<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_05_1440210</id>
	<title>LaserMotive Finds Success In Space Elevator Competition</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257433440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://moc.liamgta2605ccub/" rel="nofollow">Bucc5062</a> writes <i>"<a href="http://www.lasermotive.com/blog/?page\_id=5">LaserMotive</a> has achieved <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci\_13710120">the first step towards the creation of a working space elevator</a> by qualifying for the $900,000 prize in a contest <a href="http://www.spaceward.org/elevator2010-pb">sponsored by NASA</a>.  To achieve this first level, LaserMotive needed to propel a platform up a cable dangling from a helicopter at over 2 m/s.  They hit a top speed of 4.13 m/s.  The next level of qualification will be to achieve a climb speed greater then 5 m/s. LaserMotive beamed roughly 400 watts of laser power to a moving target at a distance of 1 kilometer, as part of the vertical laser alignment procedure. The target was a retro-reflective board a little larger than 1 meter on a side. The contest will continue for another two days with at least two other teams challenging for the prize. To win the Power Beaming competition, the LaserMotive system uses a high-power laser array to shine ultra-intense infrared light onto high-efficiency solar cells, converting the light into electric power which then drives a motor. 'Our system will track the vehicle as it climbs, compensating for motion due to wind and other changes. Building on our experience from last year&rsquo;s competition, we are designing an improved system able to capture the full $2,000,000 prize.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bucc5062 writes " LaserMotive has achieved the first step towards the creation of a working space elevator by qualifying for the $ 900,000 prize in a contest sponsored by NASA .
To achieve this first level , LaserMotive needed to propel a platform up a cable dangling from a helicopter at over 2 m/s .
They hit a top speed of 4.13 m/s .
The next level of qualification will be to achieve a climb speed greater then 5 m/s .
LaserMotive beamed roughly 400 watts of laser power to a moving target at a distance of 1 kilometer , as part of the vertical laser alignment procedure .
The target was a retro-reflective board a little larger than 1 meter on a side .
The contest will continue for another two days with at least two other teams challenging for the prize .
To win the Power Beaming competition , the LaserMotive system uses a high-power laser array to shine ultra-intense infrared light onto high-efficiency solar cells , converting the light into electric power which then drives a motor .
'Our system will track the vehicle as it climbs , compensating for motion due to wind and other changes .
Building on our experience from last year    s competition , we are designing an improved system able to capture the full $ 2,000,000 prize .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bucc5062 writes "LaserMotive has achieved the first step towards the creation of a working space elevator by qualifying for the $900,000 prize in a contest sponsored by NASA.
To achieve this first level, LaserMotive needed to propel a platform up a cable dangling from a helicopter at over 2 m/s.
They hit a top speed of 4.13 m/s.
The next level of qualification will be to achieve a climb speed greater then 5 m/s.
LaserMotive beamed roughly 400 watts of laser power to a moving target at a distance of 1 kilometer, as part of the vertical laser alignment procedure.
The target was a retro-reflective board a little larger than 1 meter on a side.
The contest will continue for another two days with at least two other teams challenging for the prize.
To win the Power Beaming competition, the LaserMotive system uses a high-power laser array to shine ultra-intense infrared light onto high-efficiency solar cells, converting the light into electric power which then drives a motor.
'Our system will track the vehicle as it climbs, compensating for motion due to wind and other changes.
Building on our experience from last year’s competition, we are designing an improved system able to capture the full $2,000,000 prize.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000106</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1257417240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's a micro-think carbon nanotube ribbon that isn't even close to possible to manufacture at this point and has unknown properties (maybe it's a semiconductor?).</p><p>We're not talking about a steel cable.  Steel isn't nearly strong enough (by a factor of like 15).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's a micro-think carbon nanotube ribbon that is n't even close to possible to manufacture at this point and has unknown properties ( maybe it 's a semiconductor ?
) .We 're not talking about a steel cable .
Steel is n't nearly strong enough ( by a factor of like 15 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's a micro-think carbon nanotube ribbon that isn't even close to possible to manufacture at this point and has unknown properties (maybe it's a semiconductor?
).We're not talking about a steel cable.
Steel isn't nearly strong enough (by a factor of like 15).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996278</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257443640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw. It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics. Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable. Now consider an object attached to a rope in the atmosphere. It's subject to constantly changing wind forces in three dimensions. Even when it's out of the atmosphere, the beam is subject to deviation caused by atmospheric effects, which is why stars twinkle and big telescopes need clever adaptive control systems. Its path is many times less predictable. In a nutshell, it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball, and catching a fly. It is not an object with a "known/desired" trajectory.</p></div><p>You have it exactly backwards. The professor was right. The object attached to the rope is predictable because you'll know exactly where it is all the time (say via GPS stuck right on the vehicle, some tracking signal, or other means) plus it's not moving very fast. The ICBM will be fired by someone who doesn't want you to hit it and they'll have plenty of tricks to keep you from doing so. They won't tell you where they are. The missile will be traveling at hypersonic speeds. They'll bring decoys. They'll fire retro rockets so that the trajectory is constantly shifting in a non-ballistic fashion. And they'll harden the missile so that more energy (and more time on target) is required to kill the missile. And they might fire hundreds of missiles with several warheads each in order that some get through.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word that 's part of ICBM is " ballistic " , from the Greek ballein , I throw .
It 's travelling through extremely thin gas , and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics .
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable .
Now consider an object attached to a rope in the atmosphere .
It 's subject to constantly changing wind forces in three dimensions .
Even when it 's out of the atmosphere , the beam is subject to deviation caused by atmospheric effects , which is why stars twinkle and big telescopes need clever adaptive control systems .
Its path is many times less predictable .
In a nutshell , it 's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball , and catching a fly .
It is not an object with a " known/desired " trajectory.You have it exactly backwards .
The professor was right .
The object attached to the rope is predictable because you 'll know exactly where it is all the time ( say via GPS stuck right on the vehicle , some tracking signal , or other means ) plus it 's not moving very fast .
The ICBM will be fired by someone who does n't want you to hit it and they 'll have plenty of tricks to keep you from doing so .
They wo n't tell you where they are .
The missile will be traveling at hypersonic speeds .
They 'll bring decoys .
They 'll fire retro rockets so that the trajectory is constantly shifting in a non-ballistic fashion .
And they 'll harden the missile so that more energy ( and more time on target ) is required to kill the missile .
And they might fire hundreds of missiles with several warheads each in order that some get through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw.
It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics.
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.
Now consider an object attached to a rope in the atmosphere.
It's subject to constantly changing wind forces in three dimensions.
Even when it's out of the atmosphere, the beam is subject to deviation caused by atmospheric effects, which is why stars twinkle and big telescopes need clever adaptive control systems.
Its path is many times less predictable.
In a nutshell, it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball, and catching a fly.
It is not an object with a "known/desired" trajectory.You have it exactly backwards.
The professor was right.
The object attached to the rope is predictable because you'll know exactly where it is all the time (say via GPS stuck right on the vehicle, some tracking signal, or other means) plus it's not moving very fast.
The ICBM will be fired by someone who doesn't want you to hit it and they'll have plenty of tricks to keep you from doing so.
They won't tell you where they are.
The missile will be traveling at hypersonic speeds.
They'll bring decoys.
They'll fire retro rockets so that the trajectory is constantly shifting in a non-ballistic fashion.
And they'll harden the missile so that more energy (and more time on target) is required to kill the missile.
And they might fire hundreds of missiles with several warheads each in order that some get through.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996592</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1257445140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>making the issue of getting out of our atmosphere a relatively dull process</p></div><p>...until someone creates space elevator music.  Then it will become a dull, agonizing process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>making the issue of getting out of our atmosphere a relatively dull process...until someone creates space elevator music .
Then it will become a dull , agonizing process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>making the issue of getting out of our atmosphere a relatively dull process...until someone creates space elevator music.
Then it will become a dull, agonizing process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044</id>
	<title>Uh-oh</title>
	<author>Pete Venkman</author>
	<datestamp>1257437700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if someone farts in the space elevator?  You'll be stuck for way more than a few floors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if someone farts in the space elevator ?
You 'll be stuck for way more than a few floors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if someone farts in the space elevator?
You'll be stuck for way more than a few floors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999356</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1257414120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he was talking in English and meant soluble. Maybe Slashdot should think about adding an English-American translator to the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he was talking in English and meant soluble .
Maybe Slashdot should think about adding an English-American translator to the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he was talking in English and meant soluble.
Maybe Slashdot should think about adding an English-American translator to the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997944</id>
	<title>This is only a problem if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257451440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is only a real problem if the contest were really about space elevators and less about energy beaming technology.</p><p>Just think of all the fun weapons a high power energy beam with auto-correcting aiming could create?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only a real problem if the contest were really about space elevators and less about energy beaming technology.Just think of all the fun weapons a high power energy beam with auto-correcting aiming could create ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only a real problem if the contest were really about space elevators and less about energy beaming technology.Just think of all the fun weapons a high power energy beam with auto-correcting aiming could create?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997190</id>
	<title>Re:Uh-oh</title>
	<author>infinite9</author>
	<datestamp>1257448020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just keep pushing the button.  The elevator will arrive faster...  (off to file a patent for a placebo button powered space elevator...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just keep pushing the button .
The elevator will arrive faster... ( off to file a patent for a placebo button powered space elevator... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just keep pushing the button.
The elevator will arrive faster...  (off to file a patent for a placebo button powered space elevator...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586</id>
	<title>What a waste of time</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1257445140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A (practical) space elevator is NEVER, EVER going to be built.  With any advances in technology.</p><p>Why is that?  It's simple.</p><p>A space elevator, even if the cable could be made, has a ridiculous design flaw.  Literally, a single failure anywhere in the cable, and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware.  It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure.  (imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable)</p><p>Further, you can only launch one climber at a time, which has to slowly crawl to the top, taking hours to days.</p><p>There's a much better launch method, that has been around for years.  Instead of building just enough laser to power a climber, why not build 1000 times as many lasers and beam up enough energy to get into orbit in about 10 minutes?</p><p>The spacecraft would just be an inert block of propellant and some stabilizing fins and gyros.  The intense light would vaporize the propellant block in sections, and the pulses would be timed to give planar shockwaves.  Presto, a high ISP engine with no nozzles or complex flight hardware needed.  Laser modules stay on the ground, run on electricity.  Could make another launch every 10 minutes or so.  Look at the old laser launch usenet posts archived on google, where some NASA PhDs discuss the idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ( practical ) space elevator is NEVER , EVER going to be built .
With any advances in technology.Why is that ?
It 's simple.A space elevator , even if the cable could be made , has a ridiculous design flaw .
Literally , a single failure anywhere in the cable , and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware .
It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure .
( imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable ) Further , you can only launch one climber at a time , which has to slowly crawl to the top , taking hours to days.There 's a much better launch method , that has been around for years .
Instead of building just enough laser to power a climber , why not build 1000 times as many lasers and beam up enough energy to get into orbit in about 10 minutes ? The spacecraft would just be an inert block of propellant and some stabilizing fins and gyros .
The intense light would vaporize the propellant block in sections , and the pulses would be timed to give planar shockwaves .
Presto , a high ISP engine with no nozzles or complex flight hardware needed .
Laser modules stay on the ground , run on electricity .
Could make another launch every 10 minutes or so .
Look at the old laser launch usenet posts archived on google , where some NASA PhDs discuss the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A (practical) space elevator is NEVER, EVER going to be built.
With any advances in technology.Why is that?
It's simple.A space elevator, even if the cable could be made, has a ridiculous design flaw.
Literally, a single failure anywhere in the cable, and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware.
It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure.
(imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable)Further, you can only launch one climber at a time, which has to slowly crawl to the top, taking hours to days.There's a much better launch method, that has been around for years.
Instead of building just enough laser to power a climber, why not build 1000 times as many lasers and beam up enough energy to get into orbit in about 10 minutes?The spacecraft would just be an inert block of propellant and some stabilizing fins and gyros.
The intense light would vaporize the propellant block in sections, and the pulses would be timed to give planar shockwaves.
Presto, a high ISP engine with no nozzles or complex flight hardware needed.
Laser modules stay on the ground, run on electricity.
Could make another launch every 10 minutes or so.
Look at the old laser launch usenet posts archived on google, where some NASA PhDs discuss the idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995686</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1257440880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They sell small solar panels that you can attach to the roof of your house which will produce 400W of juice.</p><p>The reason that it's not feasible for this project is that you need it to be able to work in all weather, and presumably at all times (5m/s is relatively quick, but it's still a long way up to space, which is the ultimate goal of this project). Also, when you start scaling it up to the power requirements for moving a significantly bigger payload into space, you start needing much more juice, and the weight requirements for the solar panels would be prohibitive. Developping ways to beam the energy from ground-based stations will allow you to focus more energy on smaller panels, reducing the weight requirement.</p><p>A parabolic mirror *would* allow the focusing of much light on a central point, but it would be a lot of extra weight and of limited use for generating electricity. When they're employed as part of a solar power array, usually it's to heat water for steam, or salt to store heat... If you're using that heated water to generate electricity, you add an awful lot of unneeded weight for limited improvement in efficiency: a flat panel that has the same cross-section area facing the sun would trap the same amount of light, and would weigh significantly less. When the amount of power you need to drive the thing is directly reliant on the amount of weight you need to move, a parabolic mirror becomes a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sell small solar panels that you can attach to the roof of your house which will produce 400W of juice.The reason that it 's not feasible for this project is that you need it to be able to work in all weather , and presumably at all times ( 5m/s is relatively quick , but it 's still a long way up to space , which is the ultimate goal of this project ) .
Also , when you start scaling it up to the power requirements for moving a significantly bigger payload into space , you start needing much more juice , and the weight requirements for the solar panels would be prohibitive .
Developping ways to beam the energy from ground-based stations will allow you to focus more energy on smaller panels , reducing the weight requirement.A parabolic mirror * would * allow the focusing of much light on a central point , but it would be a lot of extra weight and of limited use for generating electricity .
When they 're employed as part of a solar power array , usually it 's to heat water for steam , or salt to store heat... If you 're using that heated water to generate electricity , you add an awful lot of unneeded weight for limited improvement in efficiency : a flat panel that has the same cross-section area facing the sun would trap the same amount of light , and would weigh significantly less .
When the amount of power you need to drive the thing is directly reliant on the amount of weight you need to move , a parabolic mirror becomes a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sell small solar panels that you can attach to the roof of your house which will produce 400W of juice.The reason that it's not feasible for this project is that you need it to be able to work in all weather, and presumably at all times (5m/s is relatively quick, but it's still a long way up to space, which is the ultimate goal of this project).
Also, when you start scaling it up to the power requirements for moving a significantly bigger payload into space, you start needing much more juice, and the weight requirements for the solar panels would be prohibitive.
Developping ways to beam the energy from ground-based stations will allow you to focus more energy on smaller panels, reducing the weight requirement.A parabolic mirror *would* allow the focusing of much light on a central point, but it would be a lot of extra weight and of limited use for generating electricity.
When they're employed as part of a solar power array, usually it's to heat water for steam, or salt to store heat... If you're using that heated water to generate electricity, you add an awful lot of unneeded weight for limited improvement in efficiency: a flat panel that has the same cross-section area facing the sun would trap the same amount of light, and would weigh significantly less.
When the amount of power you need to drive the thing is directly reliant on the amount of weight you need to move, a parabolic mirror becomes a bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150</id>
	<title>shouldn't they be able to design the cable also?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257438240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations to LaserMotive and I hope that they (or one of the other participants) quickly claim the remaining prizes.</p><p>Still, it occurred to me that the real system (capable of climbing to Geo-sync and beyond) won't be designed in a vacuum (ha ha).  I mean, the cable on which these climbers ascend will be exquisitely engineered as well, probably down to the nano-level if it's going to work at all.  So shouldn't the contest be that of a cable/climber combination?  I mean like what if the cable or climber or both was using some nano patterned material like the underside of a gecko's foot (which lets them cling upside down to ceilings).  Or maybe if there was some sort of nano (or not, I saw one made out of large metal bits) "velcro" like material in which case there would have to be hooks on one surface and clasps on another.</p><p>As long as the surface of the cable didn't add appreciably to the weight of the (supposed) carbon nanotube structure, it could add tremendously to the gripping power of the climber while still allowing for a practical cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations to LaserMotive and I hope that they ( or one of the other participants ) quickly claim the remaining prizes.Still , it occurred to me that the real system ( capable of climbing to Geo-sync and beyond ) wo n't be designed in a vacuum ( ha ha ) .
I mean , the cable on which these climbers ascend will be exquisitely engineered as well , probably down to the nano-level if it 's going to work at all .
So should n't the contest be that of a cable/climber combination ?
I mean like what if the cable or climber or both was using some nano patterned material like the underside of a gecko 's foot ( which lets them cling upside down to ceilings ) .
Or maybe if there was some sort of nano ( or not , I saw one made out of large metal bits ) " velcro " like material in which case there would have to be hooks on one surface and clasps on another.As long as the surface of the cable did n't add appreciably to the weight of the ( supposed ) carbon nanotube structure , it could add tremendously to the gripping power of the climber while still allowing for a practical cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations to LaserMotive and I hope that they (or one of the other participants) quickly claim the remaining prizes.Still, it occurred to me that the real system (capable of climbing to Geo-sync and beyond) won't be designed in a vacuum (ha ha).
I mean, the cable on which these climbers ascend will be exquisitely engineered as well, probably down to the nano-level if it's going to work at all.
So shouldn't the contest be that of a cable/climber combination?
I mean like what if the cable or climber or both was using some nano patterned material like the underside of a gecko's foot (which lets them cling upside down to ceilings).
Or maybe if there was some sort of nano (or not, I saw one made out of large metal bits) "velcro" like material in which case there would have to be hooks on one surface and clasps on another.As long as the surface of the cable didn't add appreciably to the weight of the (supposed) carbon nanotube structure, it could add tremendously to the gripping power of the climber while still allowing for a practical cable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995304</id>
	<title>Re:Uh-oh</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257438840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Small methane processing plant = more energy for the motors.  Remember to load up on beans before you go onboard, and fit your flatulence intercept unit on your butt before you close up your spacesuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Small methane processing plant = more energy for the motors .
Remember to load up on beans before you go onboard , and fit your flatulence intercept unit on your butt before you close up your spacesuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small methane processing plant = more energy for the motors.
Remember to load up on beans before you go onboard, and fit your flatulence intercept unit on your butt before you close up your spacesuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997500</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of time</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1257449700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A space elevator, even if the cable could be made, has a ridiculous design flaw. Literally, a single failure anywhere in the cable, and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware. It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure. (imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable)</p></div></blockquote><p>

Once you have one cable up adding more is comparatively easy.  The loss of a single cable wouldn't be catastrophic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A space elevator , even if the cable could be made , has a ridiculous design flaw .
Literally , a single failure anywhere in the cable , and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware .
It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure .
( imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable ) Once you have one cable up adding more is comparatively easy .
The loss of a single cable would n't be catastrophic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A space elevator, even if the cable could be made, has a ridiculous design flaw.
Literally, a single failure anywhere in the cable, and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware.
It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure.
(imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable)

Once you have one cable up adding more is comparatively easy.
The loss of a single cable wouldn't be catastrophic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032</id>
	<title>Am I the only one</title>
	<author>Wolvenhaven</author>
	<datestamp>1257447360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>who thinks it would be easier to design the system like we design all of our mass transit which uses electricity?  By sending the power through a rail and and having the vehicle pick it up that way.  Having an array of lasers beaming energy to a vehicle, having it convert it using solar cells, and then turning it into motive power seems overly complex.  Energize part of the elevator and use that to power the vehicle, it's a tested and proven method for transportation on the ground and involves a lot less variables and expense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>who thinks it would be easier to design the system like we design all of our mass transit which uses electricity ?
By sending the power through a rail and and having the vehicle pick it up that way .
Having an array of lasers beaming energy to a vehicle , having it convert it using solar cells , and then turning it into motive power seems overly complex .
Energize part of the elevator and use that to power the vehicle , it 's a tested and proven method for transportation on the ground and involves a lot less variables and expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who thinks it would be easier to design the system like we design all of our mass transit which uses electricity?
By sending the power through a rail and and having the vehicle pick it up that way.
Having an array of lasers beaming energy to a vehicle, having it convert it using solar cells, and then turning it into motive power seems overly complex.
Energize part of the elevator and use that to power the vehicle, it's a tested and proven method for transportation on the ground and involves a lot less variables and expense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995962</id>
	<title>ALmost solved the</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>least difficult problem. Now when all the magic technology rolls out we will be good to go!</p><p>Space elevator is this centuries flying car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>least difficult problem .
Now when all the magic technology rolls out we will be good to go ! Space elevator is this centuries flying car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>least difficult problem.
Now when all the magic technology rolls out we will be good to go!Space elevator is this centuries flying car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990</id>
	<title>Next time, check the dictionary before posting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257442200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you care to investigate you will find that (according to Merriam-Webster among others) soluble has both meanings. If you knew any Latin - and you obviously don't, despite referring to nitric acid as aqua fortis - you would know that u and v in Latin are interchangeable, and that soluble and solvable are from exactly the same root. While I'm exposing your linguistic inadequacies, I should perhaps explain further that the Latin root means to "loosen", and so is applicable both to loosening the bonds of a solid in a liquid, and loosening a "knotty" problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you care to investigate you will find that ( according to Merriam-Webster among others ) soluble has both meanings .
If you knew any Latin - and you obviously do n't , despite referring to nitric acid as aqua fortis - you would know that u and v in Latin are interchangeable , and that soluble and solvable are from exactly the same root .
While I 'm exposing your linguistic inadequacies , I should perhaps explain further that the Latin root means to " loosen " , and so is applicable both to loosening the bonds of a solid in a liquid , and loosening a " knotty " problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you care to investigate you will find that (according to Merriam-Webster among others) soluble has both meanings.
If you knew any Latin - and you obviously don't, despite referring to nitric acid as aqua fortis - you would know that u and v in Latin are interchangeable, and that soluble and solvable are from exactly the same root.
While I'm exposing your linguistic inadequacies, I should perhaps explain further that the Latin root means to "loosen", and so is applicable both to loosening the bonds of a solid in a liquid, and loosening a "knotty" problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996488</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257444660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets build a 100 km pyramid instead, there's plenty of room in sahara, and it seems someone already began over 4000 years ago so we've got a head start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets build a 100 km pyramid instead , there 's plenty of room in sahara , and it seems someone already began over 4000 years ago so we 've got a head start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets build a 100 km pyramid instead, there's plenty of room in sahara, and it seems someone already began over 4000 years ago so we've got a head start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995770</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257441300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; They could get more than 400W from a mirror, easy...</p><p>Even if it wasn't too heavy to lift itself such a system would require that the cable be much, much larger and therefor much, much, much more expensive.  It makes much more sense to minimize the weight of the car and put as much of the big, heavy stuff on the ground as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They could get more than 400W from a mirror , easy...Even if it was n't too heavy to lift itself such a system would require that the cable be much , much larger and therefor much , much , much more expensive .
It makes much more sense to minimize the weight of the car and put as much of the big , heavy stuff on the ground as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They could get more than 400W from a mirror, easy...Even if it wasn't too heavy to lift itself such a system would require that the cable be much, much larger and therefor much, much, much more expensive.
It makes much more sense to minimize the weight of the car and put as much of the big, heavy stuff on the ground as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000328</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one</title>
	<author>PrimaryConsult</author>
	<datestamp>1257418260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>-You are assuming that some sort of frame is being built around this space elevator.<br>
-Third rail electrical systems require substations spaced approximately every 1 mile (for 600 VDC).   A more efficient form used in public transportation, 25kv AC on overhead wires, sill requires requires a spacing of every 20 miles.  Also, putting the equipment required to convert electrical energy from an easy to transmit form to an easy to use form on the actual elevator would make it quite heavy.<br>
In short, a 'space train' would be even more impractical than an elevator...</htmltext>
<tokenext>-You are assuming that some sort of frame is being built around this space elevator .
-Third rail electrical systems require substations spaced approximately every 1 mile ( for 600 VDC ) .
A more efficient form used in public transportation , 25kv AC on overhead wires , sill requires requires a spacing of every 20 miles .
Also , putting the equipment required to convert electrical energy from an easy to transmit form to an easy to use form on the actual elevator would make it quite heavy .
In short , a 'space train ' would be even more impractical than an elevator.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-You are assuming that some sort of frame is being built around this space elevator.
-Third rail electrical systems require substations spaced approximately every 1 mile (for 600 VDC).
A more efficient form used in public transportation, 25kv AC on overhead wires, sill requires requires a spacing of every 20 miles.
Also, putting the equipment required to convert electrical energy from an easy to transmit form to an easy to use form on the actual elevator would make it quite heavy.
In short, a 'space train' would be even more impractical than an elevator...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997372</id>
	<title>wired power ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257449040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey i got a dumb question, why should the elevator work with such laser beam power instead of incorporating in the tether a pair of cables ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey i got a dumb question , why should the elevator work with such laser beam power instead of incorporating in the tether a pair of cables ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey i got a dumb question, why should the elevator work with such laser beam power instead of incorporating in the tether a pair of cables ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997662</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of time</title>
	<author>KonoWatakushi</author>
	<datestamp>1257450300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be rather ignorant of the idea, and all of your concerns are addressed directly in Edwards' book, The Space Elevator.</p><p>A single climber on a single cable is the first step, as it is most cost effective to launch.  Once it is up, the first priority is widening the ribbon, and producing more ribbons.  Once they are in place, loss of any single ribbon would be not be very significant, as the ribbon itself is cheap, and deploying it is now cheap.</p><p>Next, the goal was always to run multiple climbers up the ribbon, in a single direction, as that makes best use of the ribbons capacity.  For climbers spaced along the ribbon, the force of gravity is greatly reduced the further up you go, so you can fit considerably more on the ribbon as compared to a single heavy climber.  Still, you have the option of clearing the ribbon and  sending up very heavy items, it would just cost more.</p><p>Anything else you can think of has also likely been addressed in that book, from technology to economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be rather ignorant of the idea , and all of your concerns are addressed directly in Edwards ' book , The Space Elevator.A single climber on a single cable is the first step , as it is most cost effective to launch .
Once it is up , the first priority is widening the ribbon , and producing more ribbons .
Once they are in place , loss of any single ribbon would be not be very significant , as the ribbon itself is cheap , and deploying it is now cheap.Next , the goal was always to run multiple climbers up the ribbon , in a single direction , as that makes best use of the ribbons capacity .
For climbers spaced along the ribbon , the force of gravity is greatly reduced the further up you go , so you can fit considerably more on the ribbon as compared to a single heavy climber .
Still , you have the option of clearing the ribbon and sending up very heavy items , it would just cost more.Anything else you can think of has also likely been addressed in that book , from technology to economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be rather ignorant of the idea, and all of your concerns are addressed directly in Edwards' book, The Space Elevator.A single climber on a single cable is the first step, as it is most cost effective to launch.
Once it is up, the first priority is widening the ribbon, and producing more ribbons.
Once they are in place, loss of any single ribbon would be not be very significant, as the ribbon itself is cheap, and deploying it is now cheap.Next, the goal was always to run multiple climbers up the ribbon, in a single direction, as that makes best use of the ribbons capacity.
For climbers spaced along the ribbon, the force of gravity is greatly reduced the further up you go, so you can fit considerably more on the ribbon as compared to a single heavy climber.
Still, you have the option of clearing the ribbon and  sending up very heavy items, it would just cost more.Anything else you can think of has also likely been addressed in that book, from technology to economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996790</id>
	<title>Re:dumb questions</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257446160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm not a scientist but several obvious ones come to mind.</p><p>For starters, you are going to have resistance greater than air through all but superconductive materials.  Second, you're going to have trouble grounding it unless you have two cables, then you're going to need to keep the cables separated or shield them which means two discrete materials.  Third, you'll have the issue of voltage surges through (as you've stated in your post) lightning strikes, static electricity, etc - very bad for electric motors.</p><p>Plus, they haven't sorted the cable part yet.  The power problem is trivial compared to the cable, so the ideal here would be to free the cable designers of as many requirements as possible.  "Strong enough to hold a crapload of miles of its own weight PLUS a payload and manage the various issues like wind, long-term exposure to UV/sunlight, rain, errant airliners, and vacuum long-term" is already a tall order beyond our technological limits by a pretty ridiculous margin at the moment.  It's probably best not to limit the possible solutions to "also has to be a superconductor with separately superconducting ground line" if we can solve the power problem another way and just let the cable geniuses focus on the "supports its own weight, etc" problem.</p><p>Maybe someone will come up with a shielded carbon nanotube superconductor that also happens to be incredibly strong.</p><p>At that point, all this time spent on power transmission still has other applications anyway, so it's not really wasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm not a scientist but several obvious ones come to mind.For starters , you are going to have resistance greater than air through all but superconductive materials .
Second , you 're going to have trouble grounding it unless you have two cables , then you 're going to need to keep the cables separated or shield them which means two discrete materials .
Third , you 'll have the issue of voltage surges through ( as you 've stated in your post ) lightning strikes , static electricity , etc - very bad for electric motors.Plus , they have n't sorted the cable part yet .
The power problem is trivial compared to the cable , so the ideal here would be to free the cable designers of as many requirements as possible .
" Strong enough to hold a crapload of miles of its own weight PLUS a payload and manage the various issues like wind , long-term exposure to UV/sunlight , rain , errant airliners , and vacuum long-term " is already a tall order beyond our technological limits by a pretty ridiculous margin at the moment .
It 's probably best not to limit the possible solutions to " also has to be a superconductor with separately superconducting ground line " if we can solve the power problem another way and just let the cable geniuses focus on the " supports its own weight , etc " problem.Maybe someone will come up with a shielded carbon nanotube superconductor that also happens to be incredibly strong.At that point , all this time spent on power transmission still has other applications anyway , so it 's not really wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm not a scientist but several obvious ones come to mind.For starters, you are going to have resistance greater than air through all but superconductive materials.
Second, you're going to have trouble grounding it unless you have two cables, then you're going to need to keep the cables separated or shield them which means two discrete materials.
Third, you'll have the issue of voltage surges through (as you've stated in your post) lightning strikes, static electricity, etc - very bad for electric motors.Plus, they haven't sorted the cable part yet.
The power problem is trivial compared to the cable, so the ideal here would be to free the cable designers of as many requirements as possible.
"Strong enough to hold a crapload of miles of its own weight PLUS a payload and manage the various issues like wind, long-term exposure to UV/sunlight, rain, errant airliners, and vacuum long-term" is already a tall order beyond our technological limits by a pretty ridiculous margin at the moment.
It's probably best not to limit the possible solutions to "also has to be a superconductor with separately superconducting ground line" if we can solve the power problem another way and just let the cable geniuses focus on the "supports its own weight, etc" problem.Maybe someone will come up with a shielded carbon nanotube superconductor that also happens to be incredibly strong.At that point, all this time spent on power transmission still has other applications anyway, so it's not really wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997274</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1257448500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ICBM's don't strictly adhere to a ballistic trajectory anymore.  I believe both Russia and China have missiles designed to thrust laterally in a difficult to predict manner to avoid kinetic kill devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ICBM 's do n't strictly adhere to a ballistic trajectory anymore .
I believe both Russia and China have missiles designed to thrust laterally in a difficult to predict manner to avoid kinetic kill devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ICBM's don't strictly adhere to a ballistic trajectory anymore.
I believe both Russia and China have missiles designed to thrust laterally in a difficult to predict manner to avoid kinetic kill devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996370</id>
	<title>Human qualified?</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1257444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So when this thing gets scaled up for carrying passengers, just how powerful a laser will it need.
<p>
Personally I'd be very wary of traveling in what's basically a lift (american: elevator) with a honkin' great laser firing at the capsule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when this thing gets scaled up for carrying passengers , just how powerful a laser will it need .
Personally I 'd be very wary of traveling in what 's basically a lift ( american : elevator ) with a honkin ' great laser firing at the capsule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when this thing gets scaled up for carrying passengers, just how powerful a laser will it need.
Personally I'd be very wary of traveling in what's basically a lift (american: elevator) with a honkin' great laser firing at the capsule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000064</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1257417060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only "rope" we know of that would have the strength is a high-tensile, ultra thin, uninsulated "ribbon" of solid woven carbon nanotubes.</p><p>What's the conductivity of a micro-think carbon nanotube ribbon and how would you go about carrying a current (in a circle) through it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only " rope " we know of that would have the strength is a high-tensile , ultra thin , uninsulated " ribbon " of solid woven carbon nanotubes.What 's the conductivity of a micro-think carbon nanotube ribbon and how would you go about carrying a current ( in a circle ) through it ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only "rope" we know of that would have the strength is a high-tensile, ultra thin, uninsulated "ribbon" of solid woven carbon nanotubes.What's the conductivity of a micro-think carbon nanotube ribbon and how would you go about carrying a current (in a circle) through it?
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996896</id>
	<title>Retarded</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1257446700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we're going to be building a super crazy nano carbon magic tube elevator structure that can actually lift shit into space, then we sure as fuck can strap some copper wiring onto it to you know, deliver power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're going to be building a super crazy nano carbon magic tube elevator structure that can actually lift shit into space , then we sure as fuck can strap some copper wiring onto it to you know , deliver power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're going to be building a super crazy nano carbon magic tube elevator structure that can actually lift shit into space, then we sure as fuck can strap some copper wiring onto it to you know, deliver power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996814</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1257446220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since there is no tangential velocity, unless the thing gets up to geo, there's going to have to be a big rocket to supply the additional deltav to reach orbit.</p></div><p>That's correct. The space elevator design calls for the elevator to stretch from the surface, to a large space station in GEO, to a point the same distance the other side of GEO. That way you can get a big bunch of the velocity needed for an interplanetary trajectory simply by going to the outer end of the space elevator and letting go!</p><p>And you're also quite right in saying that 5 m/s is too slow for human transit to GEO, but it's probably good enough for cargo payloads. One of the biggest problems, though, is that the elevator would travel through the van Allen belts, and you don't want to spend long there or the radiation will destroy your electronics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since there is no tangential velocity , unless the thing gets up to geo , there 's going to have to be a big rocket to supply the additional deltav to reach orbit.That 's correct .
The space elevator design calls for the elevator to stretch from the surface , to a large space station in GEO , to a point the same distance the other side of GEO .
That way you can get a big bunch of the velocity needed for an interplanetary trajectory simply by going to the outer end of the space elevator and letting go ! And you 're also quite right in saying that 5 m/s is too slow for human transit to GEO , but it 's probably good enough for cargo payloads .
One of the biggest problems , though , is that the elevator would travel through the van Allen belts , and you do n't want to spend long there or the radiation will destroy your electronics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since there is no tangential velocity, unless the thing gets up to geo, there's going to have to be a big rocket to supply the additional deltav to reach orbit.That's correct.
The space elevator design calls for the elevator to stretch from the surface, to a large space station in GEO, to a point the same distance the other side of GEO.
That way you can get a big bunch of the velocity needed for an interplanetary trajectory simply by going to the outer end of the space elevator and letting go!And you're also quite right in saying that 5 m/s is too slow for human transit to GEO, but it's probably good enough for cargo payloads.
One of the biggest problems, though, is that the elevator would travel through the van Allen belts, and you don't want to spend long there or the radiation will destroy your electronics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996850</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1257446400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure there must be a good answer to this, but why does a space elevator require laser power at all, instead of just running electricity up the "rope"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there must be a good answer to this , but why does a space elevator require laser power at all , instead of just running electricity up the " rope " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there must be a good answer to this, but why does a space elevator require laser power at all, instead of just running electricity up the "rope"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995684</id>
	<title>Could the ribbon conduct electricity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257440880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not an engineer,so I have a stupid question. Why not use the ribbon as an electricity conduit? The electrical field might send the rover into the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not an engineer,so I have a stupid question .
Why not use the ribbon as an electricity conduit ?
The electrical field might send the rover into the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not an engineer,so I have a stupid question.
Why not use the ribbon as an electricity conduit?
The electrical field might send the rover into the future?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996918</id>
	<title>Why Beamed Power?</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1257446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm just dense today, but why does the space elevator need to be beam powered?  You've got a nono-tube ribbon the elevator is climbing, why can't there be power wires/rails on the sides?  It just seems if the ribbon can't take the weight of power transmission lines that cargo is going to be extremely limited amount of cargo this thing can move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm just dense today , but why does the space elevator need to be beam powered ?
You 've got a nono-tube ribbon the elevator is climbing , why ca n't there be power wires/rails on the sides ?
It just seems if the ribbon ca n't take the weight of power transmission lines that cargo is going to be extremely limited amount of cargo this thing can move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm just dense today, but why does the space elevator need to be beam powered?
You've got a nono-tube ribbon the elevator is climbing, why can't there be power wires/rails on the sides?
It just seems if the ribbon can't take the weight of power transmission lines that cargo is going to be extremely limited amount of cargo this thing can move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30007390</id>
	<title>why a tether? part #1 (due to 503!)</title>
	<author>cdn-programmer</author>
	<datestamp>1257533880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Building the tether is the issue.  I don't know if I believe it can be done.  However some things about what they did do make sense.</p><p>One can use a dual system as was done in the Space Ship One project:  <a href="http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/" title="scaled.com">http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/</a> [scaled.com]</p><p>The issue is this.  There is a lot of atmosphere near sea level.  However one can use a jet in order to get above 2/3 of the atmosphere.  One can use a balloon to get much higher than this:</p><p>
&nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Manhigh" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Manhigh</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>In Manhigh they were almost 20 miles up.</p><p>The thing is that if we can get high enough then I see little reason why we can't use space based lasers in order to beam power to a ship.  The issue is that one has to get enough kinetic energy into the ship in order for it to go into orbit.  In space it still has to be a rocket.  But along the way it can be a hybrid.</p><p>The high cost of attaining orbit is not the high elevation.  Its the kinetic energy and the fact that if we want to use rocket fuel then we need to start out with so damn much of it near ground in order to have a small amount left over when we get to orbit.</p><p>Most of that fuel is an oxidizer!  The atmosphere is full of an oxidizer.</p><p>So as I see it - once we gain enough altitude using oxygen from the atmosphere - or a balloon - or a tether from a balloon - or some other system... then if we can get a space based laser system going to supply energy then we should be able to use what little atmosphere is up there as a reaction mass and one should be able to use that to gain orbit.</p><p>It would be a pretty expensive system mind you.  However it might be worth it.  If we can get a cheap enough lift system then maybe we could carry raw materials into space to be processed into say fuel!  That has HUGE potential to create an industry worthy of the investments. Mind you we've been able to use nuclear for over 50 years!  There are a number of options here.</p><p>1) we can use nuclear to split water and then use the hydrogen to combine with carbon to make synthetic fuels.</p><p>2) we can just use methane as a source of hydrogen.</p><p>3) if we can develop a good enough battery system then we won't need liquid fuels.  But if we want use electricity to power our cars then we need to generate it from something.  I rather think this comes back to nuclear.  But I know many people are optimistic that solar and wind and other emerging technologies can do it.</p><p>If we don't want to use nuclear and the other technologies don't pan out then I suppose a workable lift system might do the job.</p><p>This still leaves us with the problem that even if we can get into orbit where there are vast amounts of cheap energy... how would be transport it back to earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Building the tether is the issue .
I do n't know if I believe it can be done .
However some things about what they did do make sense.One can use a dual system as was done in the Space Ship One project : http : //www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ [ scaled.com ] The issue is this .
There is a lot of atmosphere near sea level .
However one can use a jet in order to get above 2/3 of the atmosphere .
One can use a balloon to get much higher than this :   http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project \ _Manhigh [ wikipedia.org ] In Manhigh they were almost 20 miles up.The thing is that if we can get high enough then I see little reason why we ca n't use space based lasers in order to beam power to a ship .
The issue is that one has to get enough kinetic energy into the ship in order for it to go into orbit .
In space it still has to be a rocket .
But along the way it can be a hybrid.The high cost of attaining orbit is not the high elevation .
Its the kinetic energy and the fact that if we want to use rocket fuel then we need to start out with so damn much of it near ground in order to have a small amount left over when we get to orbit.Most of that fuel is an oxidizer !
The atmosphere is full of an oxidizer.So as I see it - once we gain enough altitude using oxygen from the atmosphere - or a balloon - or a tether from a balloon - or some other system... then if we can get a space based laser system going to supply energy then we should be able to use what little atmosphere is up there as a reaction mass and one should be able to use that to gain orbit.It would be a pretty expensive system mind you .
However it might be worth it .
If we can get a cheap enough lift system then maybe we could carry raw materials into space to be processed into say fuel !
That has HUGE potential to create an industry worthy of the investments .
Mind you we 've been able to use nuclear for over 50 years !
There are a number of options here.1 ) we can use nuclear to split water and then use the hydrogen to combine with carbon to make synthetic fuels.2 ) we can just use methane as a source of hydrogen.3 ) if we can develop a good enough battery system then we wo n't need liquid fuels .
But if we want use electricity to power our cars then we need to generate it from something .
I rather think this comes back to nuclear .
But I know many people are optimistic that solar and wind and other emerging technologies can do it.If we do n't want to use nuclear and the other technologies do n't pan out then I suppose a workable lift system might do the job.This still leaves us with the problem that even if we can get into orbit where there are vast amounts of cheap energy... how would be transport it back to earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building the tether is the issue.
I don't know if I believe it can be done.
However some things about what they did do make sense.One can use a dual system as was done in the Space Ship One project:  http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ [scaled.com]The issue is this.
There is a lot of atmosphere near sea level.
However one can use a jet in order to get above 2/3 of the atmosphere.
One can use a balloon to get much higher than this:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Manhigh [wikipedia.org]In Manhigh they were almost 20 miles up.The thing is that if we can get high enough then I see little reason why we can't use space based lasers in order to beam power to a ship.
The issue is that one has to get enough kinetic energy into the ship in order for it to go into orbit.
In space it still has to be a rocket.
But along the way it can be a hybrid.The high cost of attaining orbit is not the high elevation.
Its the kinetic energy and the fact that if we want to use rocket fuel then we need to start out with so damn much of it near ground in order to have a small amount left over when we get to orbit.Most of that fuel is an oxidizer!
The atmosphere is full of an oxidizer.So as I see it - once we gain enough altitude using oxygen from the atmosphere - or a balloon - or a tether from a balloon - or some other system... then if we can get a space based laser system going to supply energy then we should be able to use what little atmosphere is up there as a reaction mass and one should be able to use that to gain orbit.It would be a pretty expensive system mind you.
However it might be worth it.
If we can get a cheap enough lift system then maybe we could carry raw materials into space to be processed into say fuel!
That has HUGE potential to create an industry worthy of the investments.
Mind you we've been able to use nuclear for over 50 years!
There are a number of options here.1) we can use nuclear to split water and then use the hydrogen to combine with carbon to make synthetic fuels.2) we can just use methane as a source of hydrogen.3) if we can develop a good enough battery system then we won't need liquid fuels.
But if we want use electricity to power our cars then we need to generate it from something.
I rather think this comes back to nuclear.
But I know many people are optimistic that solar and wind and other emerging technologies can do it.If we don't want to use nuclear and the other technologies don't pan out then I suppose a workable lift system might do the job.This still leaves us with the problem that even if we can get into orbit where there are vast amounts of cheap energy... how would be transport it back to earth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1257438420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't they attach a parabolic mirror the the elevator and use the sun for power.</p><p>They could get more than 400W from a mirror, easy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't they attach a parabolic mirror the the elevator and use the sun for power.They could get more than 400W from a mirror , easy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't they attach a parabolic mirror the the elevator and use the sun for power.They could get more than 400W from a mirror, easy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257439680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too would love to see this work - though they are going to have to be moving a hell of a lot faster than 5 M/s (18 kM/h) for it to be anything like a practical solution.</p><p>Since there is no tangential velocity, unless the thing gets up to geo, there's going to have to be a big rocket to supply the additional deltav to reach orbit.<br>To reach geosynchronous orbit (about  36000 kM above sea level, I think) is going to take about 2000 hours, or 83 days.<br>I imagine you wouldn't want to take more than a week or so to climb a cable.</p><p>To make it to geosynchronous orbit in a week you would have to be moving at about 214 kM/h, or approximately 60 meters/second.</p><p>The only other option is to have a climber that can carry enough fuel up with it for a rocket to give the additional delta v needed for orbit.<br>Since I'm not a rocket scientist, I'll leave the calculation of how much fuel  you'd need for that to someone else. Just how much additional velocity is needed if you make it say, half way up? Could you use a scramjet or something like that instead of a rocket since you would be in thin upper atmosphere with plenty of drop available to get the thing firing?</p><p>at any rate, I think we will probably have a viable ribbon or cable material  before we have a viable climber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too would love to see this work - though they are going to have to be moving a hell of a lot faster than 5 M/s ( 18 kM/h ) for it to be anything like a practical solution.Since there is no tangential velocity , unless the thing gets up to geo , there 's going to have to be a big rocket to supply the additional deltav to reach orbit.To reach geosynchronous orbit ( about 36000 kM above sea level , I think ) is going to take about 2000 hours , or 83 days.I imagine you would n't want to take more than a week or so to climb a cable.To make it to geosynchronous orbit in a week you would have to be moving at about 214 kM/h , or approximately 60 meters/second.The only other option is to have a climber that can carry enough fuel up with it for a rocket to give the additional delta v needed for orbit.Since I 'm not a rocket scientist , I 'll leave the calculation of how much fuel you 'd need for that to someone else .
Just how much additional velocity is needed if you make it say , half way up ?
Could you use a scramjet or something like that instead of a rocket since you would be in thin upper atmosphere with plenty of drop available to get the thing firing ? at any rate , I think we will probably have a viable ribbon or cable material before we have a viable climber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too would love to see this work - though they are going to have to be moving a hell of a lot faster than 5 M/s (18 kM/h) for it to be anything like a practical solution.Since there is no tangential velocity, unless the thing gets up to geo, there's going to have to be a big rocket to supply the additional deltav to reach orbit.To reach geosynchronous orbit (about  36000 kM above sea level, I think) is going to take about 2000 hours, or 83 days.I imagine you wouldn't want to take more than a week or so to climb a cable.To make it to geosynchronous orbit in a week you would have to be moving at about 214 kM/h, or approximately 60 meters/second.The only other option is to have a climber that can carry enough fuel up with it for a rocket to give the additional delta v needed for orbit.Since I'm not a rocket scientist, I'll leave the calculation of how much fuel  you'd need for that to someone else.
Just how much additional velocity is needed if you make it say, half way up?
Could you use a scramjet or something like that instead of a rocket since you would be in thin upper atmosphere with plenty of drop available to get the thing firing?at any rate, I think we will probably have a viable ribbon or cable material  before we have a viable climber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996930</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1257446820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is an old Russian joke about a lab that is working to turn feces into peanut-butter. When the party official comes by to see how the work is going, the lab director replies "Wonderful - see how well it spreads".

The problem with space elevator is the cable - everything else is trivial

If a material (like carbon nanotubes) could be made that had the required strength, and was inexpensive enough to produce &gt;10,000 Km of cable, that material could be used to drastically reduce the cost and weight of conventional launch vehicles.

The fuel cost for a conventional launch is tiny -  $50/Kg, while the total launch cost is ~$10,000/Kg. (this is for real existing launch vehicles)  Fuel costs aren't the issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an old Russian joke about a lab that is working to turn feces into peanut-butter .
When the party official comes by to see how the work is going , the lab director replies " Wonderful - see how well it spreads " .
The problem with space elevator is the cable - everything else is trivial If a material ( like carbon nanotubes ) could be made that had the required strength , and was inexpensive enough to produce &gt; 10,000 Km of cable , that material could be used to drastically reduce the cost and weight of conventional launch vehicles .
The fuel cost for a conventional launch is tiny - $ 50/Kg , while the total launch cost is ~ $ 10,000/Kg .
( this is for real existing launch vehicles ) Fuel costs are n't the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an old Russian joke about a lab that is working to turn feces into peanut-butter.
When the party official comes by to see how the work is going, the lab director replies "Wonderful - see how well it spreads".
The problem with space elevator is the cable - everything else is trivial

If a material (like carbon nanotubes) could be made that had the required strength, and was inexpensive enough to produce &gt;10,000 Km of cable, that material could be used to drastically reduce the cost and weight of conventional launch vehicles.
The fuel cost for a conventional launch is tiny -  $50/Kg, while the total launch cost is ~$10,000/Kg.
(this is for real existing launch vehicles)  Fuel costs aren't the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995116</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257438060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference of course: If we can stop 50\% of ICBMs, that may already make the investment worth it. For an elevator that sort of reliability might not be enough...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference of course : If we can stop 50 \ % of ICBMs , that may already make the investment worth it .
For an elevator that sort of reliability might not be enough.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference of course: If we can stop 50\% of ICBMs, that may already make the investment worth it.
For an elevator that sort of reliability might not be enough...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002500</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257433860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Energize part of the elevator and use that to power the vehicle, it's a tested and proven method for transportation on the ground and involves a lot less variables and expense.</i></p><p>Yea, that works perfectly fine on the ground where the cables do not have to bare the weight of 23,000 miles of cable.  I bet you couldn't lift one end of a 50 mile long cable up in the air and let the bottom dangle off the ground, it'd snap before it ever got that high.  But if you did you'd have a hell of a ground for static electricity like lightening.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Energize part of the elevator and use that to power the vehicle , it 's a tested and proven method for transportation on the ground and involves a lot less variables and expense.Yea , that works perfectly fine on the ground where the cables do not have to bare the weight of 23,000 miles of cable .
I bet you could n't lift one end of a 50 mile long cable up in the air and let the bottom dangle off the ground , it 'd snap before it ever got that high .
But if you did you 'd have a hell of a ground for static electricity like lightening .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Energize part of the elevator and use that to power the vehicle, it's a tested and proven method for transportation on the ground and involves a lot less variables and expense.Yea, that works perfectly fine on the ground where the cables do not have to bare the weight of 23,000 miles of cable.
I bet you couldn't lift one end of a 50 mile long cable up in the air and let the bottom dangle off the ground, it'd snap before it ever got that high.
But if you did you'd have a hell of a ground for static electricity like lightening.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999628</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257415140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boron nitride nanotubes and nanomesh.  That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boron nitride nanotubes and nanomesh .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boron nitride nanotubes and nanomesh.
That is all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257439440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is, I'm sure, soluble</p></div><p>Soluble, sure, but only in aqua fortis.</p><p>Or did you mean solvable?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , I 'm sure , solubleSoluble , sure , but only in aqua fortis.Or did you mean solvable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, I'm sure, solubleSoluble, sure, but only in aqua fortis.Or did you mean solvable?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994972</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Shane112358</author>
	<datestamp>1257437340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ad Astra! Ad Luna! Ad Lagrange Point 2!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad Astra !
Ad Luna !
Ad Lagrange Point 2 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad Astra!
Ad Luna!
Ad Lagrange Point 2!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995890</id>
	<title>Is there a plan for equipment failure?</title>
	<author>PSaltyDS</author>
	<datestamp>1257441780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there an obvious plan for the crawler failing half way up the cable?  In this test you just set it down with the chopper, but what do you do half way to geosync orbit?</p><p>I guess a second crawler has to go up underneath the failed one, trigger some kind of mechanical release and carry its dead weight down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there an obvious plan for the crawler failing half way up the cable ?
In this test you just set it down with the chopper , but what do you do half way to geosync orbit ? I guess a second crawler has to go up underneath the failed one , trigger some kind of mechanical release and carry its dead weight down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there an obvious plan for the crawler failing half way up the cable?
In this test you just set it down with the chopper, but what do you do half way to geosync orbit?I guess a second crawler has to go up underneath the failed one, trigger some kind of mechanical release and carry its dead weight down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998266</id>
	<title>Re:Retarded</title>
	<author>black3d</author>
	<datestamp>1257452700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The electrical resistance would make this impossible after the first few dozen miles, and this would be tens of thousands of miles long. Providing excess power generation to counteract the resistance would mean huge cables (into the millions of tonnes of copper cable) which could never possibly be lifted into space (without a space elevator, that is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)).</p><p>It is possible to provide some electricity through the carbon nanotubes themselves, but the conversion rate is not great. Solar power would be nice, but would require huge fins which dramatically increase the weight of the climber. Beamed power solves most issues.</p><p>IMO tho, nuclear batteries will make this whole debate obsolete.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The electrical resistance would make this impossible after the first few dozen miles , and this would be tens of thousands of miles long .
Providing excess power generation to counteract the resistance would mean huge cables ( into the millions of tonnes of copper cable ) which could never possibly be lifted into space ( without a space elevator , that is ; ) ) .It is possible to provide some electricity through the carbon nanotubes themselves , but the conversion rate is not great .
Solar power would be nice , but would require huge fins which dramatically increase the weight of the climber .
Beamed power solves most issues.IMO tho , nuclear batteries will make this whole debate obsolete .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The electrical resistance would make this impossible after the first few dozen miles, and this would be tens of thousands of miles long.
Providing excess power generation to counteract the resistance would mean huge cables (into the millions of tonnes of copper cable) which could never possibly be lifted into space (without a space elevator, that is ;)).It is possible to provide some electricity through the carbon nanotubes themselves, but the conversion rate is not great.
Solar power would be nice, but would require huge fins which dramatically increase the weight of the climber.
Beamed power solves most issues.IMO tho, nuclear batteries will make this whole debate obsolete.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995624</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257440640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Soluble, sure, but only in aqua fortis.</i></p><p><i>Or did you mean solvable?<br></i></p><p>Well Archimedes did say, "Give me a powerful enough solvent, and a large enough bathtub, and I'll dissolve the Earth."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soluble , sure , but only in aqua fortis.Or did you mean solvable ? Well Archimedes did say , " Give me a powerful enough solvent , and a large enough bathtub , and I 'll dissolve the Earth .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soluble, sure, but only in aqua fortis.Or did you mean solvable?Well Archimedes did say, "Give me a powerful enough solvent, and a large enough bathtub, and I'll dissolve the Earth.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996158</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257443040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody is able to design the cable. We simply don't have the technology, which is why they're focusing on the climber instead.<br> <br>

This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt. If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.</p></div><p>This is an inappropriate metaphor for two reasons. First, the crawler is an integral part of the system. It's not a "cool hat", but part of the belt. Second, it is something we can attain. We don't have the technology yet for an Earth to orbit system (though current technology is good enough for a lunar system), but we know enough that we can design the system even if we can't yet make the materials that we'd build the elevator out of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is able to design the cable .
We simply do n't have the technology , which is why they 're focusing on the climber instead .
This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt .
If someone wins the contest , then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that 's left is the bit with the belt.This is an inappropriate metaphor for two reasons .
First , the crawler is an integral part of the system .
It 's not a " cool hat " , but part of the belt .
Second , it is something we can attain .
We do n't have the technology yet for an Earth to orbit system ( though current technology is good enough for a lunar system ) , but we know enough that we can design the system even if we ca n't yet make the materials that we 'd build the elevator out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is able to design the cable.
We simply don't have the technology, which is why they're focusing on the climber instead.
This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt.
If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.This is an inappropriate metaphor for two reasons.
First, the crawler is an integral part of the system.
It's not a "cool hat", but part of the belt.
Second, it is something we can attain.
We don't have the technology yet for an Earth to orbit system (though current technology is good enough for a lunar system), but we know enough that we can design the system even if we can't yet make the materials that we'd build the elevator out of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000330</id>
	<title>Rotovator more feasible than earth to GEO elevator</title>
	<author>Big\_Breaker</author>
	<datestamp>1257418260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is much more likely that the first tether used to raise payload to orbit will be rotating in a LEO orbit.  A hypersonic airplane (or gas cannon for high G tolerant payloads)  would lift the payload to high altitudes where it rendezvouses with one end of the tether.  This "two stage" to orbit version of the space elevator drastically cuts the engineering requirements of the tether.  For a surface to GEO tether we can only speculate about near perfect weaves of carbon nanotubes.  With a high altitude rotovator you can use Spectra or Spectra-like polymer cables.</p><p>In this case the power beaming would probably come from the counterweight on the opposite end of the tether.  The relative position of the payload climber and the beaming station wouldn't change that much but the whole tether system would be rotating relative to the earth.  I doubt the beam would be much trouble on the surface of the earth but it might make sense for the beaming system to defocus by the time it reaches earth - IE don't make it a coherent, low divergence laser.</p><p>This also means that the energy for the beam has to get to the counterweight somehow.  A ballistic launch system like a gas gun would be very helpful in that respect.  Most fuels don't might a few hundred Gs, especially not fissionables.  A space elevator would be much more convenient but unfortunately we are on a 1g (9.8 m/s^2) planet.  If our rock was smaller/less massive it would be much easier!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is much more likely that the first tether used to raise payload to orbit will be rotating in a LEO orbit .
A hypersonic airplane ( or gas cannon for high G tolerant payloads ) would lift the payload to high altitudes where it rendezvouses with one end of the tether .
This " two stage " to orbit version of the space elevator drastically cuts the engineering requirements of the tether .
For a surface to GEO tether we can only speculate about near perfect weaves of carbon nanotubes .
With a high altitude rotovator you can use Spectra or Spectra-like polymer cables.In this case the power beaming would probably come from the counterweight on the opposite end of the tether .
The relative position of the payload climber and the beaming station would n't change that much but the whole tether system would be rotating relative to the earth .
I doubt the beam would be much trouble on the surface of the earth but it might make sense for the beaming system to defocus by the time it reaches earth - IE do n't make it a coherent , low divergence laser.This also means that the energy for the beam has to get to the counterweight somehow .
A ballistic launch system like a gas gun would be very helpful in that respect .
Most fuels do n't might a few hundred Gs , especially not fissionables .
A space elevator would be much more convenient but unfortunately we are on a 1g ( 9.8 m/s ^ 2 ) planet .
If our rock was smaller/less massive it would be much easier !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is much more likely that the first tether used to raise payload to orbit will be rotating in a LEO orbit.
A hypersonic airplane (or gas cannon for high G tolerant payloads)  would lift the payload to high altitudes where it rendezvouses with one end of the tether.
This "two stage" to orbit version of the space elevator drastically cuts the engineering requirements of the tether.
For a surface to GEO tether we can only speculate about near perfect weaves of carbon nanotubes.
With a high altitude rotovator you can use Spectra or Spectra-like polymer cables.In this case the power beaming would probably come from the counterweight on the opposite end of the tether.
The relative position of the payload climber and the beaming station wouldn't change that much but the whole tether system would be rotating relative to the earth.
I doubt the beam would be much trouble on the surface of the earth but it might make sense for the beaming system to defocus by the time it reaches earth - IE don't make it a coherent, low divergence laser.This also means that the energy for the beam has to get to the counterweight somehow.
A ballistic launch system like a gas gun would be very helpful in that respect.
Most fuels don't might a few hundred Gs, especially not fissionables.
A space elevator would be much more convenient but unfortunately we are on a 1g (9.8 m/s^2) planet.
If our rock was smaller/less massive it would be much easier!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001510</id>
	<title>Curious..</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1257424320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if this is part of the design or not, I haven't heard anything yet at least... But couldn't they have a laser firing from the ground to hit the platform from the bottom, and another one from space hitting the top of the platform? Thus adding redundancy and you'll only need have the juice to power it. Not to mention since you have one side already in space, I'd imagine the satellite or whatever could harness solar power in higher efficiency. Or just rig the cable to a motor/mechanism that pulls the cable up rather than a laser to tethered platform. I'm not an engineer, so this may be stupid, but figured I'd throw it out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this is part of the design or not , I have n't heard anything yet at least... But could n't they have a laser firing from the ground to hit the platform from the bottom , and another one from space hitting the top of the platform ?
Thus adding redundancy and you 'll only need have the juice to power it .
Not to mention since you have one side already in space , I 'd imagine the satellite or whatever could harness solar power in higher efficiency .
Or just rig the cable to a motor/mechanism that pulls the cable up rather than a laser to tethered platform .
I 'm not an engineer , so this may be stupid , but figured I 'd throw it out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if this is part of the design or not, I haven't heard anything yet at least... But couldn't they have a laser firing from the ground to hit the platform from the bottom, and another one from space hitting the top of the platform?
Thus adding redundancy and you'll only need have the juice to power it.
Not to mention since you have one side already in space, I'd imagine the satellite or whatever could harness solar power in higher efficiency.
Or just rig the cable to a motor/mechanism that pulls the cable up rather than a laser to tethered platform.
I'm not an engineer, so this may be stupid, but figured I'd throw it out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998822</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257412020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; who thinks it would be easier to design the system like we design all of our<br>&gt; mass transit which uses electricity?</p><p>No one who has looked at all closely at the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; who thinks it would be easier to design the system like we design all of our &gt; mass transit which uses electricity ? No one who has looked at all closely at the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; who thinks it would be easier to design the system like we design all of our&gt; mass transit which uses electricity?No one who has looked at all closely at the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997646</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>jcochran</author>
	<datestamp>1257450300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that it's speed is dependent upon the amount of work the climber needs to perform.<br>Interestingly enough, the required work decreases as the climber gains altitude. After all, the gravitational pull gets reduced with the greater distance from earth due to the inverse square law. And, yes, I'm aware that the efficiently of the power transmission also goes down with the inverse square law, but I'll assume they step up the power as required to keep the amount of power the climber gets as close to the maximum power the climber can handle.</p><p>So starting at sea level, the climber is running at 5 M/s. A rather modest rate.<br>By the time it's climbed to 2640 km, it's speed is up to 10 M/s.<br>At 6380 km, it climbing at 20 M/s.<br>The 60 M/s rate is reached at about 15700 km.<br>I estimate that a climber capable of 5 M/s at sea level due to its increasing speed as the amount of work it's doing per meter decreases, can reach geostational altitude in about 300 hours. There's quite a bit of slop in this estimate since I didn't account for orbital velocity which would tend to decrease the amount of work required (for example, my spreadsheet has the climbing fighting a downward acceleration of 0.22 M/s at geostationary altitide when in reality it would be fighting nothing. Also I haven't bothered to take into consideration deceleration which would obviously be required since you wouldn't want your payload to go zipping by in excess of 218 M/s as it passes geostationary and heads on out to deep space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that it 's speed is dependent upon the amount of work the climber needs to perform.Interestingly enough , the required work decreases as the climber gains altitude .
After all , the gravitational pull gets reduced with the greater distance from earth due to the inverse square law .
And , yes , I 'm aware that the efficiently of the power transmission also goes down with the inverse square law , but I 'll assume they step up the power as required to keep the amount of power the climber gets as close to the maximum power the climber can handle.So starting at sea level , the climber is running at 5 M/s .
A rather modest rate.By the time it 's climbed to 2640 km , it 's speed is up to 10 M/s.At 6380 km , it climbing at 20 M/s.The 60 M/s rate is reached at about 15700 km.I estimate that a climber capable of 5 M/s at sea level due to its increasing speed as the amount of work it 's doing per meter decreases , can reach geostational altitude in about 300 hours .
There 's quite a bit of slop in this estimate since I did n't account for orbital velocity which would tend to decrease the amount of work required ( for example , my spreadsheet has the climbing fighting a downward acceleration of 0.22 M/s at geostationary altitide when in reality it would be fighting nothing .
Also I have n't bothered to take into consideration deceleration which would obviously be required since you would n't want your payload to go zipping by in excess of 218 M/s as it passes geostationary and heads on out to deep space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that it's speed is dependent upon the amount of work the climber needs to perform.Interestingly enough, the required work decreases as the climber gains altitude.
After all, the gravitational pull gets reduced with the greater distance from earth due to the inverse square law.
And, yes, I'm aware that the efficiently of the power transmission also goes down with the inverse square law, but I'll assume they step up the power as required to keep the amount of power the climber gets as close to the maximum power the climber can handle.So starting at sea level, the climber is running at 5 M/s.
A rather modest rate.By the time it's climbed to 2640 km, it's speed is up to 10 M/s.At 6380 km, it climbing at 20 M/s.The 60 M/s rate is reached at about 15700 km.I estimate that a climber capable of 5 M/s at sea level due to its increasing speed as the amount of work it's doing per meter decreases, can reach geostational altitude in about 300 hours.
There's quite a bit of slop in this estimate since I didn't account for orbital velocity which would tend to decrease the amount of work required (for example, my spreadsheet has the climbing fighting a downward acceleration of 0.22 M/s at geostationary altitide when in reality it would be fighting nothing.
Also I haven't bothered to take into consideration deceleration which would obviously be required since you wouldn't want your payload to go zipping by in excess of 218 M/s as it passes geostationary and heads on out to deep space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003826</id>
	<title>Regenerative breaking</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1257500880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stick rechargeable batteries in climbers and have the ones<br>going down use regenerative breaking to charge their batteries.</p><p>When they meet an ascending climber have them swap batteries.</p><p>If you achieve a large efficiency the amount of energy you need<br>to supply to overcome friction losses should be small and could<br>probably be compensated for with solar cells or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick rechargeable batteries in climbers and have the onesgoing down use regenerative breaking to charge their batteries.When they meet an ascending climber have them swap batteries.If you achieve a large efficiency the amount of energy you needto supply to overcome friction losses should be small and couldprobably be compensated for with solar cells or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick rechargeable batteries in climbers and have the onesgoing down use regenerative breaking to charge their batteries.When they meet an ascending climber have them swap batteries.If you achieve a large efficiency the amount of energy you needto supply to overcome friction losses should be small and couldprobably be compensated for with solar cells or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</id>
	<title>Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1257437220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leik Myrabo at RPI has been working on this stuff for years.   In his words, if we can hit an enemy ICBM travelling at many times the speed of sound with a laser, surely we can keep one focused on a friendly target with a known/desired trajectory.  These projects will NOT become accidental Death Stars.   Given the absurdly high percentage that fuel makes up of a vehicles launch weight, anything you can do to power the craft externally gives you huge savings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leik Myrabo at RPI has been working on this stuff for years .
In his words , if we can hit an enemy ICBM travelling at many times the speed of sound with a laser , surely we can keep one focused on a friendly target with a known/desired trajectory .
These projects will NOT become accidental Death Stars .
Given the absurdly high percentage that fuel makes up of a vehicles launch weight , anything you can do to power the craft externally gives you huge savings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leik Myrabo at RPI has been working on this stuff for years.
In his words, if we can hit an enemy ICBM travelling at many times the speed of sound with a laser, surely we can keep one focused on a friendly target with a known/desired trajectory.
These projects will NOT become accidental Death Stars.
Given the absurdly high percentage that fuel makes up of a vehicles launch weight, anything you can do to power the craft externally gives you huge savings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994994</id>
	<title>Good to hear.</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257437460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope to see a functional space elevator in my lifetime.  This would help space travel immensely by taking making the issue of getting out of our atmosphere a relatively dull process it allows us to put more focus on ships that can be bigger and designed for long term space travel. Say to mars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope to see a functional space elevator in my lifetime .
This would help space travel immensely by taking making the issue of getting out of our atmosphere a relatively dull process it allows us to put more focus on ships that can be bigger and designed for long term space travel .
Say to mars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope to see a functional space elevator in my lifetime.
This would help space travel immensely by taking making the issue of getting out of our atmosphere a relatively dull process it allows us to put more focus on ships that can be bigger and designed for long term space travel.
Say to mars</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995702</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257440940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; In a nutshell, it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or<br>&gt; baseball, and catching a fly.</p><p>Some of these people have already built laser systems that can shoot a fly out of the air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In a nutshell , it 's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or &gt; baseball , and catching a fly.Some of these people have already built laser systems that can shoot a fly out of the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; In a nutshell, it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or&gt; baseball, and catching a fly.Some of these people have already built laser systems that can shoot a fly out of the air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995876</id>
	<title>Quick Progress</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257441720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the rate of this progress, the space elevator will be in place well before OBL is located. Well done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the rate of this progress , the space elevator will be in place well before OBL is located .
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the rate of this progress, the space elevator will be in place well before OBL is located.
Well done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995566</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257440280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>400W is only the test unit, and probably had almost no payload. A mirror capable of generating 400W of focused light is probably going to be too heavy for the small test platform they were testing with.</p><p>The purpose of this was a scale test of a proposed much larger (and therefore useful) elevator box that could carry some payload, and that would need to be powered by a necessarily much larger ground-based laser.</p><p>If and when this ever reaches the point where they are talking about putting people or useful cargo onboard, the only thing I'm unclear on (because I don't have the time or the knowledge to do all the maths) is whether we'd be talking in megawatts or gigawatts.  Probably megawatts.</p><p>It's probable that any mirror large enough to focus sunlight in useful quantities to raise a payload would be too large to be raised as part of that payload, regardless of scale.  Even if it's possible, it cuts severely into theoretical payload.  Leave the mirrors on the ground and you can use all that saved weight for payload.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>400W is only the test unit , and probably had almost no payload .
A mirror capable of generating 400W of focused light is probably going to be too heavy for the small test platform they were testing with.The purpose of this was a scale test of a proposed much larger ( and therefore useful ) elevator box that could carry some payload , and that would need to be powered by a necessarily much larger ground-based laser.If and when this ever reaches the point where they are talking about putting people or useful cargo onboard , the only thing I 'm unclear on ( because I do n't have the time or the knowledge to do all the maths ) is whether we 'd be talking in megawatts or gigawatts .
Probably megawatts.It 's probable that any mirror large enough to focus sunlight in useful quantities to raise a payload would be too large to be raised as part of that payload , regardless of scale .
Even if it 's possible , it cuts severely into theoretical payload .
Leave the mirrors on the ground and you can use all that saved weight for payload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>400W is only the test unit, and probably had almost no payload.
A mirror capable of generating 400W of focused light is probably going to be too heavy for the small test platform they were testing with.The purpose of this was a scale test of a proposed much larger (and therefore useful) elevator box that could carry some payload, and that would need to be powered by a necessarily much larger ground-based laser.If and when this ever reaches the point where they are talking about putting people or useful cargo onboard, the only thing I'm unclear on (because I don't have the time or the knowledge to do all the maths) is whether we'd be talking in megawatts or gigawatts.
Probably megawatts.It's probable that any mirror large enough to focus sunlight in useful quantities to raise a payload would be too large to be raised as part of that payload, regardless of scale.
Even if it's possible, it cuts severely into theoretical payload.
Leave the mirrors on the ground and you can use all that saved weight for payload.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996296</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>bobbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1257443700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if they could make the cable how are they going to dampen swings and bounces? In space there's no air to dampen the motion and there's no nowhere for the accumulating energy to go except to make the anchor bounce and sway more and more. The bad part is that the more it swings the higher the gravity will be. Does anyone remember riding the rotating sail-swing ride at the amusement park? It'd be like that but instead of your 150 lb best friend pulling on the cables it'll be ton of potential satellite trying to get up to orbital velocity. The good news is that the period of a 17000 mile pendulum might give you enough time to evacuate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they could make the cable how are they going to dampen swings and bounces ?
In space there 's no air to dampen the motion and there 's no nowhere for the accumulating energy to go except to make the anchor bounce and sway more and more .
The bad part is that the more it swings the higher the gravity will be .
Does anyone remember riding the rotating sail-swing ride at the amusement park ?
It 'd be like that but instead of your 150 lb best friend pulling on the cables it 'll be ton of potential satellite trying to get up to orbital velocity .
The good news is that the period of a 17000 mile pendulum might give you enough time to evacuate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they could make the cable how are they going to dampen swings and bounces?
In space there's no air to dampen the motion and there's no nowhere for the accumulating energy to go except to make the anchor bounce and sway more and more.
The bad part is that the more it swings the higher the gravity will be.
Does anyone remember riding the rotating sail-swing ride at the amusement park?
It'd be like that but instead of your 150 lb best friend pulling on the cables it'll be ton of potential satellite trying to get up to orbital velocity.
The good news is that the period of a 17000 mile pendulum might give you enough time to evacuate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003438</id>
	<title>Re:Next time, check the dictionary before posting.</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1257449940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you knew any Latin</p></div> </blockquote><p>
A Latin grammar Nazi - I guess there's one in every language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you knew any Latin A Latin grammar Nazi - I guess there 's one in every language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you knew any Latin 
A Latin grammar Nazi - I guess there's one in every language.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001360</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>stevelinton</author>
	<datestamp>1257423300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This one is actually easy. You have powerful computers, you know all the forces acting and you have (in computer terms) plenty of time to react. If you have a few ways of controlling some of the forces, you can work out how to apply them to damp out any oscillations</p><p>1. You can do quite a lot by scheduling cargo cleverly -- effectvely moving point masses up and down the cable</p><p>2. You can tug on the cable from the ground, the station at GEO or the anchor mass if there is one.</p><p>3. You can use high impulse low thrust rockets (ion engines say) powered by the same lasers you use for the climbers to thrust on the cable. They will need refueling occasionally, which uses up a little of your cargo capacity, but not very often</p><p>By the way, the same website that describes the competition describes the state of play on cable materials. It's not as bad as some people make out -- carbon nanotubes are strong enough with a significant factor to spare. We have to work out how to stick them together and make fibres and how to stick them together to make a cable, without compromising the strength. All of these are hard problems, but we don't actually need a fundamentally new material at the molecular level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This one is actually easy .
You have powerful computers , you know all the forces acting and you have ( in computer terms ) plenty of time to react .
If you have a few ways of controlling some of the forces , you can work out how to apply them to damp out any oscillations1 .
You can do quite a lot by scheduling cargo cleverly -- effectvely moving point masses up and down the cable2 .
You can tug on the cable from the ground , the station at GEO or the anchor mass if there is one.3 .
You can use high impulse low thrust rockets ( ion engines say ) powered by the same lasers you use for the climbers to thrust on the cable .
They will need refueling occasionally , which uses up a little of your cargo capacity , but not very oftenBy the way , the same website that describes the competition describes the state of play on cable materials .
It 's not as bad as some people make out -- carbon nanotubes are strong enough with a significant factor to spare .
We have to work out how to stick them together and make fibres and how to stick them together to make a cable , without compromising the strength .
All of these are hard problems , but we do n't actually need a fundamentally new material at the molecular level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one is actually easy.
You have powerful computers, you know all the forces acting and you have (in computer terms) plenty of time to react.
If you have a few ways of controlling some of the forces, you can work out how to apply them to damp out any oscillations1.
You can do quite a lot by scheduling cargo cleverly -- effectvely moving point masses up and down the cable2.
You can tug on the cable from the ground, the station at GEO or the anchor mass if there is one.3.
You can use high impulse low thrust rockets (ion engines say) powered by the same lasers you use for the climbers to thrust on the cable.
They will need refueling occasionally, which uses up a little of your cargo capacity, but not very oftenBy the way, the same website that describes the competition describes the state of play on cable materials.
It's not as bad as some people make out -- carbon nanotubes are strong enough with a significant factor to spare.
We have to work out how to stick them together and make fibres and how to stick them together to make a cable, without compromising the strength.
All of these are hard problems, but we don't actually need a fundamentally new material at the molecular level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</id>
	<title>Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257438360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw. It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics. Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable. Now consider an object attached to a rope in the atmosphere. It's subject to constantly changing wind forces in three dimensions. Even when it's out of the atmosphere, the beam is subject to deviation caused by atmospheric effects, which is why stars twinkle and big telescopes need clever adaptive control systems. Its path is many times less predictable. In a nutshell, it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball, and catching a fly. It is <i>not</i> an object with a "known/desired" trajectory.<p>The problem is, I'm sure, soluble, but the technical difficulty should not be underestimated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word that 's part of ICBM is " ballistic " , from the Greek ballein , I throw .
It 's travelling through extremely thin gas , and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics .
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable .
Now consider an object attached to a rope in the atmosphere .
It 's subject to constantly changing wind forces in three dimensions .
Even when it 's out of the atmosphere , the beam is subject to deviation caused by atmospheric effects , which is why stars twinkle and big telescopes need clever adaptive control systems .
Its path is many times less predictable .
In a nutshell , it 's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball , and catching a fly .
It is not an object with a " known/desired " trajectory.The problem is , I 'm sure , soluble , but the technical difficulty should not be underestimated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw.
It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics.
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.
Now consider an object attached to a rope in the atmosphere.
It's subject to constantly changing wind forces in three dimensions.
Even when it's out of the atmosphere, the beam is subject to deviation caused by atmospheric effects, which is why stars twinkle and big telescopes need clever adaptive control systems.
Its path is many times less predictable.
In a nutshell, it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball, and catching a fly.
It is not an object with a "known/desired" trajectory.The problem is, I'm sure, soluble, but the technical difficulty should not be underestimated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998520</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1257453720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adaptive optics and deformable mirrors with microactuators already exist to account for atmospheric effects and scintillation.  We use them in laser weapon platforms like MTHEL, SSHCL, and ABL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adaptive optics and deformable mirrors with microactuators already exist to account for atmospheric effects and scintillation .
We use them in laser weapon platforms like MTHEL , SSHCL , and ABL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adaptive optics and deformable mirrors with microactuators already exist to account for atmospheric effects and scintillation.
We use them in laser weapon platforms like MTHEL, SSHCL, and ABL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998264</id>
	<title>CalTrans can't fix an old iron bridge, but..</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1257452700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We want to build an unsupported vertical cable 20,000 miles long capable of not only supporting it's own trillion pound weight but also last forever without maintenance (it could not be repaired) be absolutely foolproof (the consequences of failure would be catastrophic beyond imagining) and have two way traffic (it would not be practical without more than one simultaneous carriage path) with payloads weighing thousands of tons each.</p><p>Absolutely, mind-bogglingly stupid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We want to build an unsupported vertical cable 20,000 miles long capable of not only supporting it 's own trillion pound weight but also last forever without maintenance ( it could not be repaired ) be absolutely foolproof ( the consequences of failure would be catastrophic beyond imagining ) and have two way traffic ( it would not be practical without more than one simultaneous carriage path ) with payloads weighing thousands of tons each.Absolutely , mind-bogglingly stupid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want to build an unsupported vertical cable 20,000 miles long capable of not only supporting it's own trillion pound weight but also last forever without maintenance (it could not be repaired) be absolutely foolproof (the consequences of failure would be catastrophic beyond imagining) and have two way traffic (it would not be practical without more than one simultaneous carriage path) with payloads weighing thousands of tons each.Absolutely, mind-bogglingly stupid!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30010570</id>
	<title>Re:Uh-oh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257506280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If two people are in a space elevator and one of them farts, everyone knows who did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If two people are in a space elevator and one of them farts , everyone knows who did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If two people are in a space elevator and one of them farts, everyone knows who did it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997506</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up.</title>
	<author>eabrek</author>
	<datestamp>1257449700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could build a space elevator out of bubble gum (although you'd probably need so much that it would screw with gravity).  You want a light tether to reduce launch costs... (and there is a separate tether competition/reward).</p><p>The climber really is the hard part.  You need power delivery, reception, and drive.  Not to mention heat dissipation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could build a space elevator out of bubble gum ( although you 'd probably need so much that it would screw with gravity ) .
You want a light tether to reduce launch costs... ( and there is a separate tether competition/reward ) .The climber really is the hard part .
You need power delivery , reception , and drive .
Not to mention heat dissipation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could build a space elevator out of bubble gum (although you'd probably need so much that it would screw with gravity).
You want a light tether to reduce launch costs... (and there is a separate tether competition/reward).The climber really is the hard part.
You need power delivery, reception, and drive.
Not to mention heat dissipation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30013108</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1257587460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These projects will NOT become accidental Death Stars.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps small death-moons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These projects will NOT become accidental Death Stars.Perhaps small death-moons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These projects will NOT become accidental Death Stars.Perhaps small death-moons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997050</id>
	<title>Re:Human qualified?</title>
	<author>malakai</author>
	<datestamp>1257447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea isn't to use laser power solely. The laser climber is for the early work when there's a very thin cable connecting the two points. Slowly, after year(s) of trips, the cable would be reinforced with more cables. Each new cable increases the tether capacity and allows a larger climber. Eventually lasers are ditched and the bigger climbers rely on other on board energy sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is n't to use laser power solely .
The laser climber is for the early work when there 's a very thin cable connecting the two points .
Slowly , after year ( s ) of trips , the cable would be reinforced with more cables .
Each new cable increases the tether capacity and allows a larger climber .
Eventually lasers are ditched and the bigger climbers rely on other on board energy sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea isn't to use laser power solely.
The laser climber is for the early work when there's a very thin cable connecting the two points.
Slowly, after year(s) of trips, the cable would be reinforced with more cables.
Each new cable increases the tether capacity and allows a larger climber.
Eventually lasers are ditched and the bigger climbers rely on other on board energy sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997578</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up.</title>
	<author>jnmontario</author>
	<datestamp>1257450000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember that a charge is produced in an object (conductor) that is strung vertically in the atmosphere.  People smarter than I surely have considered harnessing this as part of the elevator?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember that a charge is produced in an object ( conductor ) that is strung vertically in the atmosphere .
People smarter than I surely have considered harnessing this as part of the elevator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember that a charge is produced in an object (conductor) that is strung vertically in the atmosphere.
People smarter than I surely have considered harnessing this as part of the elevator?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995958</id>
	<title>Solar power eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outside of the fact that we can't effectively design the cable, how high would the cable be placed out in to space?</p><p>If it is out far enough, it could probably use the sun directly for power.</p><p>If not, how much power would be required to carry up your average weight to geosync and how reliable are long-term batteries?<br>How well do flywheels work in space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of the fact that we ca n't effectively design the cable , how high would the cable be placed out in to space ? If it is out far enough , it could probably use the sun directly for power.If not , how much power would be required to carry up your average weight to geosync and how reliable are long-term batteries ? How well do flywheels work in space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside of the fact that we can't effectively design the cable, how high would the cable be placed out in to space?If it is out far enough, it could probably use the sun directly for power.If not, how much power would be required to carry up your average weight to geosync and how reliable are long-term batteries?How well do flywheels work in space?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999216</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Zarniwoop\_Editor</author>
	<datestamp>1257413520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you not just use the cable itself to transfer the power rather than a complicated laser system?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you not just use the cable itself to transfer the power rather than a complicated laser system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you not just use the cable itself to transfer the power rather than a complicated laser system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995460</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1257439740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In his words, if we can hit an enemy ICBM travelling at many times the speed of sound with a laser, surely we can keep one focused on a friendly target with a known/desired trajectory"</p><p>But we haven't demonstrated that we <i>can</i> hit an enemy ICBM with a laser, so what's the point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In his words , if we can hit an enemy ICBM travelling at many times the speed of sound with a laser , surely we can keep one focused on a friendly target with a known/desired trajectory " But we have n't demonstrated that we can hit an enemy ICBM with a laser , so what 's the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In his words, if we can hit an enemy ICBM travelling at many times the speed of sound with a laser, surely we can keep one focused on a friendly target with a known/desired trajectory"But we haven't demonstrated that we can hit an enemy ICBM with a laser, so what's the point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30004346</id>
	<title>Tell me one thing...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1257510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are drawing a goddamned CABLE.<br>Would it be so much hassle to transfer some electricity through it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are drawing a goddamned CABLE.Would it be so much hassle to transfer some electricity through it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are drawing a goddamned CABLE.Would it be so much hassle to transfer some electricity through it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997868</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257451080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>George Boole invented a subset of mathematics that, for over 70 years, was apparently useless. Now he has data types named after him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>George Boole invented a subset of mathematics that , for over 70 years , was apparently useless .
Now he has data types named after him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Boole invented a subset of mathematics that, for over 70 years, was apparently useless.
Now he has data types named after him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996300</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257443760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw</p></div><p>ballein is the infinitive. ballw = I throw</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ballistic " , from the Greek ballein , I throwballein is the infinitive .
ballw = I throw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throwballein is the infinitive.
ballw = I throw
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995850</id>
	<title>Now if only..</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1257441600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>..we had some great engineers to rush this projects.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>..we had some great engineers to rush this projects .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..we had some great engineers to rush this projects.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003150</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>dark grep</author>
	<datestamp>1257444780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spider silk is strong enough isn't it?  I understood something about 3-4 times the tensile strength of steel was needed, and some spider silk can be up the 10 times.

Of course, that would lead to its own rather obvious problems.

I for one welcome the rule of our new spider overlords.

All praise the great one!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spider silk is strong enough is n't it ?
I understood something about 3-4 times the tensile strength of steel was needed , and some spider silk can be up the 10 times .
Of course , that would lead to its own rather obvious problems .
I for one welcome the rule of our new spider overlords .
All praise the great one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spider silk is strong enough isn't it?
I understood something about 3-4 times the tensile strength of steel was needed, and some spider silk can be up the 10 times.
Of course, that would lead to its own rather obvious problems.
I for one welcome the rule of our new spider overlords.
All praise the great one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995014</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995676</id>
	<title>Realigning</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1257440820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how fast this is at realigning the laser to aim at the elevator.   You wouldn't want a gust of wind to push it a few feet to the side and have the laser give the helicopter cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how fast this is at realigning the laser to aim at the elevator .
You would n't want a gust of wind to push it a few feet to the side and have the laser give the helicopter cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how fast this is at realigning the laser to aim at the elevator.
You wouldn't want a gust of wind to push it a few feet to the side and have the laser give the helicopter cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995608</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257440520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt. If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Thank you.  I just don't get the space elevator love on Slashdot.
</p><p>
I'm not impressed by a climb <em>up</em> a 1km strand of anything.
</p><p>
Build me a 1km suspension bridge with a mass limit of 100kg, and call me when someone's cute little robot can walk <em>across</em> it.  <em>Then</em> I'll be impressed.
</p><p>
Space elevators are materials science problems, not robotics problems.  The mass of the climber is  negligible in comparison to the mass of the elevator.  Stop dicking around with the robots and start building suspension bridges over college campus footpaths, using cables the width of a human hair.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt .
If someone wins the contest , then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that 's left is the bit with the belt .
Thank you .
I just do n't get the space elevator love on Slashdot .
I 'm not impressed by a climb up a 1km strand of anything .
Build me a 1km suspension bridge with a mass limit of 100kg , and call me when someone 's cute little robot can walk across it .
Then I 'll be impressed .
Space elevators are materials science problems , not robotics problems .
The mass of the climber is negligible in comparison to the mass of the elevator .
Stop dicking around with the robots and start building suspension bridges over college campus footpaths , using cables the width of a human hair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt.
If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.
Thank you.
I just don't get the space elevator love on Slashdot.
I'm not impressed by a climb up a 1km strand of anything.
Build me a 1km suspension bridge with a mass limit of 100kg, and call me when someone's cute little robot can walk across it.
Then I'll be impressed.
Space elevators are materials science problems, not robotics problems.
The mass of the climber is  negligible in comparison to the mass of the elevator.
Stop dicking around with the robots and start building suspension bridges over college campus footpaths, using cables the width of a human hair.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30009470</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257500880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They very different problems, the Cable and the Climbing module. I'm not
sure that using laser power is the best way to power the lift capsule on
a space elevator but it saves carrying a battery or other power sources.
The LaserMotive system could just as easierly power an plasma rocket
(needs upgrading to the Mega/Gigawatts though), so they not tied
to a space elevator system. The cable problem isn't easy apparently
carbon nanotech are strong enough but no one can yet make them
long enough. The asteriod counterweight needed for a space elevator
isn't exactly easy either.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/space\%20craft/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Space Craft</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They very different problems , the Cable and the Climbing module .
I 'm not sure that using laser power is the best way to power the lift capsule on a space elevator but it saves carrying a battery or other power sources .
The LaserMotive system could just as easierly power an plasma rocket ( needs upgrading to the Mega/Gigawatts though ) , so they not tied to a space elevator system .
The cable problem is n't easy apparently carbon nanotech are strong enough but no one can yet make them long enough .
The asteriod counterweight needed for a space elevator is n't exactly easy either .
--- Space Craft [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They very different problems, the Cable and the Climbing module.
I'm not
sure that using laser power is the best way to power the lift capsule on
a space elevator but it saves carrying a battery or other power sources.
The LaserMotive system could just as easierly power an plasma rocket
(needs upgrading to the Mega/Gigawatts though), so they not tied
to a space elevator system.
The cable problem isn't easy apparently
carbon nanotech are strong enough but no one can yet make them
long enough.
The asteriod counterweight needed for a space elevator
isn't exactly easy either.
---

Space Craft [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000192</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257417660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you really should know that by now, "ballistic missiles" aren't really following a ballistic trajectory-- that makes them far too predictable. They now bob and weave and rotate and generally try to avoid being anti-missile bait...<br>Captcha: dashed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you really should know that by now , " ballistic missiles " are n't really following a ballistic trajectory-- that makes them far too predictable .
They now bob and weave and rotate and generally try to avoid being anti-missile bait...Captcha : dashed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you really should know that by now, "ballistic missiles" aren't really following a ballistic trajectory-- that makes them far too predictable.
They now bob and weave and rotate and generally try to avoid being anti-missile bait...Captcha: dashed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002580</id>
	<title>Re:Video, or it didn't happen!</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257434940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How can they do something that cool, and not make a video of it??</i></p><p><i>Where's the video??</i></p><p>Here are some <a href="http://www.lasermotive.com/blog/?cat=5" title="lasermotive.com">vidoes</a> [lasermotive.com].  Warning that first one may make you dizzy.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can they do something that cool , and not make a video of it ?
? Where 's the video ?
? Here are some vidoes [ lasermotive.com ] .
Warning that first one may make you dizzy .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can they do something that cool, and not make a video of it?
?Where's the video?
?Here are some vidoes [lasermotive.com].
Warning that first one may make you dizzy.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998776</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1257411720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Demanding a youtube link. Thanks in advance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Demanding a youtube link .
Thanks in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demanding a youtube link.
Thanks in advance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995620</id>
	<title>Mod parent up.</title>
	<author>thatseattleguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257440640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up- right on. The cable needs to be made of "baloneyium" (as someone famously opined about the composition of Niven's Ringworld). Its composition and engineering are way beyond our current capabilities - not so far that it's not worth pursuing, mind you, but this contest does seem to put the proverbial laser-powered cart before the carbon-nanotube horse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up- right on .
The cable needs to be made of " baloneyium " ( as someone famously opined about the composition of Niven 's Ringworld ) .
Its composition and engineering are way beyond our current capabilities - not so far that it 's not worth pursuing , mind you , but this contest does seem to put the proverbial laser-powered cart before the carbon-nanotube horse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up- right on.
The cable needs to be made of "baloneyium" (as someone famously opined about the composition of Niven's Ringworld).
Its composition and engineering are way beyond our current capabilities - not so far that it's not worth pursuing, mind you, but this contest does seem to put the proverbial laser-powered cart before the carbon-nanotube horse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996936</id>
	<title>Re:dumb questions</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1257446880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not dumb questions.<br>It's retarded that they want to beam power to it when they can literally run a wire up the structure itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not dumb questions.It 's retarded that they want to beam power to it when they can literally run a wire up the structure itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not dumb questions.It's retarded that they want to beam power to it when they can literally run a wire up the structure itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966</id>
	<title>dumb questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are probably really dumb, but what the heck..</p><p>This theoretical tether eventually...they can't run the power up from the ground inside the tether, or maybe down from the geosynch anchor point that has some huge solar power array? Why does the power have to be beamed to the traveling module? Ya, I realize it is a huge distance, but seeing as how they are considering some carbon nanotube structure for the tether, and carbon nanotubes (some) can transmit electricity very efficiently as well (1,000 times better than copper according to some wiki thing I just read)...</p><p>And with that said, to counteract that, how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on *any* tether? Won't this aspect imperil any construction and use of this for a space elevator, has this been theoretically solved yet, or is it even a problem? (yes, this is all googleable, I would rather get a clear short synopsis from folks who know about this better)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are probably really dumb , but what the heck..This theoretical tether eventually...they ca n't run the power up from the ground inside the tether , or maybe down from the geosynch anchor point that has some huge solar power array ?
Why does the power have to be beamed to the traveling module ?
Ya , I realize it is a huge distance , but seeing as how they are considering some carbon nanotube structure for the tether , and carbon nanotubes ( some ) can transmit electricity very efficiently as well ( 1,000 times better than copper according to some wiki thing I just read ) ...And with that said , to counteract that , how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on * any * tether ?
Wo n't this aspect imperil any construction and use of this for a space elevator , has this been theoretically solved yet , or is it even a problem ?
( yes , this is all googleable , I would rather get a clear short synopsis from folks who know about this better )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are probably really dumb, but what the heck..This theoretical tether eventually...they can't run the power up from the ground inside the tether, or maybe down from the geosynch anchor point that has some huge solar power array?
Why does the power have to be beamed to the traveling module?
Ya, I realize it is a huge distance, but seeing as how they are considering some carbon nanotube structure for the tether, and carbon nanotubes (some) can transmit electricity very efficiently as well (1,000 times better than copper according to some wiki thing I just read)...And with that said, to counteract that, how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on *any* tether?
Won't this aspect imperil any construction and use of this for a space elevator, has this been theoretically solved yet, or is it even a problem?
(yes, this is all googleable, I would rather get a clear short synopsis from folks who know about this better)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996190</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257443220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw. It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics. Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.</i></p><p>In theory, yes.  In practice, it's going to depend on how accurately you can measure its position and velocity at any given moment.  The missile is moving very rapidly relative to the target size it presents, so small errors in measuring its position will result in larger errors in the extrapolated arc and could easily result in a miss.  Also, since Star Wars none of the anti-ICBM techniques have focused on the peak of its trajectory where it is a purely Newtonian ballistic projectile.  They either target the lift phase where it is most decidedly not ballistic, or the descent phase where air resistance cannot be ignored. The ones who designed and programmed the missile can't predict its trajectory to within one missile-width, so why assume it's easy for the defender to figure this out? It's not an easy problem at all, which is why the Missile Defense Shield has met with only limited (read: assisted) success.</p><p>Even worse would be to assume that technology is limited by the Latin roots of words used to describe it.  "Ballistic" already applies to only a portion of the flight, and as Russia was quite keen to point out during the height of the MDS push their missiles have descent phase countermeasures like, um, dodging.</p><p>So think of it more like hitting an unconscious fly that is traveling as fast as a fastball, could at any moment wake up and start flapping, and you aren't trying to catch it in a glove, you're trying to spear it with a toothpick before it gets too close.</p><p>Solvable?  Oh sure probably for any given iteration of the enemy's missile.  Obviously easier than hitting a relatively slow-moving target that <i>wants</i> to be hit and thus can be broadcasting its position (like the test missiles did in the descent-phase anti-missile tests)?  Yeah I'm not so sure about that.</p><p><i>The problem is, I'm sure, soluble, but the technical difficulty should not be underestimated.</i></p><p>No, its certainly not an easy task.  I just think hitting a missile that doesn't want to be hit is comparable if not harder to achieve (because while the missile will be modified to make it harder to hit, the elevator will be modified to make it easier).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word that 's part of ICBM is " ballistic " , from the Greek ballein , I throw .
It 's travelling through extremely thin gas , and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics .
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.In theory , yes .
In practice , it 's going to depend on how accurately you can measure its position and velocity at any given moment .
The missile is moving very rapidly relative to the target size it presents , so small errors in measuring its position will result in larger errors in the extrapolated arc and could easily result in a miss .
Also , since Star Wars none of the anti-ICBM techniques have focused on the peak of its trajectory where it is a purely Newtonian ballistic projectile .
They either target the lift phase where it is most decidedly not ballistic , or the descent phase where air resistance can not be ignored .
The ones who designed and programmed the missile ca n't predict its trajectory to within one missile-width , so why assume it 's easy for the defender to figure this out ?
It 's not an easy problem at all , which is why the Missile Defense Shield has met with only limited ( read : assisted ) success.Even worse would be to assume that technology is limited by the Latin roots of words used to describe it .
" Ballistic " already applies to only a portion of the flight , and as Russia was quite keen to point out during the height of the MDS push their missiles have descent phase countermeasures like , um , dodging.So think of it more like hitting an unconscious fly that is traveling as fast as a fastball , could at any moment wake up and start flapping , and you are n't trying to catch it in a glove , you 're trying to spear it with a toothpick before it gets too close.Solvable ?
Oh sure probably for any given iteration of the enemy 's missile .
Obviously easier than hitting a relatively slow-moving target that wants to be hit and thus can be broadcasting its position ( like the test missiles did in the descent-phase anti-missile tests ) ?
Yeah I 'm not so sure about that.The problem is , I 'm sure , soluble , but the technical difficulty should not be underestimated.No , its certainly not an easy task .
I just think hitting a missile that does n't want to be hit is comparable if not harder to achieve ( because while the missile will be modified to make it harder to hit , the elevator will be modified to make it easier ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw.
It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics.
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.In theory, yes.
In practice, it's going to depend on how accurately you can measure its position and velocity at any given moment.
The missile is moving very rapidly relative to the target size it presents, so small errors in measuring its position will result in larger errors in the extrapolated arc and could easily result in a miss.
Also, since Star Wars none of the anti-ICBM techniques have focused on the peak of its trajectory where it is a purely Newtonian ballistic projectile.
They either target the lift phase where it is most decidedly not ballistic, or the descent phase where air resistance cannot be ignored.
The ones who designed and programmed the missile can't predict its trajectory to within one missile-width, so why assume it's easy for the defender to figure this out?
It's not an easy problem at all, which is why the Missile Defense Shield has met with only limited (read: assisted) success.Even worse would be to assume that technology is limited by the Latin roots of words used to describe it.
"Ballistic" already applies to only a portion of the flight, and as Russia was quite keen to point out during the height of the MDS push their missiles have descent phase countermeasures like, um, dodging.So think of it more like hitting an unconscious fly that is traveling as fast as a fastball, could at any moment wake up and start flapping, and you aren't trying to catch it in a glove, you're trying to spear it with a toothpick before it gets too close.Solvable?
Oh sure probably for any given iteration of the enemy's missile.
Obviously easier than hitting a relatively slow-moving target that wants to be hit and thus can be broadcasting its position (like the test missiles did in the descent-phase anti-missile tests)?
Yeah I'm not so sure about that.The problem is, I'm sure, soluble, but the technical difficulty should not be underestimated.No, its certainly not an easy task.
I just think hitting a missile that doesn't want to be hit is comparable if not harder to achieve (because while the missile will be modified to make it harder to hit, the elevator will be modified to make it easier).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995432</id>
	<title>"In a nutshell,</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257439560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball, and catching a fly."</p><p>to complete your allegory in terms of childhood classic movies, the solution to the problem is less bad news bears and more karate kid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball , and catching a fly .
" to complete your allegory in terms of childhood classic movies , the solution to the problem is less bad news bears and more karate kid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's the difference between catching a lofted cricket ball or baseball, and catching a fly.
"to complete your allegory in terms of childhood classic movies, the solution to the problem is less bad news bears and more karate kid</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996018</id>
	<title>Re:Uh-oh</title>
	<author>Trails</author>
	<datestamp>1257442440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy, just open a window!</p><p>Err...  better hang on to something though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy , just open a window ! Err... better hang on to something though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy, just open a window!Err...  better hang on to something though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000094</id>
	<title>Re:Why Beamed Power?</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1257417180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The weight of a "transmission line" that is a ten thousand miles long is more than the entire annual payload of rocket launches in the world.</p><p>I think the payload could still be sufficient.</p><p>I'll point out that there are no metals who could even hold their own weight at that length.  The cable's own weight would tear itself apart.  That's why we're using nanotubes in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The weight of a " transmission line " that is a ten thousand miles long is more than the entire annual payload of rocket launches in the world.I think the payload could still be sufficient.I 'll point out that there are no metals who could even hold their own weight at that length .
The cable 's own weight would tear itself apart .
That 's why we 're using nanotubes in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The weight of a "transmission line" that is a ten thousand miles long is more than the entire annual payload of rocket launches in the world.I think the payload could still be sufficient.I'll point out that there are no metals who could even hold their own weight at that length.
The cable's own weight would tear itself apart.
That's why we're using nanotubes in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002274</id>
	<title>Re:What a waste of time</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257431580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A space elevator, even if the cable could be made, has a ridiculous design flaw. Literally, a single failure anywhere in the cable, and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware. It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure. (imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable)</i></p><p>Like catastrophes have never happened with a Space Shuttle.  Oops, it has twice, with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Challenger\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org">Space Shuttle Challenger</a> [wikipedia.org] and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Columbia\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org">Space Shuttle Columbia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A space elevator , even if the cable could be made , has a ridiculous design flaw .
Literally , a single failure anywhere in the cable , and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware .
It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure .
( imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable ) Like catastrophes have never happened with a Space Shuttle .
Oops , it has twice , with the Space Shuttle Challenger [ wikipedia.org ] and the Space Shuttle Columbia [ wikipedia.org ] .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A space elevator, even if the cable could be made, has a ridiculous design flaw.
Literally, a single failure anywhere in the cable, and there goes billions and billions worth of hardware.
It is always teetering on the verge of catastrophic failure.
(imagine what will happen to the station at the top of the cable)Like catastrophes have never happened with a Space Shuttle.
Oops, it has twice, with the Space Shuttle Challenger [wikipedia.org] and the Space Shuttle Columbia [wikipedia.org].
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995750</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257441180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean of course designing a cool hat to be worn while using anti-gravity belt that could be invented when we understand and are able to control gravity.</p><p>I would really really REALLY like to know how they are going to deploy the fracking tether, won't we need a spaceship like the B.S. Galactica for that?</p><p>Please could anyone shed some light on this, ideas? So far no-one has even mentioned this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean of course designing a cool hat to be worn while using anti-gravity belt that could be invented when we understand and are able to control gravity.I would really really REALLY like to know how they are going to deploy the fracking tether , wo n't we need a spaceship like the B.S .
Galactica for that ? Please could anyone shed some light on this , ideas ?
So far no-one has even mentioned this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean of course designing a cool hat to be worn while using anti-gravity belt that could be invented when we understand and are able to control gravity.I would really really REALLY like to know how they are going to deploy the fracking tether, won't we need a spaceship like the B.S.
Galactica for that?Please could anyone shed some light on this, ideas?
So far no-one has even mentioned this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999938</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1257416520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So think of it more like hitting an unconscious fly that is traveling as fast as a fastball, could at any moment wake up and start flapping, and you aren't trying to catch it in a glove, you're trying to spear it with a toothpick before it gets too close.</p></div><p>The mental image of Albert Pujols flinging toothpicks at a high speed unconscious fly made me ROFL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So think of it more like hitting an unconscious fly that is traveling as fast as a fastball , could at any moment wake up and start flapping , and you are n't trying to catch it in a glove , you 're trying to spear it with a toothpick before it gets too close.The mental image of Albert Pujols flinging toothpicks at a high speed unconscious fly made me ROFL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So think of it more like hitting an unconscious fly that is traveling as fast as a fastball, could at any moment wake up and start flapping, and you aren't trying to catch it in a glove, you're trying to spear it with a toothpick before it gets too close.The mental image of Albert Pujols flinging toothpicks at a high speed unconscious fly made me ROFL
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000308</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257418140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having it travel faster would be useful, yes... however 18km/h isn't really that bad.  Remember, this is up, not horozontal.</p><p>Have it run for one day.  One 24hr period, and it's 432km's away from the surface of the earth.  That's higher than the international space station!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having it travel faster would be useful , yes... however 18km/h is n't really that bad .
Remember , this is up , not horozontal.Have it run for one day .
One 24hr period , and it 's 432km 's away from the surface of the earth .
That 's higher than the international space station !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having it travel faster would be useful, yes... however 18km/h isn't really that bad.
Remember, this is up, not horozontal.Have it run for one day.
One 24hr period, and it's 432km's away from the surface of the earth.
That's higher than the international space station!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1257439500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody is able to design the cable. We simply don't have the technology, which is why they're focusing on the climber instead.</p><p>This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt. If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is able to design the cable .
We simply do n't have the technology , which is why they 're focusing on the climber instead.This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt .
If someone wins the contest , then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that 's left is the bit with the belt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is able to design the cable.
We simply don't have the technology, which is why they're focusing on the climber instead.This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt.
If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30007082</id>
	<title>Re:Retarded</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1257532080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, nano-scale conductors are much better than you think they are.</p><p>Solar panels wouldn't affect the weight of the ascender - you would strap them onto the structure itself at intervals.</p><p>5000th floor.  Please wait while we recharge the ascender.</p><p>Of course nuclear power would solve it.<br>But nuclear power is viewed as the devil.  Can't use that.  So let's beam radiation through the atmosphere instead!</p><p>And besides - I'm still of the firm belief that space elevators are a fucking joke and we'll never actually do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , nano-scale conductors are much better than you think they are.Solar panels would n't affect the weight of the ascender - you would strap them onto the structure itself at intervals.5000th floor .
Please wait while we recharge the ascender.Of course nuclear power would solve it.But nuclear power is viewed as the devil .
Ca n't use that .
So let 's beam radiation through the atmosphere instead ! And besides - I 'm still of the firm belief that space elevators are a fucking joke and we 'll never actually do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, nano-scale conductors are much better than you think they are.Solar panels wouldn't affect the weight of the ascender - you would strap them onto the structure itself at intervals.5000th floor.
Please wait while we recharge the ascender.Of course nuclear power would solve it.But nuclear power is viewed as the devil.
Can't use that.
So let's beam radiation through the atmosphere instead!And besides - I'm still of the firm belief that space elevators are a fucking joke and we'll never actually do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995562</id>
	<title>Helicopters in Space</title>
	<author>digitalPhant0m</author>
	<datestamp>1257440220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we've just got to get the helicopter to drop the rope from space, and we're set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we 've just got to get the helicopter to drop the rope from space , and we 're set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we've just got to get the helicopter to drop the rope from space, and we're set.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995652</id>
	<title>Carbon Nanotubes anyone.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257440760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats the stuff that these cables will be made off</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats the stuff that these cables will be made off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats the stuff that these cables will be made off</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001898</id>
	<title>Re:Human qualified?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257427560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now we can't even make the damn tether, let alone carry anything of any weight using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now we ca n't even make the damn tether , let alone carry anything of any weight using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now we can't even make the damn tether, let alone carry anything of any weight using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998662</id>
	<title>Re:Next time, check the dictionary before posting.</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1257454380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of times, Americans require a "sarcasm" tag so that they know their panties should not be in a wad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of times , Americans require a " sarcasm " tag so that they know their panties should not be in a wad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of times, Americans require a "sarcasm" tag so that they know their panties should not be in a wad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996804</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1257446160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's wrong with taking 83 days?  How often do launches occur now?  And couldn't many payloads climb in parallel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with taking 83 days ?
How often do launches occur now ?
And could n't many payloads climb in parallel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with taking 83 days?
How often do launches occur now?
And couldn't many payloads climb in parallel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998030</id>
	<title>Re:Uh-oh</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1257451740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the Muzak?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the Muzak ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the Muzak?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996774</id>
	<title>More info @ SpaceElevatorGames</title>
	<author>blamanj</author>
	<datestamp>1257446100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the <a href="http://www.spaceelevatorgames.org/" title="spaceelevatorgames.org">web site for the space elevator competition</a> [spaceelevatorgames.org].  It includes videos of climb attempts, and lots of data about what they're trying to accomplish and why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the web site for the space elevator competition [ spaceelevatorgames.org ] .
It includes videos of climb attempts , and lots of data about what they 're trying to accomplish and why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the web site for the space elevator competition [spaceelevatorgames.org].
It includes videos of climb attempts, and lots of data about what they're trying to accomplish and why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001394</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one</title>
	<author>stevelinton</author>
	<datestamp>1257423540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50 thousand miles of conducting rail is (a) heavy and (b) not conducting enough to prevent it losing a lot of energy to resistance. Over long distances sending photons through nice empty space is simpler and more efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50 thousand miles of conducting rail is ( a ) heavy and ( b ) not conducting enough to prevent it losing a lot of energy to resistance .
Over long distances sending photons through nice empty space is simpler and more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50 thousand miles of conducting rail is (a) heavy and (b) not conducting enough to prevent it losing a lot of energy to resistance.
Over long distances sending photons through nice empty space is simpler and more efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996706</id>
	<title>Huge Scales</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1257445740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To give you some idea of the scales involved, even traveling at the targetted 5m/sec speed continuously, it would take the climber nearly 3 MONTHS to get to geosynchronous height of approx 35,000 km.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To give you some idea of the scales involved , even traveling at the targetted 5m/sec speed continuously , it would take the climber nearly 3 MONTHS to get to geosynchronous height of approx 35,000 km .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give you some idea of the scales involved, even traveling at the targetted 5m/sec speed continuously, it would take the climber nearly 3 MONTHS to get to geosynchronous height of approx 35,000 km.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997104</id>
	<title>Re:Next time, check the dictionary before posting.</title>
	<author>edumacator</author>
	<datestamp>1257447720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did someone pee in your Corn Flakes this morning?</p><p>I really think it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek remark. Maybe it will help to know, even if there wasn't an alternate, if somewhat archaic, definition, no one with half a brain would really question your intelligence, unless in jest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did someone pee in your Corn Flakes this morning ? I really think it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek remark .
Maybe it will help to know , even if there was n't an alternate , if somewhat archaic , definition , no one with half a brain would really question your intelligence , unless in jest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did someone pee in your Corn Flakes this morning?I really think it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek remark.
Maybe it will help to know, even if there wasn't an alternate, if somewhat archaic, definition, no one with half a brain would really question your intelligence, unless in jest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996686</id>
	<title>Re:dumb questions</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257445620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have proposed building merely tall (a few miles) towers to generate electricity.  Given an elevator-sized structure, you'd think the static charge ought to be great enough to power the vehicle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have proposed building merely tall ( a few miles ) towers to generate electricity .
Given an elevator-sized structure , you 'd think the static charge ought to be great enough to power the vehicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have proposed building merely tall (a few miles) towers to generate electricity.
Given an elevator-sized structure, you'd think the static charge ought to be great enough to power the vehicle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003460</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1257450240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well Archimedes did say, "Give me a powerful enough solvent, and a large enough bathtub, and I'll dissolve the Earth."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Archimedes, the oceans are the earth's bathtub you insensitive clod.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Archimedes did say , " Give me a powerful enough solvent , and a large enough bathtub , and I 'll dissolve the Earth .
" Archimedes , the oceans are the earth 's bathtub you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Archimedes did say, "Give me a powerful enough solvent, and a large enough bathtub, and I'll dissolve the Earth.
"
Archimedes, the oceans are the earth's bathtub you insensitive clod.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996462</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious?</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1257444540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw. It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics. Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.</p></div><p>That's why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration\_aid" title="wikipedia.org">penetration aids</a> [wikipedia.org] were invented. Sure, it's easy to hit <em>something</em>, but picking out which of the 20-30 ballistic targets is the actual warhead that's trying to blow you away is <em>hard</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word that 's part of ICBM is " ballistic " , from the Greek ballein , I throw .
It 's travelling through extremely thin gas , and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics .
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.That 's why penetration aids [ wikipedia.org ] were invented .
Sure , it 's easy to hit something , but picking out which of the 20-30 ballistic targets is the actual warhead that 's trying to blow you away is hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word that's part of ICBM is "ballistic", from the Greek ballein, I throw.
It's travelling through extremely thin gas, and its trajectory is therefore practically simple Newtonian dynamics.
Its position from moment to moment should be extremely predictable.That's why penetration aids [wikipedia.org] were invented.
Sure, it's easy to hit something, but picking out which of the 20-30 ballistic targets is the actual warhead that's trying to blow you away is hard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998642</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1257454320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It takes something like 9 days (on a good week) for a container ship to cross the pacific to California, plus another 2-3 days to reach it's final destination (if you're lucky with customs). Like the ocean, a cable could hold more than one "ship". I would imagine once this is commercially viable, you'd have three cable; one up, one down, and an emergency backup, with two to three climbers on each cable. <br>
&nbsp; <br>To answer your question though, these would be <b>traveling to geosynchronous orbit (26,199 miles) and traveling at 5m/s (11.18 mph). So that's actually 97 days one way.</b> Or 48.8 days if you double the speed to 10m/s (I believe gravity has a measurable lesser effect the further you go from earth).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes something like 9 days ( on a good week ) for a container ship to cross the pacific to California , plus another 2-3 days to reach it 's final destination ( if you 're lucky with customs ) .
Like the ocean , a cable could hold more than one " ship " .
I would imagine once this is commercially viable , you 'd have three cable ; one up , one down , and an emergency backup , with two to three climbers on each cable .
  To answer your question though , these would be traveling to geosynchronous orbit ( 26,199 miles ) and traveling at 5m/s ( 11.18 mph ) .
So that 's actually 97 days one way .
Or 48.8 days if you double the speed to 10m/s ( I believe gravity has a measurable lesser effect the further you go from earth ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes something like 9 days (on a good week) for a container ship to cross the pacific to California, plus another 2-3 days to reach it's final destination (if you're lucky with customs).
Like the ocean, a cable could hold more than one "ship".
I would imagine once this is commercially viable, you'd have three cable; one up, one down, and an emergency backup, with two to three climbers on each cable.
  To answer your question though, these would be traveling to geosynchronous orbit (26,199 miles) and traveling at 5m/s (11.18 mph).
So that's actually 97 days one way.
Or 48.8 days if you double the speed to 10m/s (I believe gravity has a measurable lesser effect the further you go from earth).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000266</id>
	<title>Re:dumb questions</title>
	<author>Iron Condor</author>
	<datestamp>1257417900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And with that said, to counteract that, how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on *any* tether?</p></div><p>Forget about static or lightining: any such tether is going to short the ionosphere against ground. Good luck with that.

</p><p>Oh, and then it's going to electromagnetically connect Earth's magnetic field (i.e. the geodynamo) with the magetotail (i.e. the solar wind, which is a pretty long lever arm pointing always away from the sun). Watch Earth's rotational energy being dissipated in form of electric current through your tether. Fun.

</p><p>Oh, and of course there's never going to be an accident of any sort or even a terrorist attack that might blow up your tether anywhere, raining kilotons of tether material onto the earth (it doesn't really matter what you propose making it from; if a ton of it lands on your head, you're dead).

</p><p>Oh, and feel free to integrate two vee cross omega along a 180000km climb straight up.

</p><p>Oh, and bring something to read for the three months ride.

</p><p>And remind me: you're getting this into orbit how, again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And with that said , to counteract that , how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on * any * tether ? Forget about static or lightining : any such tether is going to short the ionosphere against ground .
Good luck with that .
Oh , and then it 's going to electromagnetically connect Earth 's magnetic field ( i.e .
the geodynamo ) with the magetotail ( i.e .
the solar wind , which is a pretty long lever arm pointing always away from the sun ) .
Watch Earth 's rotational energy being dissipated in form of electric current through your tether .
Fun . Oh , and of course there 's never going to be an accident of any sort or even a terrorist attack that might blow up your tether anywhere , raining kilotons of tether material onto the earth ( it does n't really matter what you propose making it from ; if a ton of it lands on your head , you 're dead ) .
Oh , and feel free to integrate two vee cross omega along a 180000km climb straight up .
Oh , and bring something to read for the three months ride .
And remind me : you 're getting this into orbit how , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with that said, to counteract that, how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on *any* tether?Forget about static or lightining: any such tether is going to short the ionosphere against ground.
Good luck with that.
Oh, and then it's going to electromagnetically connect Earth's magnetic field (i.e.
the geodynamo) with the magetotail (i.e.
the solar wind, which is a pretty long lever arm pointing always away from the sun).
Watch Earth's rotational energy being dissipated in form of electric current through your tether.
Fun.

Oh, and of course there's never going to be an accident of any sort or even a terrorist attack that might blow up your tether anywhere, raining kilotons of tether material onto the earth (it doesn't really matter what you propose making it from; if a ton of it lands on your head, you're dead).
Oh, and feel free to integrate two vee cross omega along a 180000km climb straight up.
Oh, and bring something to read for the three months ride.
And remind me: you're getting this into orbit how, again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995526</id>
	<title>Re:shouldn't they be able to design the cable also</title>
	<author>MrTester</author>
	<datestamp>1257440040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the contest is to develop combination cable/climber technology, the only entrants will be those who have the means (financial AND intellectual) to do both.  They are two very different scientific skill sets.  You would weed out a lot of teams who can bring great value to only one, or the other.</p><p>Keep them as seperate contests, running in parallel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the contest is to develop combination cable/climber technology , the only entrants will be those who have the means ( financial AND intellectual ) to do both .
They are two very different scientific skill sets .
You would weed out a lot of teams who can bring great value to only one , or the other.Keep them as seperate contests , running in parallel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the contest is to develop combination cable/climber technology, the only entrants will be those who have the means (financial AND intellectual) to do both.
They are two very different scientific skill sets.
You would weed out a lot of teams who can bring great value to only one, or the other.Keep them as seperate contests, running in parallel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996530</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a plan for equipment failure?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257444840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd employ exactly the same technology you'd use to lower the empty elevator car normally.  Probably turn the electric motor into a regenerative brake and beam the power back to Earth for storage to use on the next mission, or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd employ exactly the same technology you 'd use to lower the empty elevator car normally .
Probably turn the electric motor into a regenerative brake and beam the power back to Earth for storage to use on the next mission , or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd employ exactly the same technology you'd use to lower the empty elevator car normally.
Probably turn the electric motor into a regenerative brake and beam the power back to Earth for storage to use on the next mission, or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996910</id>
	<title>Re:Professor Myrabo at RPI</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1257446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the elevator gets further from Earth, the pull of gravity decreases. Therefore, the energy required to move 5m/s close to Earth might allow the elevator to go much faster than 5m/s as the elevator's altitude increases.</p><p>But even if it doesn't, 83 days might not be unreasonable if we're talking about cargo rather than astronauts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the elevator gets further from Earth , the pull of gravity decreases .
Therefore , the energy required to move 5m/s close to Earth might allow the elevator to go much faster than 5m/s as the elevator 's altitude increases.But even if it does n't , 83 days might not be unreasonable if we 're talking about cargo rather than astronauts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the elevator gets further from Earth, the pull of gravity decreases.
Therefore, the energy required to move 5m/s close to Earth might allow the elevator to go much faster than 5m/s as the elevator's altitude increases.But even if it doesn't, 83 days might not be unreasonable if we're talking about cargo rather than astronauts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999090</id>
	<title>Video, or it didn't happen!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257413040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can they do something that cool, and not make a video of it??</p><p>Where's the video??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can they do something that cool , and not make a video of it ?
? Where 's the video ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can they do something that cool, and not make a video of it?
?Where's the video?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30009470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30010570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30007082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30013108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_1440210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30007390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30007082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29994958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30013108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995624
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999356
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995990
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998662
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003438
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30000328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30002500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29998030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30010570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29999628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30009470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29996296
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30001360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.30003150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29997506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_1440210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_1440210.29995958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
