tumble would have been stopped by the final design's engine. Not completely true. They need a clean, non-rotational separation before the second stage engine fires and can fully stabilize the flight path. So the tumble will DEFINITELY concern the engineers.</p><p>Finally, don't worry too much about the onboard cameras cutting in and out. Speaking from personal experience in the flight test industry, telemetry is no trivial matter, and downlinking gigabits/sec of data and video is no small feat. Minor mis-alignments in antenna angle can cause momentary signal dropout. Strong jolts (stage burnout, etc.) can also jostle wiring and cause interruptions.</p><p>Despite this tumble, the flight appeared to be overall a great success. As the launch director noted to his crew shortly after the flight, the only real delays on the first launch of a very complicated test vehicle were weather-induced (plus the small matter of a fabric probe cover sock that snagged on something yesterday). All in all, I'm quite impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an aerospace engineer - I work on planes , but the concepts are familiar and common.The upper stage DID tumble immediately .
The other three aerospace engineers and test pilots watching with me also immediately said " That did n't look right .
" The high-zoom ground tracking camera and onboard cameras showed it much better during the replays , where it 's clear the separation was n't as clean as it should have been .
But it did not look like the stages hit each other.It appeared that not all eight of the retro-rockets fired .
They were designed to slow the first stage enough to separate the two stages , before the " tumble rockets " fired .
From the footage , the retro-rocket flame is visibly asymmetrical .
It appeared that only a few of the retro-rockets fired on one side of the aft skirt fairing .
As a result , I suspect that the initial separation was not purely fore-aft , but included a healthy rotational component which nudged the second " dummy " stage in a similar slow tumble.Some comments on this board say " no worries " ; the second stage was just an unpowered dummy mass , and the tumble would have been stopped by the final design 's engine .
Not completely true .
They need a clean , non-rotational separation before the second stage engine fires and can fully stabilize the flight path .
So the tumble will DEFINITELY concern the engineers.Finally , do n't worry too much about the onboard cameras cutting in and out .
Speaking from personal experience in the flight test industry , telemetry is no trivial matter , and downlinking gigabits/sec of data and video is no small feat .
Minor mis-alignments in antenna angle can cause momentary signal dropout .
Strong jolts ( stage burnout , etc .
) can also jostle wiring and cause interruptions.Despite this tumble , the flight appeared to be overall a great success .
As the launch director noted to his crew shortly after the flight , the only real delays on the first launch of a very complicated test vehicle were weather-induced ( plus the small matter of a fabric probe cover sock that snagged on something yesterday ) .
All in all , I 'm quite impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an aerospace engineer - I work on planes, but the concepts are familiar and common.The upper stage DID tumble immediately.
The other three aerospace engineers and test pilots watching with me also immediately said "That didn't look right.
"The high-zoom ground tracking camera and onboard cameras showed it much better during the replays, where it's clear the separation wasn't as clean as it should have been.
But it did not look like the stages hit each other.It appeared that not all eight of the retro-rockets fired.
They were designed to slow the first stage enough to separate the two stages, before the "tumble rockets" fired.
From the footage, the retro-rocket flame is visibly asymmetrical.
It appeared that only a few of the retro-rockets fired on one side of the aft skirt fairing.
As a result, I suspect that the initial separation was not purely fore-aft, but included a healthy rotational component which nudged the second "dummy" stage in a similar slow tumble.Some comments on this board say "no worries"; the second stage was just an unpowered dummy mass, and the tumble would have been stopped by the final design's engine.
Not completely true.
They need a clean, non-rotational separation before the second stage engine fires and can fully stabilize the flight path.
So the tumble will DEFINITELY concern the engineers.Finally, don't worry too much about the onboard cameras cutting in and out.
Speaking from personal experience in the flight test industry, telemetry is no trivial matter, and downlinking gigabits/sec of data and video is no small feat.
Minor mis-alignments in antenna angle can cause momentary signal dropout.
Strong jolts (stage burnout, etc.
) can also jostle wiring and cause interruptions.Despite this tumble, the flight appeared to be overall a great success.
As the launch director noted to his crew shortly after the flight, the only real delays on the first launch of a very complicated test vehicle were weather-induced (plus the small matter of a fabric probe cover sock that snagged on something yesterday).
All in all, I'm quite impressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900987</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1256759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been quite a while since the U.S. developed a new man-rated booster. In the last decades, we have learned a LOT about spacecraft. Unfortunately, what we learned is that something like the space shuttle is nowhere as maintenance free as we thought/hoped and is fantastically more expensive.</p><p>Since we can't build a Saturn V anymore (we'd have to substitute enough obsolete parts that it would be a new design anyway) and we know building a new shuttle is too expensive, it is good to see that manned spaceflight has a future in some form in the U.S.</p><p>Ares and Orion are take two on a reusable spacecraft now that we have a better idea what parts are practical to reuse and what parts aren't.</p><p>Unlike the Soyuz rocket, Ares includes reusable components. The use of solid fueled 1st stage is expected to make it safer and easier to prep for launch. Things get more interesting once the 2nd stage is ready. It may not sound like much but the engine re-start capability is a big deal.</p><p>It's not really a step backwards so much as a lateral step away from a dead-end branch that seemed like a good idea at the time. Manned space flight isn't actually out of the experimental stage yet (and certainly wasn't when the space shuttle was designed). Sometimes progress in experimental engineering looks like a step back at first glance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been quite a while since the U.S. developed a new man-rated booster .
In the last decades , we have learned a LOT about spacecraft .
Unfortunately , what we learned is that something like the space shuttle is nowhere as maintenance free as we thought/hoped and is fantastically more expensive.Since we ca n't build a Saturn V anymore ( we 'd have to substitute enough obsolete parts that it would be a new design anyway ) and we know building a new shuttle is too expensive , it is good to see that manned spaceflight has a future in some form in the U.S.Ares and Orion are take two on a reusable spacecraft now that we have a better idea what parts are practical to reuse and what parts are n't.Unlike the Soyuz rocket , Ares includes reusable components .
The use of solid fueled 1st stage is expected to make it safer and easier to prep for launch .
Things get more interesting once the 2nd stage is ready .
It may not sound like much but the engine re-start capability is a big deal.It 's not really a step backwards so much as a lateral step away from a dead-end branch that seemed like a good idea at the time .
Manned space flight is n't actually out of the experimental stage yet ( and certainly was n't when the space shuttle was designed ) .
Sometimes progress in experimental engineering looks like a step back at first glance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been quite a while since the U.S. developed a new man-rated booster.
In the last decades, we have learned a LOT about spacecraft.
Unfortunately, what we learned is that something like the space shuttle is nowhere as maintenance free as we thought/hoped and is fantastically more expensive.Since we can't build a Saturn V anymore (we'd have to substitute enough obsolete parts that it would be a new design anyway) and we know building a new shuttle is too expensive, it is good to see that manned spaceflight has a future in some form in the U.S.Ares and Orion are take two on a reusable spacecraft now that we have a better idea what parts are practical to reuse and what parts aren't.Unlike the Soyuz rocket, Ares includes reusable components.
The use of solid fueled 1st stage is expected to make it safer and easier to prep for launch.
Things get more interesting once the 2nd stage is ready.
It may not sound like much but the engine re-start capability is a big deal.It's not really a step backwards so much as a lateral step away from a dead-end branch that seemed like a good idea at the time.
Manned space flight isn't actually out of the experimental stage yet (and certainly wasn't when the space shuttle was designed).
Sometimes progress in experimental engineering looks like a step back at first glance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906489</id>
	<title>Re:NASA's priorities....?</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1256749920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't you heard of a control group?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't you heard of a control group ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't you heard of a control group?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908917</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1256824620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given the great use that Spain made of the wealth of the Indies, that may not be the best example to use.  Since you used "world exploration" I would suggest using the example of Portugal, in a complaint about how much Prince Henry "the Navigator" was "wasting" on new ship designs and the idea of sailing around Africa when one could just pay the Turks their markup for spices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the great use that Spain made of the wealth of the Indies , that may not be the best example to use .
Since you used " world exploration " I would suggest using the example of Portugal , in a complaint about how much Prince Henry " the Navigator " was " wasting " on new ship designs and the idea of sailing around Africa when one could just pay the Turks their markup for spices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the great use that Spain made of the wealth of the Indies, that may not be the best example to use.
Since you used "world exploration" I would suggest using the example of Portugal, in a complaint about how much Prince Henry "the Navigator" was "wasting" on new ship designs and the idea of sailing around Africa when one could just pay the Turks their markup for spices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899335</id>
	<title>Frickin' Fantastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well then, please allow me to be the first to say:<br> <br>"Heck yeah!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then , please allow me to be the first to say : " Heck yeah !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then, please allow me to be the first to say: "Heck yeah!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903687</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The upper stage simulator fish tailed after separation! LOL! Amazing! NASA go look at old Apollo rocket designs and look at the stage separation retro rockets! Oh wait! We need to figure out (Stall) what happened... More money for something that should have worked the first time! This is old school Apollo tech, it fish tailed, upper atmosphere air resistance, need separation retro rockets!</p><p>I solved the problem for nothing!</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The upper stage simulator fish tailed after separation !
LOL ! Amazing !
NASA go look at old Apollo rocket designs and look at the stage separation retro rockets !
Oh wait !
We need to figure out ( Stall ) what happened... More money for something that should have worked the first time !
This is old school Apollo tech , it fish tailed , upper atmosphere air resistance , need separation retro rockets ! I solved the problem for nothing !
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upper stage simulator fish tailed after separation!
LOL! Amazing!
NASA go look at old Apollo rocket designs and look at the stage separation retro rockets!
Oh wait!
We need to figure out (Stall) what happened... More money for something that should have worked the first time!
This is old school Apollo tech, it fish tailed, upper atmosphere air resistance, need separation retro rockets!I solved the problem for nothing!
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899975</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>Gravitron 5000</author>
	<datestamp>1256755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am just glad I was not riding in that simulator.  Did anyone else notice the separation, and the flight path of the (in the future to be occupied) simulator?  The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation.  It could have been the camera angle I suppose, but that front section should have continued on, correct?</p></div><p>The stage that they are using a simulator for is not designed yet, and hence would be quite dangerous to ride.  Why would someone assume that it would be remotely safe?  It's called a simulator for a reason.  It's pretty much just ballast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am just glad I was not riding in that simulator .
Did anyone else notice the separation , and the flight path of the ( in the future to be occupied ) simulator ?
The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation .
It could have been the camera angle I suppose , but that front section should have continued on , correct ? The stage that they are using a simulator for is not designed yet , and hence would be quite dangerous to ride .
Why would someone assume that it would be remotely safe ?
It 's called a simulator for a reason .
It 's pretty much just ballast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am just glad I was not riding in that simulator.
Did anyone else notice the separation, and the flight path of the (in the future to be occupied) simulator?
The booster and the simulator appeared to tumble after separation.
It could have been the camera angle I suppose, but that front section should have continued on, correct?The stage that they are using a simulator for is not designed yet, and hence would be quite dangerous to ride.
Why would someone assume that it would be remotely safe?
It's called a simulator for a reason.
It's pretty much just ballast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900379</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>beefnog</author>
	<datestamp>1256757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're correct that resources are badly allocated at present, but it's a fallacy to assume that simply reallocating money will fix it. You know what would happen if the US forcibly liquidated Warren Buffett? Every American would get ~$200.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're correct that resources are badly allocated at present , but it 's a fallacy to assume that simply reallocating money will fix it .
You know what would happen if the US forcibly liquidated Warren Buffett ?
Every American would get ~ $ 200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're correct that resources are badly allocated at present, but it's a fallacy to assume that simply reallocating money will fix it.
You know what would happen if the US forcibly liquidated Warren Buffett?
Every American would get ~$200.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901985</id>
	<title>Re:Frickin' Fantastic</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1256721180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Must have been wearing a Foreigner belt</htmltext>
<tokenext>Must have been wearing a Foreigner belt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must have been wearing a Foreigner belt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899563</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>agentgonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1256754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The booster was supposed to fall into a tumble to increase drag so that it wouldn't hit the upper stage simulator (which it may have done anyway). It had rocket motors attached at the base to perform this manoeuvre and you can see these firing at separation.

The upper stage simulator (USS) was unguided and little more than a lump of metal to act as the mass of the real upper stage. As such, it's not surprising that it would fall into a tumble after separation, but it seemed to do more-so than people were expecting. This is not a problem as the USS had no parachutes and landed and sank (as intended) in the Atlantic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The booster was supposed to fall into a tumble to increase drag so that it would n't hit the upper stage simulator ( which it may have done anyway ) .
It had rocket motors attached at the base to perform this manoeuvre and you can see these firing at separation .
The upper stage simulator ( USS ) was unguided and little more than a lump of metal to act as the mass of the real upper stage .
As such , it 's not surprising that it would fall into a tumble after separation , but it seemed to do more-so than people were expecting .
This is not a problem as the USS had no parachutes and landed and sank ( as intended ) in the Atlantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The booster was supposed to fall into a tumble to increase drag so that it wouldn't hit the upper stage simulator (which it may have done anyway).
It had rocket motors attached at the base to perform this manoeuvre and you can see these firing at separation.
The upper stage simulator (USS) was unguided and little more than a lump of metal to act as the mass of the real upper stage.
As such, it's not surprising that it would fall into a tumble after separation, but it seemed to do more-so than people were expecting.
This is not a problem as the USS had no parachutes and landed and sank (as intended) in the Atlantic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904035</id>
	<title>Russian vapourware</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1256732220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Russians have a huge chip on their shoulder because they lost the Cold War.  They're always making grandiose-sounding announcements, but they very rarely follow through.</p><p>They recently made a huge announcement about sending cosmonauts to Mars, but they're flat out funding their existing programs, like Angara.  They've only recently had a flight test of the Angara common booster core; and only on a "South Korean" rocket.</p><p>I'll believe it when I see it -- and by that, I mean bent metal, not press releases with delusions of grandeur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Russians have a huge chip on their shoulder because they lost the Cold War .
They 're always making grandiose-sounding announcements , but they very rarely follow through.They recently made a huge announcement about sending cosmonauts to Mars , but they 're flat out funding their existing programs , like Angara .
They 've only recently had a flight test of the Angara common booster core ; and only on a " South Korean " rocket.I 'll believe it when I see it -- and by that , I mean bent metal , not press releases with delusions of grandeur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Russians have a huge chip on their shoulder because they lost the Cold War.
They're always making grandiose-sounding announcements, but they very rarely follow through.They recently made a huge announcement about sending cosmonauts to Mars, but they're flat out funding their existing programs, like Angara.
They've only recently had a flight test of the Angara common booster core; and only on a "South Korean" rocket.I'll believe it when I see it -- and by that, I mean bent metal, not press releases with delusions of grandeur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901185</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1256760720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$17B a year is not going to make a dent in the economy or in poverty or homelessness, or climate change or anything else.  Those are the results of human nature and/or normal cycles, and fixing them is a matter of political will and good policy, not a few extra dollars.</p><p>Spending a small amount on space exploration is EXACTLY what the government exists to do -- do things that require large amounts of money (for an individual or group) with high risks and low immediate reward, but that have the potential for great reward for all of society.</p><p>And if you think $17B a year with increases less than inflation and ever new directives and goals are 'endless resources' I think you need to take a look at the scale of the federal budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 17B a year is not going to make a dent in the economy or in poverty or homelessness , or climate change or anything else .
Those are the results of human nature and/or normal cycles , and fixing them is a matter of political will and good policy , not a few extra dollars.Spending a small amount on space exploration is EXACTLY what the government exists to do -- do things that require large amounts of money ( for an individual or group ) with high risks and low immediate reward , but that have the potential for great reward for all of society.And if you think $ 17B a year with increases less than inflation and ever new directives and goals are 'endless resources ' I think you need to take a look at the scale of the federal budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$17B a year is not going to make a dent in the economy or in poverty or homelessness, or climate change or anything else.
Those are the results of human nature and/or normal cycles, and fixing them is a matter of political will and good policy, not a few extra dollars.Spending a small amount on space exploration is EXACTLY what the government exists to do -- do things that require large amounts of money (for an individual or group) with high risks and low immediate reward, but that have the potential for great reward for all of society.And if you think $17B a year with increases less than inflation and ever new directives and goals are 'endless resources' I think you need to take a look at the scale of the federal budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899609</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1256754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I hope it really was fantastic. A lot of people put a lot of time into this thing. But this thing is so politicized, I'm not holding my breath.</i></p><p>Ok, I am not a space nerd but I enjoy rockets and think they're cool to watch. That said, I watched the thing take off and it looked like any other damn rocket that has ever taken off before. Personally, while I'm glad we're retiring the Shuttle, I thought they were a whole lot fucking cooler than this rocket. I really feel like we've regressed to the 1960s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope it really was fantastic .
A lot of people put a lot of time into this thing .
But this thing is so politicized , I 'm not holding my breath.Ok , I am not a space nerd but I enjoy rockets and think they 're cool to watch .
That said , I watched the thing take off and it looked like any other damn rocket that has ever taken off before .
Personally , while I 'm glad we 're retiring the Shuttle , I thought they were a whole lot fucking cooler than this rocket .
I really feel like we 've regressed to the 1960s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope it really was fantastic.
A lot of people put a lot of time into this thing.
But this thing is so politicized, I'm not holding my breath.Ok, I am not a space nerd but I enjoy rockets and think they're cool to watch.
That said, I watched the thing take off and it looked like any other damn rocket that has ever taken off before.
Personally, while I'm glad we're retiring the Shuttle, I thought they were a whole lot fucking cooler than this rocket.
I really feel like we've regressed to the 1960s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1256754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spain is a country in which thousands of people are homeless and thousands of others live in squalor. Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is world exploration at a time like this? The New World is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider, as for us, perhaps we should get to work solving our religious struggles or feeding Africa. There is more than enough prosperity, more than enough resources in the world for everyone to have food and shelter and clean water and even leather shoes. Instead, we fund explorers and give the navy endless resources that will produce nothing of value for the average human being.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spain is a country in which thousands of people are homeless and thousands of others live in squalor .
Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is world exploration at a time like this ?
The New World is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider , as for us , perhaps we should get to work solving our religious struggles or feeding Africa .
There is more than enough prosperity , more than enough resources in the world for everyone to have food and shelter and clean water and even leather shoes .
Instead , we fund explorers and give the navy endless resources that will produce nothing of value for the average human being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spain is a country in which thousands of people are homeless and thousands of others live in squalor.
Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is world exploration at a time like this?
The New World is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider, as for us, perhaps we should get to work solving our religious struggles or feeding Africa.
There is more than enough prosperity, more than enough resources in the world for everyone to have food and shelter and clean water and even leather shoes.
Instead, we fund explorers and give the navy endless resources that will produce nothing of value for the average human being.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191</id>
	<title>I, for one,</title>
	<author>cadeon</author>
	<datestamp>1256756520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am still not a fan of the Ares design. I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters (Challenger, directly, and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration) and as such feel that it's technology which should not be used for human flight. Ares I scales up use of the solid booster- Ares V, even more.</p><p>Don't get me wrong. I love the space program. I live in Florida and have a NASA tag on my car. I'm a year-pass holder for the visitor's complex. I just think that the Ares is a really bad design, influenced by contractors trying to hold on to their existing work, and it's going to hurt everything in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am still not a fan of the Ares design .
I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters ( Challenger , directly , and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration ) and as such feel that it 's technology which should not be used for human flight .
Ares I scales up use of the solid booster- Ares V , even more.Do n't get me wrong .
I love the space program .
I live in Florida and have a NASA tag on my car .
I 'm a year-pass holder for the visitor 's complex .
I just think that the Ares is a really bad design , influenced by contractors trying to hold on to their existing work , and it 's going to hurt everything in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am still not a fan of the Ares design.
I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters (Challenger, directly, and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration) and as such feel that it's technology which should not be used for human flight.
Ares I scales up use of the solid booster- Ares V, even more.Don't get me wrong.
I love the space program.
I live in Florida and have a NASA tag on my car.
I'm a year-pass holder for the visitor's complex.
I just think that the Ares is a really bad design, influenced by contractors trying to hold on to their existing work, and it's going to hurt everything in the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</id>
	<title>Uh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256752920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may really be the case that the launch was 'frickin fantastic', but just having finished reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Moon-Rising-Sputnik-Rivalries/dp/080508858X" title="amazon.com">Red Moon Rising: Sputnik and the Hidden Rivalries that Ignited the Space Age</a> [amazon.com] I don't put a lot of faith in what the media gets wind of with regard to space technology.  This stuff is really complicated, and the general public doesn't understand that test flights going awry is not necessarily a bad thing-- so officials often put a nice veneer on the results.
<br> <br>
I hope it really was fantastic.  A lot of people put a lot of time into this thing.  But this thing is so politicized, I'm not holding my breath.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may really be the case that the launch was 'frickin fantastic ' , but just having finished reading Red Moon Rising : Sputnik and the Hidden Rivalries that Ignited the Space Age [ amazon.com ] I do n't put a lot of faith in what the media gets wind of with regard to space technology .
This stuff is really complicated , and the general public does n't understand that test flights going awry is not necessarily a bad thing-- so officials often put a nice veneer on the results .
I hope it really was fantastic .
A lot of people put a lot of time into this thing .
But this thing is so politicized , I 'm not holding my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may really be the case that the launch was 'frickin fantastic', but just having finished reading Red Moon Rising: Sputnik and the Hidden Rivalries that Ignited the Space Age [amazon.com] I don't put a lot of faith in what the media gets wind of with regard to space technology.
This stuff is really complicated, and the general public doesn't understand that test flights going awry is not necessarily a bad thing-- so officials often put a nice veneer on the results.
I hope it really was fantastic.
A lot of people put a lot of time into this thing.
But this thing is so politicized, I'm not holding my breath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902089</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am still not a fan of the Ares design. I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters (Challenger, directly, and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration) </p></div><p>You get plenty of force just from Max-Q.  The only reason that ice (not to mention insulating foam) is there in the first place is that it's a liquid booster.  The reason that the tank is huge is that liquid hydrogen is very low density, and the reason the foam is thick is that liquid hydrogen is very low temperature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am still not a fan of the Ares design .
I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters ( Challenger , directly , and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration ) You get plenty of force just from Max-Q .
The only reason that ice ( not to mention insulating foam ) is there in the first place is that it 's a liquid booster .
The reason that the tank is huge is that liquid hydrogen is very low density , and the reason the foam is thick is that liquid hydrogen is very low temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am still not a fan of the Ares design.
I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters (Challenger, directly, and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration) You get plenty of force just from Max-Q.
The only reason that ice (not to mention insulating foam) is there in the first place is that it's a liquid booster.
The reason that the tank is huge is that liquid hydrogen is very low density, and the reason the foam is thick is that liquid hydrogen is very low temperature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901297</id>
	<title>Re:Test flight examination?</title>
	<author>xkcdFan1011011101111</author>
	<datestamp>1256761260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it only took them 3 years and $10 billion to launch a modified solid rocket booster with a mass simulator on it.  Amazing how fast NASA can develop new technology.  Its a good thing they aren't relying on private industry like SpaceX which can make comparable rockets for 1/100 of the cost...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it only took them 3 years and $ 10 billion to launch a modified solid rocket booster with a mass simulator on it .
Amazing how fast NASA can develop new technology .
Its a good thing they are n't relying on private industry like SpaceX which can make comparable rockets for 1/100 of the cost.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it only took them 3 years and $10 billion to launch a modified solid rocket booster with a mass simulator on it.
Amazing how fast NASA can develop new technology.
Its a good thing they aren't relying on private industry like SpaceX which can make comparable rockets for 1/100 of the cost...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902669</id>
	<title>frickin' bad taste...</title>
	<author>maven\_johnson</author>
	<datestamp>1256724720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when was it appropriate to say "Frickin'" in any official announcement? Oh, wait.  Here it is... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2YX6FsoMIY" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2YX6FsoMIY</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when was it appropriate to say " Frickin ' " in any official announcement ?
Oh , wait .
Here it is... http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = r2YX6FsoMIY [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when was it appropriate to say "Frickin'" in any official announcement?
Oh, wait.
Here it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2YX6FsoMIY [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901857</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>raygundan</author>
	<datestamp>1256720640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We will always have the poor.</i></p><p>Not if we launch them into space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We will always have the poor.Not if we launch them into space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will always have the poor.Not if we launch them into space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900635</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1256758200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This was a test, after all, and a good one: it proved that Ares can fly. It flew quite well for some time, and it looked smoother than we may have expected. No obvious pogo-ing, for example.</p></div><p>Actually it proved that a Space Shuttle SRB coupled with Atlas V avionics and a Peacekeeper missile's roll control can fly. The Ares I is actually an entirely different vehicle with almost nothing in common with what flew today, so it unfortunately doesn't answer questions with regards to things like the pogo-ing effect you describe. I'm sure it was an interesting education experience for NASA in how to design a launch vehicle, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was a test , after all , and a good one : it proved that Ares can fly .
It flew quite well for some time , and it looked smoother than we may have expected .
No obvious pogo-ing , for example.Actually it proved that a Space Shuttle SRB coupled with Atlas V avionics and a Peacekeeper missile 's roll control can fly .
The Ares I is actually an entirely different vehicle with almost nothing in common with what flew today , so it unfortunately does n't answer questions with regards to things like the pogo-ing effect you describe .
I 'm sure it was an interesting education experience for NASA in how to design a launch vehicle , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was a test, after all, and a good one: it proved that Ares can fly.
It flew quite well for some time, and it looked smoother than we may have expected.
No obvious pogo-ing, for example.Actually it proved that a Space Shuttle SRB coupled with Atlas V avionics and a Peacekeeper missile's roll control can fly.
The Ares I is actually an entirely different vehicle with almost nothing in common with what flew today, so it unfortunately doesn't answer questions with regards to things like the pogo-ing effect you describe.
I'm sure it was an interesting education experience for NASA in how to design a launch vehicle, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905327</id>
	<title>Re:Did it really go ok?</title>
	<author>S-100</author>
	<datestamp>1256740740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awfully wishful thinking there.  The SRB's don't have a throttle control - they simply fizzle out once their fuel has been consumed.  Until then, they provide forward momentum that the second stage cannot overcome until its J2-derivative engine is fired.  Unlike the Shuttle, where the main body already has forward momentum and acceleration at SRB sep, in that case the SRB simply needs to side-step the shuttle/ET and the SRB thrust at separation is not critical.<br> <br>In this case, what we saw was that the first stage tumble motors were successful, but the tumble was insufficient to prevent contact between it and the second stage.  You have to take it on faith that had the second stage been equipped with a motor, that the motor would have been properly timed to have provided sufficient distance between the first stage at separation.  This is a much more risky setup than the shuttle, and this test did not attempt to test that scenario.  As for pogo effects, you can't see those from a remote camera, and the "solution" to the pogo problem was not to prevent pogoing, but to put a shock absorber in between the first and second stage.  Only the on-board telemetry will know if the fix is effective, and somehow I feel that NASA would be somewhat less than forthcoming to report that it didn't work as expected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awfully wishful thinking there .
The SRB 's do n't have a throttle control - they simply fizzle out once their fuel has been consumed .
Until then , they provide forward momentum that the second stage can not overcome until its J2-derivative engine is fired .
Unlike the Shuttle , where the main body already has forward momentum and acceleration at SRB sep , in that case the SRB simply needs to side-step the shuttle/ET and the SRB thrust at separation is not critical .
In this case , what we saw was that the first stage tumble motors were successful , but the tumble was insufficient to prevent contact between it and the second stage .
You have to take it on faith that had the second stage been equipped with a motor , that the motor would have been properly timed to have provided sufficient distance between the first stage at separation .
This is a much more risky setup than the shuttle , and this test did not attempt to test that scenario .
As for pogo effects , you ca n't see those from a remote camera , and the " solution " to the pogo problem was not to prevent pogoing , but to put a shock absorber in between the first and second stage .
Only the on-board telemetry will know if the fix is effective , and somehow I feel that NASA would be somewhat less than forthcoming to report that it did n't work as expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awfully wishful thinking there.
The SRB's don't have a throttle control - they simply fizzle out once their fuel has been consumed.
Until then, they provide forward momentum that the second stage cannot overcome until its J2-derivative engine is fired.
Unlike the Shuttle, where the main body already has forward momentum and acceleration at SRB sep, in that case the SRB simply needs to side-step the shuttle/ET and the SRB thrust at separation is not critical.
In this case, what we saw was that the first stage tumble motors were successful, but the tumble was insufficient to prevent contact between it and the second stage.
You have to take it on faith that had the second stage been equipped with a motor, that the motor would have been properly timed to have provided sufficient distance between the first stage at separation.
This is a much more risky setup than the shuttle, and this test did not attempt to test that scenario.
As for pogo effects, you can't see those from a remote camera, and the "solution" to the pogo problem was not to prevent pogoing, but to put a shock absorber in between the first and second stage.
Only the on-board telemetry will know if the fix is effective, and somehow I feel that NASA would be somewhat less than forthcoming to report that it didn't work as expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899493</id>
	<title>Re:Test flight examination?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The upper stage was not a real upper stage.  The capsule was a mass simulator.  The first stage was only a 4-segment booster with a mass simulator filling in the location of the 5th segment.  This flight was about aerodynamics, control authority and a test of the 1st stage recovery parachutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The upper stage was not a real upper stage .
The capsule was a mass simulator .
The first stage was only a 4-segment booster with a mass simulator filling in the location of the 5th segment .
This flight was about aerodynamics , control authority and a test of the 1st stage recovery parachutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upper stage was not a real upper stage.
The capsule was a mass simulator.
The first stage was only a 4-segment booster with a mass simulator filling in the location of the 5th segment.
This flight was about aerodynamics, control authority and a test of the 1st stage recovery parachutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901315</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256761320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's with the negative waves man? I watched it. It did exactly what they said it was supposed to. So I guess it's still criticize NASA time around here. BTW minor stuff is expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the negative waves man ?
I watched it .
It did exactly what they said it was supposed to .
So I guess it 's still criticize NASA time around here .
BTW minor stuff is expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the negative waves man?
I watched it.
It did exactly what they said it was supposed to.
So I guess it's still criticize NASA time around here.
BTW minor stuff is expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</id>
	<title>economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America is a country in which millions of people are homeless and millions of homes sit empty, unoccupied. Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is space exploration at a time like this? Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider, as for us, perhaps we should get to work cleaning the Pacific Garbage Patch or feeding Africa. There is more than enough prosperity, more than enough resources in the world for everyone to have food and shelter and clean water and even 1080p televisions. Instead, we bail out wall st. and give NASA endless resources that produce nothing of value for the average human being. The scientific triumphalism NASA represents is just modern day bread-and-circuses aimed at the Intelligentsia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America is a country in which millions of people are homeless and millions of homes sit empty , unoccupied .
Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is space exploration at a time like this ?
Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider , as for us , perhaps we should get to work cleaning the Pacific Garbage Patch or feeding Africa .
There is more than enough prosperity , more than enough resources in the world for everyone to have food and shelter and clean water and even 1080p televisions .
Instead , we bail out wall st. and give NASA endless resources that produce nothing of value for the average human being .
The scientific triumphalism NASA represents is just modern day bread-and-circuses aimed at the Intelligentsia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is a country in which millions of people are homeless and millions of homes sit empty, unoccupied.
Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is space exploration at a time like this?
Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider, as for us, perhaps we should get to work cleaning the Pacific Garbage Patch or feeding Africa.
There is more than enough prosperity, more than enough resources in the world for everyone to have food and shelter and clean water and even 1080p televisions.
Instead, we bail out wall st. and give NASA endless resources that produce nothing of value for the average human being.
The scientific triumphalism NASA represents is just modern day bread-and-circuses aimed at the Intelligentsia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902137</id>
	<title>Re:Put Up Or Shut Up</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256721900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again.</i></p><p>I hate to break this to you, but people like us are the only ones who were ever interested in science and technology. Most people couldn't care less, even when they were racing to the moon. The race itself excited people, but the science and engineering behind it didn't.</p><p><i>Also, manned missions to Mars are not "cost effective" but you can't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the "boots on the ground" of a live mission.</i></p><p>Read <i>Moon Lost</i> or see <i>Appollo 13</i> (taken from the book). EVERYBODY watched Armstrong and Aldrin land on the moon, but two missions later and it was "meh"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...at least until the spacecraft blew up and almost stranded the crew in space.</p><p><i>Sad to say, NASA, for the most part has become another government bureaucracy.</i></p><p>It was always a government bureaucracy. It's just that during the space race it was a far better funded government bureaucracy.</p><p><i>From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.</i></p><p>Yes, it was. I was 18 in 1970.</p><p><i>Too bad there were a lot of other ugly things going on at the time, (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.)</i> </p><blockquote><div><p>On June 17, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate\_scandal#Break-in" title="wikipedia.org">1972,</a> [wikipedia.org] Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate Complex, noticed tape covering the latch on locks on several doors in the complex (leaving the doors unlocked). He took the tape off, and thought nothing of it. An hour later, he discovered that someone had retaped the locks. He called the police and five men were arrested inside the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) office.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nixon resigned in August 1974; I was in the USAF and the headline on the newspaper in Alaska as I came home read in giant bold capitals "NIXON RESIGNS!"</p><p>Watergate was a little past 1970, but there were the assassinations, Cuban Missle Crisis, Johnson, Nixon, the Kent State massacres, the 1968 Democratic convention, and a host of other bad stuff, though. But the economy was in good shape.</p><p><i>How about a space elevator project? Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept. Well, the laughing seems to have died down.</i></p><p>Well, we have 50 years to go. I'll be dead by then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again.I hate to break this to you , but people like us are the only ones who were ever interested in science and technology .
Most people could n't care less , even when they were racing to the moon .
The race itself excited people , but the science and engineering behind it did n't.Also , manned missions to Mars are not " cost effective " but you ca n't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the " boots on the ground " of a live mission.Read Moon Lost or see Appollo 13 ( taken from the book ) .
EVERYBODY watched Armstrong and Aldrin land on the moon , but two missions later and it was " meh " ...at least until the spacecraft blew up and almost stranded the crew in space.Sad to say , NASA , for the most part has become another government bureaucracy.It was always a government bureaucracy .
It 's just that during the space race it was a far better funded government bureaucracy.From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.Yes , it was .
I was 18 in 1970.Too bad there were a lot of other ugly things going on at the time , ( Vietnam , Watergate , etc .
) On June 17 , 1972 , [ wikipedia.org ] Frank Wills , a security guard at the Watergate Complex , noticed tape covering the latch on locks on several doors in the complex ( leaving the doors unlocked ) .
He took the tape off , and thought nothing of it .
An hour later , he discovered that someone had retaped the locks .
He called the police and five men were arrested inside the Democratic National Committee 's ( DNC ) office.Nixon resigned in August 1974 ; I was in the USAF and the headline on the newspaper in Alaska as I came home read in giant bold capitals " NIXON RESIGNS !
" Watergate was a little past 1970 , but there were the assassinations , Cuban Missle Crisis , Johnson , Nixon , the Kent State massacres , the 1968 Democratic convention , and a host of other bad stuff , though .
But the economy was in good shape.How about a space elevator project ?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept .
Well , the laughing seems to have died down.Well , we have 50 years to go .
I 'll be dead by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put together a real push for Mars and get people excited about science and technology again.I hate to break this to you, but people like us are the only ones who were ever interested in science and technology.
Most people couldn't care less, even when they were racing to the moon.
The race itself excited people, but the science and engineering behind it didn't.Also, manned missions to Mars are not "cost effective" but you can't beat the sizzle effect that you get from the "boots on the ground" of a live mission.Read Moon Lost or see Appollo 13 (taken from the book).
EVERYBODY watched Armstrong and Aldrin land on the moon, but two missions later and it was "meh" ...at least until the spacecraft blew up and almost stranded the crew in space.Sad to say, NASA, for the most part has become another government bureaucracy.It was always a government bureaucracy.
It's just that during the space race it was a far better funded government bureaucracy.From 1963 to 1970 was a great time to be a kid watching all this stuff happen.Yes, it was.
I was 18 in 1970.Too bad there were a lot of other ugly things going on at the time, (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.
) On June 17, 1972, [wikipedia.org] Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate Complex, noticed tape covering the latch on locks on several doors in the complex (leaving the doors unlocked).
He took the tape off, and thought nothing of it.
An hour later, he discovered that someone had retaped the locks.
He called the police and five men were arrested inside the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) office.Nixon resigned in August 1974; I was in the USAF and the headline on the newspaper in Alaska as I came home read in giant bold capitals "NIXON RESIGNS!
"Watergate was a little past 1970, but there were the assassinations, Cuban Missle Crisis, Johnson, Nixon, the Kent State massacres, the 1968 Democratic convention, and a host of other bad stuff, though.
But the economy was in good shape.How about a space elevator project?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept.
Well, the laughing seems to have died down.Well, we have 50 years to go.
I'll be dead by then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899483</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say something scathing and then list all the things the space program has benefited humanity and your daily life with but luckily NASA still has enough time to explain it all nicely without being condescending like I would have been:</p><p><a href="http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at\_home.html" title="nasa.gov">http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at\_home.html</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>Also... They have a particular section about helping humanity in general with feeding the world:</p><p><a href="http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at\_home/formankind.html" title="nasa.gov">http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at\_home/formankind.html</a> [nasa.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say something scathing and then list all the things the space program has benefited humanity and your daily life with but luckily NASA still has enough time to explain it all nicely without being condescending like I would have been : http : //techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at \ _home.html [ nasa.gov ] Also... They have a particular section about helping humanity in general with feeding the world : http : //techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at \ _home/formankind.html [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say something scathing and then list all the things the space program has benefited humanity and your daily life with but luckily NASA still has enough time to explain it all nicely without being condescending like I would have been:http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at\_home.html [nasa.gov]Also... They have a particular section about helping humanity in general with feeding the world:http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at\_home/formankind.html [nasa.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903395</id>
	<title>It's just a Potemkin rocket</title>
	<author>ComputerInsultant</author>
	<datestamp>1256728320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is designed and built for show, not for real testing. The Ares 1X is just a Potemkin rocket to make a good impression on congress and the American public. Any test data is just incidental.
<br> <br>
There are so many things that need to be tested, but this launch tests almost nothing. Unfortunately this is what I have come to expect of NASA: good PR, solid engineering, poor vision.
<br> <br>
Please let the president and NASA administrators choose the Augustine flexible path using EELV rockets so that we can get something accomplished in addition to burning money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is designed and built for show , not for real testing .
The Ares 1X is just a Potemkin rocket to make a good impression on congress and the American public .
Any test data is just incidental .
There are so many things that need to be tested , but this launch tests almost nothing .
Unfortunately this is what I have come to expect of NASA : good PR , solid engineering , poor vision .
Please let the president and NASA administrators choose the Augustine flexible path using EELV rockets so that we can get something accomplished in addition to burning money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is designed and built for show, not for real testing.
The Ares 1X is just a Potemkin rocket to make a good impression on congress and the American public.
Any test data is just incidental.
There are so many things that need to be tested, but this launch tests almost nothing.
Unfortunately this is what I have come to expect of NASA: good PR, solid engineering, poor vision.
Please let the president and NASA administrators choose the Augustine flexible path using EELV rockets so that we can get something accomplished in addition to burning money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901463</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why feed africa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why feed africa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why feed africa?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900283</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1256756940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider"</p><p>We will always have the poor.</p><p>If not now, when?  If not us, who?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider " We will always have the poor.If not now , when ?
If not us , who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Space is a frontier for our great-grandchildren to consider"We will always have the poor.If not now, when?
If not us, who?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904327</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one,</title>
	<author>El\_Oscuro</author>
	<datestamp>1256734020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, neither accident was caused by the SRBs.  They were both caused by a far greater danger:  management.  NASA had plenty of warning about the causes of both accidents, but management did not act on them.  In the case of Challenger, there had been O-ring burn through on previous launches, and the danger of launching in cold weather (it was 28 degrees) was well known.  But management didn't listen to the engineers (we have never seen that in IT, have we?) and preceded with the launch.  For Columbia, NASA also had plenty of prior warning about the foam hazards from previous launches.  They also knew about the impact on Columbia after the launch, but the engineers couldn't convince management to take a picture of the shuttle when it was in orbit to check for possible damage.  Had they bothered to check, it would have been an "oh shit, Houston we have a problem" situation, followed by some sort of dramatic launch to provide a repair kit or something.</p><p>If you have the idiots in management like NASA, then it really doesn't matter if you use SRBs or liquid fuel rockets</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , neither accident was caused by the SRBs .
They were both caused by a far greater danger : management .
NASA had plenty of warning about the causes of both accidents , but management did not act on them .
In the case of Challenger , there had been O-ring burn through on previous launches , and the danger of launching in cold weather ( it was 28 degrees ) was well known .
But management did n't listen to the engineers ( we have never seen that in IT , have we ?
) and preceded with the launch .
For Columbia , NASA also had plenty of prior warning about the foam hazards from previous launches .
They also knew about the impact on Columbia after the launch , but the engineers could n't convince management to take a picture of the shuttle when it was in orbit to check for possible damage .
Had they bothered to check , it would have been an " oh shit , Houston we have a problem " situation , followed by some sort of dramatic launch to provide a repair kit or something.If you have the idiots in management like NASA , then it really does n't matter if you use SRBs or liquid fuel rockets</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, neither accident was caused by the SRBs.
They were both caused by a far greater danger:  management.
NASA had plenty of warning about the causes of both accidents, but management did not act on them.
In the case of Challenger, there had been O-ring burn through on previous launches, and the danger of launching in cold weather (it was 28 degrees) was well known.
But management didn't listen to the engineers (we have never seen that in IT, have we?
) and preceded with the launch.
For Columbia, NASA also had plenty of prior warning about the foam hazards from previous launches.
They also knew about the impact on Columbia after the launch, but the engineers couldn't convince management to take a picture of the shuttle when it was in orbit to check for possible damage.
Had they bothered to check, it would have been an "oh shit, Houston we have a problem" situation, followed by some sort of dramatic launch to provide a repair kit or something.If you have the idiots in management like NASA, then it really doesn't matter if you use SRBs or liquid fuel rockets</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899673</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1256754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So czarangelus sez:</p><p>"Wank, wank, wank!"</p><p>Such ideological purity!</p><p>"<i>The scientific triumphalism NASA represents is just modern day bread-and-circuses aimed at the Intelligentsia.</i>"</p><p>Sorry, I meant to write, "Such ideological masturbation!"</p><p>"<i>Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is space exploration at a time like this?</i>"</p><p>The general revenues of the United States. That's where. And such a <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ\_08034\_FY2009\_budget.html" title="nasa.gov"> <b>minuscule fraction</b> </a> [nasa.gov], at that. Barely US$18 billion.</p><p>How much American treasure and blood was spent on Chimpy McCokespoon's Excellent "See how big my dick is!" Adventure in Iraq?</p><p>Wank all you want, just don't do it where we can see it.</p><p>kthnxbai!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So czarangelus sez : " Wank , wank , wank !
" Such ideological purity !
" The scientific triumphalism NASA represents is just modern day bread-and-circuses aimed at the Intelligentsia .
" Sorry , I meant to write , " Such ideological masturbation !
" " Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is space exploration at a time like this ?
" The general revenues of the United States .
That 's where .
And such a minuscule fraction [ nasa.gov ] , at that .
Barely US $ 18 billion.How much American treasure and blood was spent on Chimpy McCokespoon 's Excellent " See how big my dick is !
" Adventure in Iraq ? Wank all you want , just do n't do it where we can see it.kthnxbai !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So czarangelus sez:"Wank, wank, wank!
"Such ideological purity!
"The scientific triumphalism NASA represents is just modern day bread-and-circuses aimed at the Intelligentsia.
"Sorry, I meant to write, "Such ideological masturbation!
""Where is the government getting the money to waste on the stupid foolishness that is space exploration at a time like this?
"The general revenues of the United States.
That's where.
And such a  minuscule fraction  [nasa.gov], at that.
Barely US$18 billion.How much American treasure and blood was spent on Chimpy McCokespoon's Excellent "See how big my dick is!
" Adventure in Iraq?Wank all you want, just don't do it where we can see it.kthnxbai!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899333</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, pretty much everybody else was quoted as saying:</p><p>"Well, very proud and very happy, and we're thrilled"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , pretty much everybody else was quoted as saying : " Well , very proud and very happy , and we 're thrilled " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, pretty much everybody else was quoted as saying:"Well, very proud and very happy, and we're thrilled"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900237</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>cheap.computer</author>
	<datestamp>1256756760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what Buddha said more than 2000 yrs ago, but we as human being learn only from making mistakes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what Buddha said more than 2000 yrs ago , but we as human being learn only from making mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what Buddha said more than 2000 yrs ago, but we as human being learn only from making mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29915339</id>
	<title>Re:NASA's priorities....?</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1256806980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother bombing the Atlantic when the <a href="http://www.standard.net/topics/hafb/2009/10/23/engine-failure-blame-hill-afb-explosion-officials-dispose-second-bomb-saturda" title="standard.net">Mormons in Layton, Utah</a> [standard.net] provide a fairly decent target.</p><p>OK, that wasn't NASA, but it was the U.S. government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother bombing the Atlantic when the Mormons in Layton , Utah [ standard.net ] provide a fairly decent target.OK , that was n't NASA , but it was the U.S. government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother bombing the Atlantic when the Mormons in Layton, Utah [standard.net] provide a fairly decent target.OK, that wasn't NASA, but it was the U.S. government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903615</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about as exciting as watching 1/2 of the space shuttle launch.  Oh wait, that's exactly what it is minus the orbiter and external fuel tank.  Congrats NASA.  You effectively mounted a 5th SRB section and launched a single modified SRB.  I want to be excited because I grew up loving aerospace and I'm finishing graduate school now in aerospace engineering, but seriously, SpaceX &gt;&gt; NASA.</p><p>An aside, NASA stills owns basic science, and should return to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about as exciting as watching 1/2 of the space shuttle launch .
Oh wait , that 's exactly what it is minus the orbiter and external fuel tank .
Congrats NASA .
You effectively mounted a 5th SRB section and launched a single modified SRB .
I want to be excited because I grew up loving aerospace and I 'm finishing graduate school now in aerospace engineering , but seriously , SpaceX &gt; &gt; NASA.An aside , NASA stills owns basic science , and should return to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about as exciting as watching 1/2 of the space shuttle launch.
Oh wait, that's exactly what it is minus the orbiter and external fuel tank.
Congrats NASA.
You effectively mounted a 5th SRB section and launched a single modified SRB.
I want to be excited because I grew up loving aerospace and I'm finishing graduate school now in aerospace engineering, but seriously, SpaceX &gt;&gt; NASA.An aside, NASA stills owns basic science, and should return to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899385</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't put a lot of faith in what the media gets wind of with regard to space technology.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Especially 'media' articles that can't keep tense consistent through five paragraphs.  It's not like this guy is editing War and Peace.  <br> <br>
It is now safe to get off my lawn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't put a lot of faith in what the media gets wind of with regard to space technology .
Especially 'media ' articles that ca n't keep tense consistent through five paragraphs .
It 's not like this guy is editing War and Peace .
It is now safe to get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't put a lot of faith in what the media gets wind of with regard to space technology.
Especially 'media' articles that can't keep tense consistent through five paragraphs.
It's not like this guy is editing War and Peace.
It is now safe to get off my lawn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899561</id>
	<title>Re:economic stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mentioned 'Intelligentsia.' I'm going to go out on a limb and wonder this: You've never been suspected as being a part of that group, have you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mentioned 'Intelligentsia .
' I 'm going to go out on a limb and wonder this : You 've never been suspected as being a part of that group , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mentioned 'Intelligentsia.
' I'm going to go out on a limb and wonder this: You've never been suspected as being a part of that group, have you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902855</id>
	<title>Awesome</title>
	<author>bondjamesbond</author>
	<datestamp>1256725620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>THAT, boys and girls, is how you do Space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>THAT , boys and girls , is how you do Space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THAT, boys and girls, is how you do Space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900815</id>
	<title>Re:Put Up Or Shut Up</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1256759040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, the laughing seems to have died down.</p></div><p>Only because everybody got tired.  Bring it up in conversation, and people will continue to laugh.</p><p>As I once read on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., first build a bridge out of that material that can span a 40,000 millimeter ditch on campus.  Then we can start worrying how we're going to use it to build something 40,000 kilometers straight up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the laughing seems to have died down.Only because everybody got tired .
Bring it up in conversation , and people will continue to laugh.As I once read on /. , first build a bridge out of that material that can span a 40,000 millimeter ditch on campus .
Then we can start worrying how we 're going to use it to build something 40,000 kilometers straight up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the laughing seems to have died down.Only because everybody got tired.
Bring it up in conversation, and people will continue to laugh.As I once read on /., first build a bridge out of that material that can span a 40,000 millimeter ditch on campus.
Then we can start worrying how we're going to use it to build something 40,000 kilometers straight up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900133</id>
	<title>Re:Put Up Or Shut Up</title>
	<author>Gravitron 5000</author>
	<datestamp>1256756280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about a space elevator project? Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept. Well, the laughing seems to have died down.</p></div><p>Ha ha ha he he he ho ha ha he he *wheeze* *wheeze*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a space elevator project ?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept .
Well , the laughing seems to have died down.Ha ha ha he he he ho ha ha he he * wheeze * * wheeze *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a space elevator project?
Arthur C Clarke said we would build one roughly 50 years after we stopped laughing at teh concept.
Well, the laughing seems to have died down.Ha ha ha he he he ho ha ha he he *wheeze* *wheeze*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902331</id>
	<title>Nice launch, when would the actual Ares I launch?</title>
	<author>dlapine</author>
	<datestamp>1256722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Given that this test, while useful, didn't actually use any of the components of a man-rated Ares I, I'm not that excited.</p><p>Ares I will use a new 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), this was the good old STS 4 segment SRB.<br>
Ares I will use the J2-x powered upper stage, this was a weight equivalent mock-up.<br>
Ares I will use the Orion capsule and it's engine to finish up the orbit, again, just a mock-up with right szie and weight.<br>
Ares I flight control software not built yet, but that's ok, as the hardware it will guide wasn't here either.</p><p>You know when the car companies build a clay mock up of that new model? That's about where this Ares I-x test was. Baby steps are ok, but I was hoping for more return on investment.</p><p>So I'm annoyed that the test program hasn't progressed further, but in reality, this is rocket science, and at least they got the thing off the ground in a reasonable fashion. The problems here go a lot further than my unease that NCSA isn't that far along for the time and money they've already spent. Here's a list of issues that they still have to face in making this a viable launch system:</p><p>What's the lifting capacity of the ARES I? 25mt? That was the declared goal. 24 mt? That was a compromise when other issues crept in. 20 mt? Where the current design is, but Ares I needs 25 mt of lift for an Orion capsule with safety features and lunar capability for 4 crew, and doesn't have it. </p><p>Also, when is the Ares I scheduled to fly with the Orion capsule, even in a non-man-rated test? 2013, as NCSA originally planned? 2016 as the Augustine commission recently claimed?? Before the Space shuttle stops flying? Before the ISS is de-orbited? Be nice for NCSA to have a way to get our astronauts to the ISS without "borrowing a Soyuz." </p><p>More importantly, how much has NCSA spent on the development of the Ares I to date? 5 billion? 6 billion? They still have to finish the 5 segment SRB design and tests, the J-2x Upper stage engine and tests, the new upper stage and tests and the Orion capsule and tests before any manned flights can take place. That's got to be another $5 billion easy. All this to get the lift capacity of an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy and a theoretical better safety rating.

</p><p>Lastly, one reason the Ares I was chosen was that it was supposed to be safer for the crew than any alternative. But there's this- <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html" title="newscientist.com">http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html</a> [newscientist.com]. I feel sorry for the hard-working engineers at NCSA, and I hope that the new management can get them back on track with a better design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that this test , while useful , did n't actually use any of the components of a man-rated Ares I , I 'm not that excited.Ares I will use a new 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster ( SRB ) , this was the good old STS 4 segment SRB .
Ares I will use the J2-x powered upper stage , this was a weight equivalent mock-up .
Ares I will use the Orion capsule and it 's engine to finish up the orbit , again , just a mock-up with right szie and weight .
Ares I flight control software not built yet , but that 's ok , as the hardware it will guide was n't here either.You know when the car companies build a clay mock up of that new model ?
That 's about where this Ares I-x test was .
Baby steps are ok , but I was hoping for more return on investment.So I 'm annoyed that the test program has n't progressed further , but in reality , this is rocket science , and at least they got the thing off the ground in a reasonable fashion .
The problems here go a lot further than my unease that NCSA is n't that far along for the time and money they 've already spent .
Here 's a list of issues that they still have to face in making this a viable launch system : What 's the lifting capacity of the ARES I ?
25mt ? That was the declared goal .
24 mt ?
That was a compromise when other issues crept in .
20 mt ?
Where the current design is , but Ares I needs 25 mt of lift for an Orion capsule with safety features and lunar capability for 4 crew , and does n't have it .
Also , when is the Ares I scheduled to fly with the Orion capsule , even in a non-man-rated test ?
2013 , as NCSA originally planned ?
2016 as the Augustine commission recently claimed ? ?
Before the Space shuttle stops flying ?
Before the ISS is de-orbited ?
Be nice for NCSA to have a way to get our astronauts to the ISS without " borrowing a Soyuz .
" More importantly , how much has NCSA spent on the development of the Ares I to date ?
5 billion ?
6 billion ?
They still have to finish the 5 segment SRB design and tests , the J-2x Upper stage engine and tests , the new upper stage and tests and the Orion capsule and tests before any manned flights can take place .
That 's got to be another $ 5 billion easy .
All this to get the lift capacity of an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy and a theoretical better safety rating .
Lastly , one reason the Ares I was chosen was that it was supposed to be safer for the crew than any alternative .
But there 's this- http : //www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html [ newscientist.com ] .
I feel sorry for the hard-working engineers at NCSA , and I hope that the new management can get them back on track with a better design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Given that this test, while useful, didn't actually use any of the components of a man-rated Ares I, I'm not that excited.Ares I will use a new 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), this was the good old STS 4 segment SRB.
Ares I will use the J2-x powered upper stage, this was a weight equivalent mock-up.
Ares I will use the Orion capsule and it's engine to finish up the orbit, again, just a mock-up with right szie and weight.
Ares I flight control software not built yet, but that's ok, as the hardware it will guide wasn't here either.You know when the car companies build a clay mock up of that new model?
That's about where this Ares I-x test was.
Baby steps are ok, but I was hoping for more return on investment.So I'm annoyed that the test program hasn't progressed further, but in reality, this is rocket science, and at least they got the thing off the ground in a reasonable fashion.
The problems here go a lot further than my unease that NCSA isn't that far along for the time and money they've already spent.
Here's a list of issues that they still have to face in making this a viable launch system:What's the lifting capacity of the ARES I?
25mt? That was the declared goal.
24 mt?
That was a compromise when other issues crept in.
20 mt?
Where the current design is, but Ares I needs 25 mt of lift for an Orion capsule with safety features and lunar capability for 4 crew, and doesn't have it.
Also, when is the Ares I scheduled to fly with the Orion capsule, even in a non-man-rated test?
2013, as NCSA originally planned?
2016 as the Augustine commission recently claimed??
Before the Space shuttle stops flying?
Before the ISS is de-orbited?
Be nice for NCSA to have a way to get our astronauts to the ISS without "borrowing a Soyuz.
" More importantly, how much has NCSA spent on the development of the Ares I to date?
5 billion?
6 billion?
They still have to finish the 5 segment SRB design and tests, the J-2x Upper stage engine and tests, the new upper stage and tests and the Orion capsule and tests before any manned flights can take place.
That's got to be another $5 billion easy.
All this to get the lift capacity of an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy and a theoretical better safety rating.
Lastly, one reason the Ares I was chosen was that it was supposed to be safer for the crew than any alternative.
But there's this- http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html [newscientist.com].
I feel sorry for the hard-working engineers at NCSA, and I hope that the new management can get them back on track with a better design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29909659</id>
	<title>EST?</title>
	<author>volpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256828520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With a hiss and roar, NASA's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11:33 am <b>EST</b>,</p></div> </blockquote><p>So, does that mean it happened at 12:33 PM for the rest of us east-coast folks who are still on Daylight Saving Time?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a hiss and roar , NASA 's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11 : 33 am EST , So , does that mean it happened at 12 : 33 PM for the rest of us east-coast folks who are still on Daylight Saving Time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a hiss and roar, NASA's Ares I-X rocket blasted into the atmosphere this morning at about 11:33 am EST, So, does that mean it happened at 12:33 PM for the rest of us east-coast folks who are still on Daylight Saving Time?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29915535</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1256807640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this launch isn't that it met expectations, it is just that the expectations were rather minor, and that the actual engineering benefit that will come from this launch is minimal at best.  All that it really proved is that the SRB will launch if NASA wants it to launch.</p><p>I suppose that a minor piece of knowledge gained here is that the Shuttle SRBs will light up and pretty much do their stuff... even if they aren't attached to a larger integrated Shuttle system.</p><p>Did the U.S. government have to spend a half billion dollars to figure that out?  Are you sure that such an amount wouldn't have been better spent in another way?  Why?</p><p>Almost nothing of what you saw yesterday with this launch is going to be used in the final Ares I design as well, with the possible exception of the launch tower.  I suppose some handling procedures by the ground crew can be reviewed, as much of how the vehicle was handled is going to be how the final Ares I rocket will dealt with as well.... but I wasn't aware that the primary obstacle for getting into space revolved around the efficiency of the ground crew handling the rocket.  Since only 3-5 launches per year are planned at the peak of its operation, I don't see how saving an extra half hour of prep time is going to be a significant aspect to the launch planning.</p><p>Still, it was a neat looking launch.  Too bad I felt so angry to see it go up, and never have I ever wished a failure to happen to NASA more than yesterday.  I was literally praying that it would fail.  Considering the design and the fact that it really was just a minor tweak of the existing Shuttle SRB design that is already flight-proven hardware, it didn't seem likely that a failure would happen.</p><p>In other words, this was purely a publicity P.R. stunt.  That is the main reason for the animosity by myself and a few others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this launch is n't that it met expectations , it is just that the expectations were rather minor , and that the actual engineering benefit that will come from this launch is minimal at best .
All that it really proved is that the SRB will launch if NASA wants it to launch.I suppose that a minor piece of knowledge gained here is that the Shuttle SRBs will light up and pretty much do their stuff... even if they are n't attached to a larger integrated Shuttle system.Did the U.S. government have to spend a half billion dollars to figure that out ?
Are you sure that such an amount would n't have been better spent in another way ?
Why ? Almost nothing of what you saw yesterday with this launch is going to be used in the final Ares I design as well , with the possible exception of the launch tower .
I suppose some handling procedures by the ground crew can be reviewed , as much of how the vehicle was handled is going to be how the final Ares I rocket will dealt with as well.... but I was n't aware that the primary obstacle for getting into space revolved around the efficiency of the ground crew handling the rocket .
Since only 3-5 launches per year are planned at the peak of its operation , I do n't see how saving an extra half hour of prep time is going to be a significant aspect to the launch planning.Still , it was a neat looking launch .
Too bad I felt so angry to see it go up , and never have I ever wished a failure to happen to NASA more than yesterday .
I was literally praying that it would fail .
Considering the design and the fact that it really was just a minor tweak of the existing Shuttle SRB design that is already flight-proven hardware , it did n't seem likely that a failure would happen.In other words , this was purely a publicity P.R .
stunt. That is the main reason for the animosity by myself and a few others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this launch isn't that it met expectations, it is just that the expectations were rather minor, and that the actual engineering benefit that will come from this launch is minimal at best.
All that it really proved is that the SRB will launch if NASA wants it to launch.I suppose that a minor piece of knowledge gained here is that the Shuttle SRBs will light up and pretty much do their stuff... even if they aren't attached to a larger integrated Shuttle system.Did the U.S. government have to spend a half billion dollars to figure that out?
Are you sure that such an amount wouldn't have been better spent in another way?
Why?Almost nothing of what you saw yesterday with this launch is going to be used in the final Ares I design as well, with the possible exception of the launch tower.
I suppose some handling procedures by the ground crew can be reviewed, as much of how the vehicle was handled is going to be how the final Ares I rocket will dealt with as well.... but I wasn't aware that the primary obstacle for getting into space revolved around the efficiency of the ground crew handling the rocket.
Since only 3-5 launches per year are planned at the peak of its operation, I don't see how saving an extra half hour of prep time is going to be a significant aspect to the launch planning.Still, it was a neat looking launch.
Too bad I felt so angry to see it go up, and never have I ever wished a failure to happen to NASA more than yesterday.
I was literally praying that it would fail.
Considering the design and the fact that it really was just a minor tweak of the existing Shuttle SRB design that is already flight-proven hardware, it didn't seem likely that a failure would happen.In other words, this was purely a publicity P.R.
stunt.  That is the main reason for the animosity by myself and a few others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905339</id>
	<title>Frickin lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard the "frickin fantastic" bit on news radio this afternoon.  Honestly the guy sounded unprofessional and not what I'd expect at NASA.  It made me wonder why we even fund this stuff.</p><p>Our government has spent us broke, and at this point non-military space missions are non-essential vanity projects that we can not afford.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard the " frickin fantastic " bit on news radio this afternoon .
Honestly the guy sounded unprofessional and not what I 'd expect at NASA .
It made me wonder why we even fund this stuff.Our government has spent us broke , and at this point non-military space missions are non-essential vanity projects that we can not afford .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard the "frickin fantastic" bit on news radio this afternoon.
Honestly the guy sounded unprofessional and not what I'd expect at NASA.
It made me wonder why we even fund this stuff.Our government has spent us broke, and at this point non-military space missions are non-essential vanity projects that we can not afford.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29915535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29915339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29910355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_1619256_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900987
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904221
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29915339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29915535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901297
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29902653
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29908141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_1619256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29910355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29901799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29903329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29906125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29905327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29904019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29899901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_1619256.29900327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
