<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_15_1516222</id>
	<title>The Space Garbage Scow, ala Cringely</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258302060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Robert X. Cringely once again educates and amuses with his take on <a href="http://www.cringely.com/2009/11/tossed-in-space/">how we could clean up the garbage that's in orbit</a> around Earth.  I cannot vouch for his math, but it makes sense to me. Quoting: 'We&rsquo;d start in a high orbit, above the space junk, because we could trade that altitude for speed as needed, simply by flying lower, trading potential energy for kinetic. Dragging the net behind a little unmanned spacecraft, my idea would be to go past each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the net, but that doing so adds kinetic energy (hitting at shallow angles to essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris).  But wait, there&rsquo;s more!  You not only have to try to get energy from each encounter, it helps if &mdash; like in a game of billiards or pool &mdash; each encounter results in an effective ricochet sending the net in the proper trajectory for its next encounter.  Rinse and repeat 18,000 times.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Robert X. Cringely once again educates and amuses with his take on how we could clean up the garbage that 's in orbit around Earth .
I can not vouch for his math , but it makes sense to me .
Quoting : 'We    d start in a high orbit , above the space junk , because we could trade that altitude for speed as needed , simply by flying lower , trading potential energy for kinetic .
Dragging the net behind a little unmanned spacecraft , my idea would be to go past each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the net , but that doing so adds kinetic energy ( hitting at shallow angles to essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris ) .
But wait , there    s more !
You not only have to try to get energy from each encounter , it helps if    like in a game of billiards or pool    each encounter results in an effective ricochet sending the net in the proper trajectory for its next encounter .
Rinse and repeat 18,000 times .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Robert X. Cringely once again educates and amuses with his take on how we could clean up the garbage that's in orbit around Earth.
I cannot vouch for his math, but it makes sense to me.
Quoting: 'We’d start in a high orbit, above the space junk, because we could trade that altitude for speed as needed, simply by flying lower, trading potential energy for kinetic.
Dragging the net behind a little unmanned spacecraft, my idea would be to go past each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the net, but that doing so adds kinetic energy (hitting at shallow angles to essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris).
But wait, there’s more!
You not only have to try to get energy from each encounter, it helps if — like in a game of billiards or pool — each encounter results in an effective ricochet sending the net in the proper trajectory for its next encounter.
Rinse and repeat 18,000 times.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106554</id>
	<title>Conservation of energy/momentum</title>
	<author>hcg50a</author>
	<datestamp>1258308600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk.  The author needs to take high school physics again.</p><p>Tacking on a sailboat works because the wind is blowing on the sail, adding energy to the whole craft.</p><p>Scooping stuff in a net is just an inelastic collision.  The momentum gain of the junk will equal the momentum loss of the net.  The net's orbit will decay as it captures more and more junk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk .
The author needs to take high school physics again.Tacking on a sailboat works because the wind is blowing on the sail , adding energy to the whole craft.Scooping stuff in a net is just an inelastic collision .
The momentum gain of the junk will equal the momentum loss of the net .
The net 's orbit will decay as it captures more and more junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk.
The author needs to take high school physics again.Tacking on a sailboat works because the wind is blowing on the sail, adding energy to the whole craft.Scooping stuff in a net is just an inelastic collision.
The momentum gain of the junk will equal the momentum loss of the net.
The net's orbit will decay as it captures more and more junk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better idea might be to use the concept of induction to our advantage.  Create a satellite that creates a several kilometer diameter magnetic field bubble and fly it through the debris at high velocity.  THe debris is most likely conductive and would have a current induced in it causing a drag force against the janitorial satellite.  The orbits that cause the most drag are ones that run counter to the craft so they'll probably be nudged into a lower orbit by the drag.  The janitorial satellite will use solar power and a space tether to stay in its current orbit.  Any satellites that need to stay up there and aren't considered debris can be tracked much more easily and you could just shut the EM field down upon close encounter with them.<br>The craft would use very little propellant and would probably work better than a net anyway.  Just have a few craft like these flying around and acting like an immune system that kills off targets that are a danger to other craft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better idea might be to use the concept of induction to our advantage .
Create a satellite that creates a several kilometer diameter magnetic field bubble and fly it through the debris at high velocity .
THe debris is most likely conductive and would have a current induced in it causing a drag force against the janitorial satellite .
The orbits that cause the most drag are ones that run counter to the craft so they 'll probably be nudged into a lower orbit by the drag .
The janitorial satellite will use solar power and a space tether to stay in its current orbit .
Any satellites that need to stay up there and are n't considered debris can be tracked much more easily and you could just shut the EM field down upon close encounter with them.The craft would use very little propellant and would probably work better than a net anyway .
Just have a few craft like these flying around and acting like an immune system that kills off targets that are a danger to other craft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better idea might be to use the concept of induction to our advantage.
Create a satellite that creates a several kilometer diameter magnetic field bubble and fly it through the debris at high velocity.
THe debris is most likely conductive and would have a current induced in it causing a drag force against the janitorial satellite.
The orbits that cause the most drag are ones that run counter to the craft so they'll probably be nudged into a lower orbit by the drag.
The janitorial satellite will use solar power and a space tether to stay in its current orbit.
Any satellites that need to stay up there and aren't considered debris can be tracked much more easily and you could just shut the EM field down upon close encounter with them.The craft would use very little propellant and would probably work better than a net anyway.
Just have a few craft like these flying around and acting like an immune system that kills off targets that are a danger to other craft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106708</id>
	<title>Re:Conservation of energy/momentum</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1258309620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk. The author needs to take high school physics again.</p></div></blockquote><p>You might want to consider a good orbital mechanics course yourself.  If, as an example, I am travelling in an elliptical orbit with apogee at, say, 500 km and perigee at 300km altitude, and I hit a bolt in a circular orbit at 500 km, then I have just run into something that is going FASTER than me.
</p><p>Which means that I'll speed up slightly, raising the perigee of my orbit.
</p><p>The assumption that the net is moving slower than whatever it captures is a ludicrously silly one in space, where pretty much everything is moving literally faster than a speeding bullet.  It's just a matter of using the right orbit to catch any particular object.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk .
The author needs to take high school physics again.You might want to consider a good orbital mechanics course yourself .
If , as an example , I am travelling in an elliptical orbit with apogee at , say , 500 km and perigee at 300km altitude , and I hit a bolt in a circular orbit at 500 km , then I have just run into something that is going FASTER than me .
Which means that I 'll speed up slightly , raising the perigee of my orbit .
The assumption that the net is moving slower than whatever it captures is a ludicrously silly one in space , where pretty much everything is moving literally faster than a speeding bullet .
It 's just a matter of using the right orbit to catch any particular object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...means the net will lose speed every time it captures some junk.
The author needs to take high school physics again.You might want to consider a good orbital mechanics course yourself.
If, as an example, I am travelling in an elliptical orbit with apogee at, say, 500 km and perigee at 300km altitude, and I hit a bolt in a circular orbit at 500 km, then I have just run into something that is going FASTER than me.
Which means that I'll speed up slightly, raising the perigee of my orbit.
The assumption that the net is moving slower than whatever it captures is a ludicrously silly one in space, where pretty much everything is moving literally faster than a speeding bullet.
It's just a matter of using the right orbit to catch any particular object.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107550</id>
	<title>Something like this will be needed after....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258315140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese pre-emptively launch a billion piezo electric pebbles into all the military sattelite paths just before they invade Taiwan and the petroleum rich areas of the Philippines, thus sweeping all comm links and observation platforms from the sky in a matter of an hour.  As well as every other satellite.   to re-build the world after the[a href="http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.13/system\_detail.asp"&gt;Brilliant pebbles attack, we'll need a scow.</p><p>So it won't really matter if a few things break up.  Space won't be habitable at all till some clean up is done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese pre-emptively launch a billion piezo electric pebbles into all the military sattelite paths just before they invade Taiwan and the petroleum rich areas of the Philippines , thus sweeping all comm links and observation platforms from the sky in a matter of an hour .
As well as every other satellite .
to re-build the world after the [ a href = " http : //www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.13/system \ _detail.asp " &gt; Brilliant pebbles attack , we 'll need a scow.So it wo n't really matter if a few things break up .
Space wo n't be habitable at all till some clean up is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese pre-emptively launch a billion piezo electric pebbles into all the military sattelite paths just before they invade Taiwan and the petroleum rich areas of the Philippines, thus sweeping all comm links and observation platforms from the sky in a matter of an hour.
As well as every other satellite.
to re-build the world after the[a href="http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.13/system\_detail.asp"&gt;Brilliant pebbles attack, we'll need a scow.So it won't really matter if a few things break up.
Space won't be habitable at all till some clean up is done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30114650</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258383540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an alternate proposal, would it make sense to put huge blocks of aerogel (or a similar substance) into orbit? Junk that strikes the blocks would either get caught inside, or pass straight through (but lose some kinetic energy in the process, leading to its gradual orbital decay or capture). Aerogel itself has a low enough density that loose chunks of it would be relatively harmless to passing spacecraft.</p></div><p>First of all, while aerogel is light and its mass can more or less be ignored for this exercise, its volume cannot. It takes up space. How are you going to get all that up there? It basically has to be made in orbit for this tactic to be useful. Then, it has to be a large fraction of the size of the space it is intended to clean. Finally, there will have to be at least two of them in opposing-direction orbits or else they will nevet meet much of the space junk. In other words, this is a totally retarded idea.</p><p>So far the only thing that makes even a token amount of sense is to use lasers to push debris into an unstable orbit. Such a task has many of the same problems (how are you getting all that into space?) but at least it's not contraindicated by physics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an alternate proposal , would it make sense to put huge blocks of aerogel ( or a similar substance ) into orbit ?
Junk that strikes the blocks would either get caught inside , or pass straight through ( but lose some kinetic energy in the process , leading to its gradual orbital decay or capture ) .
Aerogel itself has a low enough density that loose chunks of it would be relatively harmless to passing spacecraft.First of all , while aerogel is light and its mass can more or less be ignored for this exercise , its volume can not .
It takes up space .
How are you going to get all that up there ?
It basically has to be made in orbit for this tactic to be useful .
Then , it has to be a large fraction of the size of the space it is intended to clean .
Finally , there will have to be at least two of them in opposing-direction orbits or else they will nevet meet much of the space junk .
In other words , this is a totally retarded idea.So far the only thing that makes even a token amount of sense is to use lasers to push debris into an unstable orbit .
Such a task has many of the same problems ( how are you getting all that into space ?
) but at least it 's not contraindicated by physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an alternate proposal, would it make sense to put huge blocks of aerogel (or a similar substance) into orbit?
Junk that strikes the blocks would either get caught inside, or pass straight through (but lose some kinetic energy in the process, leading to its gradual orbital decay or capture).
Aerogel itself has a low enough density that loose chunks of it would be relatively harmless to passing spacecraft.First of all, while aerogel is light and its mass can more or less be ignored for this exercise, its volume cannot.
It takes up space.
How are you going to get all that up there?
It basically has to be made in orbit for this tactic to be useful.
Then, it has to be a large fraction of the size of the space it is intended to clean.
Finally, there will have to be at least two of them in opposing-direction orbits or else they will nevet meet much of the space junk.
In other words, this is a totally retarded idea.So far the only thing that makes even a token amount of sense is to use lasers to push debris into an unstable orbit.
Such a task has many of the same problems (how are you getting all that into space?
) but at least it's not contraindicated by physics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106648</id>
	<title>Re:Every velocity is super-bulletesque</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258309200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is also super burlesque, what with all the talk of 'thrust,' 'explosions,' and 'entry.'</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also super burlesque , what with all the talk of 'thrust, ' 'explosions, ' and 'entry .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also super burlesque, what with all the talk of 'thrust,' 'explosions,' and 'entry.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30112272</id>
	<title>Better yet ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1258310100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... a giant space vacuum cleaner.</p><p>This is such a good idea, I'm off to the patent office!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... a giant space vacuum cleaner.This is such a good idea , I 'm off to the patent office !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a giant space vacuum cleaner.This is such a good idea, I'm off to the patent office!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106496</id>
	<title>Gel or Foam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about some gel block, or even better some kind of foam?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about some gel block , or even better some kind of foam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about some gel block, or even better some kind of foam?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106526</id>
	<title>Here's an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can send convicts with bright orange space suits into space.  Give each one a trash stick and a burlap bag.  For obvious reasons, there's no need for shackles and chains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can send convicts with bright orange space suits into space .
Give each one a trash stick and a burlap bag .
For obvious reasons , there 's no need for shackles and chains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can send convicts with bright orange space suits into space.
Give each one a trash stick and a burlap bag.
For obvious reasons, there's no need for shackles and chains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108612</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>StarsAreAlsoFire</author>
	<datestamp>1258277880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>4/3 * PI * R^3<br>
<br>
Radius of the earth:<br>
Re = 6,378 km<br>
<br>
Low earth orbit starts at ~200km:<br>
Rleo1 = Re + 200km = 6,578km<br>
<br>
Low earth orbit extends up to about 2000km ( it's debated. Using nice round numbers )<br>
Rleo2 = Re + 2000km = 8,378km<br>
<br>
4/3* PI * ( Rleo2^3 - Rleo1^3 ) = 1.271E12km^3<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>1.3 trillion cubic kilometers of space to sweep.</b> <br>
<br>
<br>
Assume a block of aerogel 10 meters on a side - so a frontal area of 100 m^2. That's pretty big, and it won't get any bigger unless we figure out how to manufacture the gel in space:<br>
Agel = 100m^2 <br>
 = 0.0001km^2<br>
<br>
Velocity in leo is around 7.5km/second, relative to the ground.<br>
Vgel = 7.5km/s<br>
<br>
Let's assume that we are just trying to sweep the entire volume of space once, ignoring that things are moving etc. Even one sweep of the volume would certainly clean up a lot, if the orbit of the gel is tangent to the orbit of most of the junk. So we just pretend that the block of gel is flying down a tunnel, basically - frontal area times velocity * time equals volume cleaned:<br>
<br>
Vclean = Agel * Vgel<br>
1.27E12km^3 =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0001km^2 * 7.5km/s * t(s)<br>
<br>
t = 1.695E15 seconds<br>
  =  5.37018E7 years<br>
<br>
<br>
<b> = 53 million years.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>4/3 * PI * R ^ 3 Radius of the earth : Re = 6,378 km Low earth orbit starts at ~ 200km : Rleo1 = Re + 200km = 6,578km Low earth orbit extends up to about 2000km ( it 's debated .
Using nice round numbers ) Rleo2 = Re + 2000km = 8,378km 4/3 * PI * ( Rleo2 ^ 3 - Rleo1 ^ 3 ) = 1.271E12km ^ 3 1.3 trillion cubic kilometers of space to sweep .
Assume a block of aerogel 10 meters on a side - so a frontal area of 100 m ^ 2 .
That 's pretty big , and it wo n't get any bigger unless we figure out how to manufacture the gel in space : Agel = 100m ^ 2 = 0.0001km ^ 2 Velocity in leo is around 7.5km/second , relative to the ground .
Vgel = 7.5km/s Let 's assume that we are just trying to sweep the entire volume of space once , ignoring that things are moving etc .
Even one sweep of the volume would certainly clean up a lot , if the orbit of the gel is tangent to the orbit of most of the junk .
So we just pretend that the block of gel is flying down a tunnel , basically - frontal area times velocity * time equals volume cleaned : Vclean = Agel * Vgel 1.27E12km ^ 3 = .0001km ^ 2 * 7.5km/s * t ( s ) t = 1.695E15 seconds = 5.37018E7 years = 53 million years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4/3 * PI * R^3

Radius of the earth:
Re = 6,378 km

Low earth orbit starts at ~200km:
Rleo1 = Re + 200km = 6,578km

Low earth orbit extends up to about 2000km ( it's debated.
Using nice round numbers )
Rleo2 = Re + 2000km = 8,378km

4/3* PI * ( Rleo2^3 - Rleo1^3 ) = 1.271E12km^3


1.3 trillion cubic kilometers of space to sweep.
Assume a block of aerogel 10 meters on a side - so a frontal area of 100 m^2.
That's pretty big, and it won't get any bigger unless we figure out how to manufacture the gel in space:
Agel = 100m^2 
 = 0.0001km^2

Velocity in leo is around 7.5km/second, relative to the ground.
Vgel = 7.5km/s

Let's assume that we are just trying to sweep the entire volume of space once, ignoring that things are moving etc.
Even one sweep of the volume would certainly clean up a lot, if the orbit of the gel is tangent to the orbit of most of the junk.
So we just pretend that the block of gel is flying down a tunnel, basically - frontal area times velocity * time equals volume cleaned:

Vclean = Agel * Vgel
1.27E12km^3 = .0001km^2 * 7.5km/s * t(s)

t = 1.695E15 seconds
  =  5.37018E7 years


 = 53 million years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107890</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Slashdot give voice to this moron?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258317180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does Cringely have some kind of seedy business relationship with Slashdot's parent company?</p></div><p>If everyone with a flamboyant idea were mocked and called a moron we would still be stuck in the bronze age. Perhaps Cringely's idea goes nowhere (very likely), but perhaps it will spark other topics about debris removal from space that bare fruit - the point is it gets people talking about the subject.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Cringely have some kind of seedy business relationship with Slashdot 's parent company ? If everyone with a flamboyant idea were mocked and called a moron we would still be stuck in the bronze age .
Perhaps Cringely 's idea goes nowhere ( very likely ) , but perhaps it will spark other topics about debris removal from space that bare fruit - the point is it gets people talking about the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Cringely have some kind of seedy business relationship with Slashdot's parent company?If everyone with a flamboyant idea were mocked and called a moron we would still be stuck in the bronze age.
Perhaps Cringely's idea goes nowhere (very likely), but perhaps it will spark other topics about debris removal from space that bare fruit - the point is it gets people talking about the subject.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107792</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>Jarik C-Bol</author>
	<datestamp>1258316700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>while your statement is true, its also mildly retarded. yes, 2 objects on the opposite sides of a circle, traveling in opposite directions around the circle,  for a short moment are traveling the same direction relative to one another, *but thats not what we're talking about here* we're talking about 2 objects traveling the same direction around the orbit. <br> <br>
your argument, while a marvelous display of spatial relationships, is pointless in relation to the actual proposal at hand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>while your statement is true , its also mildly retarded .
yes , 2 objects on the opposite sides of a circle , traveling in opposite directions around the circle , for a short moment are traveling the same direction relative to one another , * but thats not what we 're talking about here * we 're talking about 2 objects traveling the same direction around the orbit .
your argument , while a marvelous display of spatial relationships , is pointless in relation to the actual proposal at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while your statement is true, its also mildly retarded.
yes, 2 objects on the opposite sides of a circle, traveling in opposite directions around the circle,  for a short moment are traveling the same direction relative to one another, *but thats not what we're talking about here* we're talking about 2 objects traveling the same direction around the orbit.
your argument, while a marvelous display of spatial relationships, is pointless in relation to the actual proposal at hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192</id>
	<title>Wouldn't that be bad when it re-enters?</title>
	<author>Zakabog</author>
	<datestamp>1258306020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't it be bad catching all of the space debris in a giant net, when the net itself will eventually come back down to earth. Individual space junk coming out of orbit isn't as bad since it's not all falling in the same place and it's small enough to mostly burn up in the atmosphere, but if you've got this huge net there's a lot more junk to burn up with a much more localized crash site.
<br> <br>
Plus this thing bouncing around like a billiard ball seems likely to catch something that isn't junk...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be bad catching all of the space debris in a giant net , when the net itself will eventually come back down to earth .
Individual space junk coming out of orbit is n't as bad since it 's not all falling in the same place and it 's small enough to mostly burn up in the atmosphere , but if you 've got this huge net there 's a lot more junk to burn up with a much more localized crash site .
Plus this thing bouncing around like a billiard ball seems likely to catch something that is n't junk.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be bad catching all of the space debris in a giant net, when the net itself will eventually come back down to earth.
Individual space junk coming out of orbit isn't as bad since it's not all falling in the same place and it's small enough to mostly burn up in the atmosphere, but if you've got this huge net there's a lot more junk to burn up with a much more localized crash site.
Plus this thing bouncing around like a billiard ball seems likely to catch something that isn't junk...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106364</id>
	<title>orbital dynamics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>among the other holes in this idea the biggest is that when in orbit an increase in velocity means an increase in altitude, to decrease your altitude you must either slow the space craft down or you need an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity approaching 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>among the other holes in this idea the biggest is that when in orbit an increase in velocity means an increase in altitude , to decrease your altitude you must either slow the space craft down or you need an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity approaching 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>among the other holes in this idea the biggest is that when in orbit an increase in velocity means an increase in altitude, to decrease your altitude you must either slow the space craft down or you need an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity approaching 1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30113738</id>
	<title>Big parts break up to form smaller parts</title>
	<author>Britz</author>
	<datestamp>1258374120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did you get "insightful"? The problem is that big parts hit each other and then produce A LOT of smaller parts. We need to get the big parts first. Then we can worry about small stuff. I heard they wanted to try and smoke those with "friggin lasers".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did you get " insightful " ?
The problem is that big parts hit each other and then produce A LOT of smaller parts .
We need to get the big parts first .
Then we can worry about small stuff .
I heard they wanted to try and smoke those with " friggin lasers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did you get "insightful"?
The problem is that big parts hit each other and then produce A LOT of smaller parts.
We need to get the big parts first.
Then we can worry about small stuff.
I heard they wanted to try and smoke those with "friggin lasers".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30110088</id>
	<title>Re:Metal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258288500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>paint flecks and ti/al non magnetic bolts laugh at your pitiful electromagnet. these are spacecraft parts not your local home depot materials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>paint flecks and ti/al non magnetic bolts laugh at your pitiful electromagnet .
these are spacecraft parts not your local home depot materials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>paint flecks and ti/al non magnetic bolts laugh at your pitiful electromagnet.
these are spacecraft parts not your local home depot materials.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30115344</id>
	<title>Multi-Ball!</title>
	<author>Gulthek</author>
	<datestamp>1258386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Treat it as an orbiting version of pinball. Each piece of garbage adding mass then a precise hit on a key piece of garbage to break it apart into further ricocheting pieces.</p><p>Ding ding ding ding: multiball!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Treat it as an orbiting version of pinball .
Each piece of garbage adding mass then a precise hit on a key piece of garbage to break it apart into further ricocheting pieces.Ding ding ding ding : multiball !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Treat it as an orbiting version of pinball.
Each piece of garbage adding mass then a precise hit on a key piece of garbage to break it apart into further ricocheting pieces.Ding ding ding ding: multiball!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106996</id>
	<title>[BALLMER] Magnet nets, magnet net, magnet nets...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258312080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>magnet nets, magnet nets!</p><p>Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets![/BALLMER]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>magnet nets , magnet nets ! Magnet Nets , Magnet Nets , Magnet Nets , Magnet Nets , Magnet Nets !
[ /BALLMER ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>magnet nets, magnet nets!Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets, Magnet Nets!
[/BALLMER]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108830</id>
	<title>Sorry, Cringely</title>
	<author>XNormal</author>
	<datestamp>1258279200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of deriving some energy and momentum from the captured debris is interesting. But I'm pretty sure it will not stand up to critical analysis. The relative speeds of orbits crossing through the same area in space at different inclinations or eccentricities are faster than a bullet. Even if the net survives this many types of debris captured certainly won't - they will shatter and generate lots of smaller pieces of debris. If you somehow manage to choose only encounters with speeds low enough to survive the impact it will be too slow to derive any useful energy or momentum from. This idea might be sound in principle (though I wouldn't bet on it) but wrong by several orders of magnitude in practice.</p><p>And no, Cringely, you can't simply "trade altitude for speed" (potential energy for kinetic energy) in space to change to a different orbit. While it does not break the law of conservation of energy it definitely violates conservation of momentum. You could change momentum without spending energy via gravity assist with a third body (nothing available with enough mass in the vicinity but the moon) or using a tether. Otherwise you need to spend energy and reaction mass to change to a different orbit even if it has the same orbital energy. Space tethers are sometimes proposed for collecting space junk by people who actually understand a bit of orbital mechanics. Tethers are a very complex and mostly untested space technology we haven't mastered yet.</p><p>Capturing all 18000+ objects in a single net?!?!? What are you smoking? Have you any idea how much mass you are talking about? Moving all this mass to all the target orbits is an unimaginable waste of delta V. Even if you could somehow derive some momentum from the captured debris the 100th piece captured will barely change the vector of this huge collected mass.</p><p>Yes, as you say, this is a crazy idea. But it's not crazy in the "crazy enough that it might just work" kind of way. It's just plain crazy, dumb and ignorant.</p><p>Sorry, Cringely. You have just lost whatever remains of professional respect I still had for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of deriving some energy and momentum from the captured debris is interesting .
But I 'm pretty sure it will not stand up to critical analysis .
The relative speeds of orbits crossing through the same area in space at different inclinations or eccentricities are faster than a bullet .
Even if the net survives this many types of debris captured certainly wo n't - they will shatter and generate lots of smaller pieces of debris .
If you somehow manage to choose only encounters with speeds low enough to survive the impact it will be too slow to derive any useful energy or momentum from .
This idea might be sound in principle ( though I would n't bet on it ) but wrong by several orders of magnitude in practice.And no , Cringely , you ca n't simply " trade altitude for speed " ( potential energy for kinetic energy ) in space to change to a different orbit .
While it does not break the law of conservation of energy it definitely violates conservation of momentum .
You could change momentum without spending energy via gravity assist with a third body ( nothing available with enough mass in the vicinity but the moon ) or using a tether .
Otherwise you need to spend energy and reaction mass to change to a different orbit even if it has the same orbital energy .
Space tethers are sometimes proposed for collecting space junk by people who actually understand a bit of orbital mechanics .
Tethers are a very complex and mostly untested space technology we have n't mastered yet.Capturing all 18000 + objects in a single net ? ! ? ! ?
What are you smoking ?
Have you any idea how much mass you are talking about ?
Moving all this mass to all the target orbits is an unimaginable waste of delta V. Even if you could somehow derive some momentum from the captured debris the 100th piece captured will barely change the vector of this huge collected mass.Yes , as you say , this is a crazy idea .
But it 's not crazy in the " crazy enough that it might just work " kind of way .
It 's just plain crazy , dumb and ignorant.Sorry , Cringely .
You have just lost whatever remains of professional respect I still had for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of deriving some energy and momentum from the captured debris is interesting.
But I'm pretty sure it will not stand up to critical analysis.
The relative speeds of orbits crossing through the same area in space at different inclinations or eccentricities are faster than a bullet.
Even if the net survives this many types of debris captured certainly won't - they will shatter and generate lots of smaller pieces of debris.
If you somehow manage to choose only encounters with speeds low enough to survive the impact it will be too slow to derive any useful energy or momentum from.
This idea might be sound in principle (though I wouldn't bet on it) but wrong by several orders of magnitude in practice.And no, Cringely, you can't simply "trade altitude for speed" (potential energy for kinetic energy) in space to change to a different orbit.
While it does not break the law of conservation of energy it definitely violates conservation of momentum.
You could change momentum without spending energy via gravity assist with a third body (nothing available with enough mass in the vicinity but the moon) or using a tether.
Otherwise you need to spend energy and reaction mass to change to a different orbit even if it has the same orbital energy.
Space tethers are sometimes proposed for collecting space junk by people who actually understand a bit of orbital mechanics.
Tethers are a very complex and mostly untested space technology we haven't mastered yet.Capturing all 18000+ objects in a single net?!?!?
What are you smoking?
Have you any idea how much mass you are talking about?
Moving all this mass to all the target orbits is an unimaginable waste of delta V. Even if you could somehow derive some momentum from the captured debris the 100th piece captured will barely change the vector of this huge collected mass.Yes, as you say, this is a crazy idea.
But it's not crazy in the "crazy enough that it might just work" kind of way.
It's just plain crazy, dumb and ignorant.Sorry, Cringely.
You have just lost whatever remains of professional respect I still had for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30114594</id>
	<title>Re:Metal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258383180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Wouldn't something like a big ass electromagnet be useful? I mean, compared to a net... or something along the lines of giant flashlight (to push crap into earth)</p><p>Because in this case, the space junk has enough kinetic energy to escape the magnetic field allready.<br>Sure, you can get a zipping bullet of metal to near a magnet, but it will just zip right past again.</p><p>Exactly the same happens in gravity: meteors pass within a fraction of the earth-moon distance, yet they fly away again just as fast.<br>The moon stays in orbit because it does not have the escape velocity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Would n't something like a big ass electromagnet be useful ?
I mean , compared to a net... or something along the lines of giant flashlight ( to push crap into earth ) Because in this case , the space junk has enough kinetic energy to escape the magnetic field allready.Sure , you can get a zipping bullet of metal to near a magnet , but it will just zip right past again.Exactly the same happens in gravity : meteors pass within a fraction of the earth-moon distance , yet they fly away again just as fast.The moon stays in orbit because it does not have the escape velocity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Wouldn't something like a big ass electromagnet be useful?
I mean, compared to a net... or something along the lines of giant flashlight (to push crap into earth)Because in this case, the space junk has enough kinetic energy to escape the magnetic field allready.Sure, you can get a zipping bullet of metal to near a magnet, but it will just zip right past again.Exactly the same happens in gravity: meteors pass within a fraction of the earth-moon distance, yet they fly away again just as fast.The moon stays in orbit because it does not have the escape velocity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106330</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't that be bad when it re-enters?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1258306860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with space junk is that there's thousands of piece of it flying around that can damage spacecraft, re-entry isn't really the problem.  That's actually preferable to losing a few of your spacecraft to loose pieces of material in orbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with space junk is that there 's thousands of piece of it flying around that can damage spacecraft , re-entry is n't really the problem .
That 's actually preferable to losing a few of your spacecraft to loose pieces of material in orbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with space junk is that there's thousands of piece of it flying around that can damage spacecraft, re-entry isn't really the problem.
That's actually preferable to losing a few of your spacecraft to loose pieces of material in orbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106690</id>
	<title>Re:Use Aerogels to slow objects w/o fragmentation</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258309500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe an ion engine would be enough to keep anything stable that close to any planet. Their thrust is so low it would be like peeing in the ocean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe an ion engine would be enough to keep anything stable that close to any planet .
Their thrust is so low it would be like peeing in the ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe an ion engine would be enough to keep anything stable that close to any planet.
Their thrust is so low it would be like peeing in the ocean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111590</id>
	<title>Mass Catcher (Re:"net"?)</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1258301880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the little flecks of paint, bolts, and general fragments of this and that zipping around at bulletesque velocities.<br>"Bulletesque?" 17,000 miles per hour isn't "bulletesque" unless *railguns* are the norm.</p></div><p>Dissipating such energies with something make of small cross-section strands isn't going to be easy. Actually, I don't think it's going to be possible with normal matter.</p><p>The Space Colonization folks advocated huge ships in the shape of rings, trailing conical kevlar bags. (Mass catchers.) The Kevlar wasn't going to stop the incoming space-junk projectiles. (In this case, bags of lunar regolith launched into orbit from the Moon's surface.) Instead, the kevlar bags would rotate and hold a layer of Lunar regolith against its inner surface using centrifugal force. The incoming projectiles would be stopped the same way micrometeorites stop when they hit the moon.</p><p>The easiest way to dissipate highly concentrated energy, such as that possessed by projectiles at orbital velocity, is a lot of *mass*.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the little flecks of paint , bolts , and general fragments of this and that zipping around at bulletesque velocities. " Bulletesque ?
" 17,000 miles per hour is n't " bulletesque " unless * railguns * are the norm.Dissipating such energies with something make of small cross-section strands is n't going to be easy .
Actually , I do n't think it 's going to be possible with normal matter.The Space Colonization folks advocated huge ships in the shape of rings , trailing conical kevlar bags .
( Mass catchers .
) The Kevlar was n't going to stop the incoming space-junk projectiles .
( In this case , bags of lunar regolith launched into orbit from the Moon 's surface .
) Instead , the kevlar bags would rotate and hold a layer of Lunar regolith against its inner surface using centrifugal force .
The incoming projectiles would be stopped the same way micrometeorites stop when they hit the moon.The easiest way to dissipate highly concentrated energy , such as that possessed by projectiles at orbital velocity , is a lot of * mass * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the little flecks of paint, bolts, and general fragments of this and that zipping around at bulletesque velocities."Bulletesque?
" 17,000 miles per hour isn't "bulletesque" unless *railguns* are the norm.Dissipating such energies with something make of small cross-section strands isn't going to be easy.
Actually, I don't think it's going to be possible with normal matter.The Space Colonization folks advocated huge ships in the shape of rings, trailing conical kevlar bags.
(Mass catchers.
) The Kevlar wasn't going to stop the incoming space-junk projectiles.
(In this case, bags of lunar regolith launched into orbit from the Moon's surface.
) Instead, the kevlar bags would rotate and hold a layer of Lunar regolith against its inner surface using centrifugal force.
The incoming projectiles would be stopped the same way micrometeorites stop when they hit the moon.The easiest way to dissipate highly concentrated energy, such as that possessed by projectiles at orbital velocity, is a lot of *mass*.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111000</id>
	<title>Actually, what would make far more sense...</title>
	<author>sanermind</author>
	<datestamp>1258296360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, what would make far more sense... would be to somehow capture the trapped mass, and then eject it violently to change course so as to be able to gently-enough encounter and capture the next piece of mass, and so on. Use the junk as reaction mass to change your velocity... <br> <br>

To gain altitude, fire the current junk at an downward angle which also completely cancels out it's orbital momentum, it will then fall directly to earth, and your 'scow' will gain altitude (well, a change in orbital momentum as well due to angle you need to fire it at to cancel out it's own, but you get the idea). To descend, fire it straight up a speed exceeding terminal velocity so as to escape the earth's orbit altogether (here you would have more freedom to also adjust your orbital momentum as you saw fit, by firing it at different angles... also, you could effectively -only- change your orbital momentum by firing it an extreme angle essentially perpendicular to the earth's surface, such that it would still achieve terminal velocity). <br> <br>
All the thing needs is an energy source! (Well, and some serious computation) The reaction mass is already up there!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) <br> <br>

This then becomes an engineering problem of how to capture and relaunch the individual pieces of junk. First off, I'd imagine you would need a sufficiently low differential in velocity to the target during the intercept/capture phase. (Of course, once again, free reaction mass abounds, as long as you can 'throw' your last captured piece with sufficient energy). Which leads to the second engineering challenge; how to very energetically expel the mass you've just captured in any direction. Well, the direction part isn't hard, gyroscopes and all... but how a machine would grapple and then violently launch an arbitrarily sized and shaped object would be the challenge. <br> <br>
For ferromagnetic debris, I suppose electromagenetic coupling might allow capture, and then perhaps a robotic arm could appropriately position it's center of mass over a 'simple' extremely-high-speed piston?<br> <br>
But, I can't think of any reason this couldn't necessarily work!
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...perhaps the relative delta-v needed to move from one piece to another (compared to the force one could realistically apply to launching a given intercepted mass) would make it difficult or unviable with current technologies... any thoughts?
<br> <br>
(PS: This is still an engineering problem relating to the force you could realistically impart when relauching debris... for even a single atom would be more than sufficient mass if you could launch it at 99.99999999\% the speed of light.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , what would make far more sense... would be to somehow capture the trapped mass , and then eject it violently to change course so as to be able to gently-enough encounter and capture the next piece of mass , and so on .
Use the junk as reaction mass to change your velocity.. . To gain altitude , fire the current junk at an downward angle which also completely cancels out it 's orbital momentum , it will then fall directly to earth , and your 'scow ' will gain altitude ( well , a change in orbital momentum as well due to angle you need to fire it at to cancel out it 's own , but you get the idea ) .
To descend , fire it straight up a speed exceeding terminal velocity so as to escape the earth 's orbit altogether ( here you would have more freedom to also adjust your orbital momentum as you saw fit , by firing it at different angles... also , you could effectively -only- change your orbital momentum by firing it an extreme angle essentially perpendicular to the earth 's surface , such that it would still achieve terminal velocity ) .
All the thing needs is an energy source !
( Well , and some serious computation ) The reaction mass is already up there !
: ) This then becomes an engineering problem of how to capture and relaunch the individual pieces of junk .
First off , I 'd imagine you would need a sufficiently low differential in velocity to the target during the intercept/capture phase .
( Of course , once again , free reaction mass abounds , as long as you can 'throw ' your last captured piece with sufficient energy ) .
Which leads to the second engineering challenge ; how to very energetically expel the mass you 've just captured in any direction .
Well , the direction part is n't hard , gyroscopes and all... but how a machine would grapple and then violently launch an arbitrarily sized and shaped object would be the challenge .
For ferromagnetic debris , I suppose electromagenetic coupling might allow capture , and then perhaps a robotic arm could appropriately position it 's center of mass over a 'simple ' extremely-high-speed piston ?
But , I ca n't think of any reason this could n't necessarily work !
...perhaps the relative delta-v needed to move from one piece to another ( compared to the force one could realistically apply to launching a given intercepted mass ) would make it difficult or unviable with current technologies... any thoughts ?
( PS : This is still an engineering problem relating to the force you could realistically impart when relauching debris... for even a single atom would be more than sufficient mass if you could launch it at 99.99999999 \ % the speed of light .
: ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, what would make far more sense... would be to somehow capture the trapped mass, and then eject it violently to change course so as to be able to gently-enough encounter and capture the next piece of mass, and so on.
Use the junk as reaction mass to change your velocity...  

To gain altitude, fire the current junk at an downward angle which also completely cancels out it's orbital momentum, it will then fall directly to earth, and your 'scow' will gain altitude (well, a change in orbital momentum as well due to angle you need to fire it at to cancel out it's own, but you get the idea).
To descend, fire it straight up a speed exceeding terminal velocity so as to escape the earth's orbit altogether (here you would have more freedom to also adjust your orbital momentum as you saw fit, by firing it at different angles... also, you could effectively -only- change your orbital momentum by firing it an extreme angle essentially perpendicular to the earth's surface, such that it would still achieve terminal velocity).
All the thing needs is an energy source!
(Well, and some serious computation) The reaction mass is already up there!
:)  

This then becomes an engineering problem of how to capture and relaunch the individual pieces of junk.
First off, I'd imagine you would need a sufficiently low differential in velocity to the target during the intercept/capture phase.
(Of course, once again, free reaction mass abounds, as long as you can 'throw' your last captured piece with sufficient energy).
Which leads to the second engineering challenge; how to very energetically expel the mass you've just captured in any direction.
Well, the direction part isn't hard, gyroscopes and all... but how a machine would grapple and then violently launch an arbitrarily sized and shaped object would be the challenge.
For ferromagnetic debris, I suppose electromagenetic coupling might allow capture, and then perhaps a robotic arm could appropriately position it's center of mass over a 'simple' extremely-high-speed piston?
But, I can't think of any reason this couldn't necessarily work!
...perhaps the relative delta-v needed to move from one piece to another (compared to the force one could realistically apply to launching a given intercepted mass) would make it difficult or unviable with current technologies... any thoughts?
(PS: This is still an engineering problem relating to the force you could realistically impart when relauching debris... for even a single atom would be more than sufficient mass if you could launch it at 99.99999999\% the speed of light.
:) )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30142994</id>
	<title>Weapon</title>
	<author>GrEp</author>
	<datestamp>1257088860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cringely does realize if he replaces the word "garbage" with "another nation's military satellites" this is going to get a lot of DARPA funding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cringely does realize if he replaces the word " garbage " with " another nation 's military satellites " this is going to get a lot of DARPA funding : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cringely does realize if he replaces the word "garbage" with "another nation's military satellites" this is going to get a lot of DARPA funding :p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238</id>
	<title>Quark!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember Quark, a space garbage scow show from the 70's?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D<br>It's nice to see it's time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember Quark , a space garbage scow show from the 70 's ?
: DIt 's nice to see it 's time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember Quark, a space garbage scow show from the 70's?
:DIt's nice to see it's time...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106402</id>
	<title>Use Aerogels to slow objects w/o fragmentation</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1258307400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IF (and I know it is a big IF) it were possible to "manufacture" aerogels in space, this material could be ideal for capturing/de-orbiting small pieces of debris that would be too difficult/expensive to chase and capture the traditional way (via space tug or whatnot) but still poses a threat.  Aerogels have already proven themselves as capable of capturing extremely fast (although tiny) particles moving at literally astronomical speeds without itself disintegrating.  It was used precisely for this reason in both the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes.</p><p>Now imagine instead of the small plates that were on these probes a very large slab tens or hundreds (thousands?) of meters on a side that would, over time, slowly intercept the smaller particles.  Larger fragments would still go right through but might lose enough kinetic energy (without fragmenting and making the problem worse) so as to de-orbit themselves.  The only thing that might make this remotely possible is the thought that the aerogel is so light (lighter than air) that a really huge piece could be put into orbit without spending billions in launch something heavy.  Of course the only way to keep the launch volume reasonable is to MAKE it in space.  Once in space, an ion engine would be required to counteract the atmospheric drag (and loss of kinetic energy from the impacts of the space debris).</p><p>By "manufacture" I mean the raw material (I guess it some sort of silicate compound) would have to be brought up from earth but since the resulting aerogel is 99.9\% empty space, a little could go a long way.  I understand that one way to produce it requires a super-critical liquid carbon-dioxide solution; obviously the CO2 would have to be recycled or better yet would be if a means of producing it directly in vacuum.  Chemists, any ideas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IF ( and I know it is a big IF ) it were possible to " manufacture " aerogels in space , this material could be ideal for capturing/de-orbiting small pieces of debris that would be too difficult/expensive to chase and capture the traditional way ( via space tug or whatnot ) but still poses a threat .
Aerogels have already proven themselves as capable of capturing extremely fast ( although tiny ) particles moving at literally astronomical speeds without itself disintegrating .
It was used precisely for this reason in both the " Stardust " and " Genesis " probes.Now imagine instead of the small plates that were on these probes a very large slab tens or hundreds ( thousands ?
) of meters on a side that would , over time , slowly intercept the smaller particles .
Larger fragments would still go right through but might lose enough kinetic energy ( without fragmenting and making the problem worse ) so as to de-orbit themselves .
The only thing that might make this remotely possible is the thought that the aerogel is so light ( lighter than air ) that a really huge piece could be put into orbit without spending billions in launch something heavy .
Of course the only way to keep the launch volume reasonable is to MAKE it in space .
Once in space , an ion engine would be required to counteract the atmospheric drag ( and loss of kinetic energy from the impacts of the space debris ) .By " manufacture " I mean the raw material ( I guess it some sort of silicate compound ) would have to be brought up from earth but since the resulting aerogel is 99.9 \ % empty space , a little could go a long way .
I understand that one way to produce it requires a super-critical liquid carbon-dioxide solution ; obviously the CO2 would have to be recycled or better yet would be if a means of producing it directly in vacuum .
Chemists , any ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF (and I know it is a big IF) it were possible to "manufacture" aerogels in space, this material could be ideal for capturing/de-orbiting small pieces of debris that would be too difficult/expensive to chase and capture the traditional way (via space tug or whatnot) but still poses a threat.
Aerogels have already proven themselves as capable of capturing extremely fast (although tiny) particles moving at literally astronomical speeds without itself disintegrating.
It was used precisely for this reason in both the "Stardust" and "Genesis" probes.Now imagine instead of the small plates that were on these probes a very large slab tens or hundreds (thousands?
) of meters on a side that would, over time, slowly intercept the smaller particles.
Larger fragments would still go right through but might lose enough kinetic energy (without fragmenting and making the problem worse) so as to de-orbit themselves.
The only thing that might make this remotely possible is the thought that the aerogel is so light (lighter than air) that a really huge piece could be put into orbit without spending billions in launch something heavy.
Of course the only way to keep the launch volume reasonable is to MAKE it in space.
Once in space, an ion engine would be required to counteract the atmospheric drag (and loss of kinetic energy from the impacts of the space debris).By "manufacture" I mean the raw material (I guess it some sort of silicate compound) would have to be brought up from earth but since the resulting aerogel is 99.9\% empty space, a little could go a long way.
I understand that one way to produce it requires a super-critical liquid carbon-dioxide solution; obviously the CO2 would have to be recycled or better yet would be if a means of producing it directly in vacuum.
Chemists, any ideas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106448</id>
	<title>Net? Use massive slabs of Aerogel instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And by massive I mean square kilometres and tens of meters thick.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel" title="wikipedia.org">Aerogel</a> [wikipedia.org] has been shown to be able to pick up even the smallest flecks of material for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust\_(spacecraft)" title="wikipedia.org">Stardust</a> [wikipedia.org] project.</p><p>Since it's the smallest things that are the trickiest (huge bits are easily tracked), we need something that will not only absorb the energy of the impact, but also keep the debris in place. Thus, Aerogel is a good fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And by massive I mean square kilometres and tens of meters thick.Aerogel [ wikipedia.org ] has been shown to be able to pick up even the smallest flecks of material for the Stardust [ wikipedia.org ] project.Since it 's the smallest things that are the trickiest ( huge bits are easily tracked ) , we need something that will not only absorb the energy of the impact , but also keep the debris in place .
Thus , Aerogel is a good fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And by massive I mean square kilometres and tens of meters thick.Aerogel [wikipedia.org] has been shown to be able to pick up even the smallest flecks of material for the Stardust [wikipedia.org] project.Since it's the smallest things that are the trickiest (huge bits are easily tracked), we need something that will not only absorb the energy of the impact, but also keep the debris in place.
Thus, Aerogel is a good fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106500</id>
	<title>One other thing</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258308180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It makes sense to capture and lose the small pieces. BUT, the large ones are lots of material in space that took a lot of fuel to get there. That would be a shame to lose those if they are together. Seems like we can push those into a higher orbit out of the way and then use them in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense to capture and lose the small pieces .
BUT , the large ones are lots of material in space that took a lot of fuel to get there .
That would be a shame to lose those if they are together .
Seems like we can push those into a higher orbit out of the way and then use them in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense to capture and lose the small pieces.
BUT, the large ones are lots of material in space that took a lot of fuel to get there.
That would be a shame to lose those if they are together.
Seems like we can push those into a higher orbit out of the way and then use them in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30110966</id>
	<title>Re:Speed of debris is 25,000 ft per second.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258296120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong.  The ISS and all other spacecraft in orbit are frequently hit by micrometeoroids.  Even before the deployment of Whipple shielding, high velocity space dust did not prevent manned spaceflight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong .
The ISS and all other spacecraft in orbit are frequently hit by micrometeoroids .
Even before the deployment of Whipple shielding , high velocity space dust did not prevent manned spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong.
The ISS and all other spacecraft in orbit are frequently hit by micrometeoroids.
Even before the deployment of Whipple shielding, high velocity space dust did not prevent manned spaceflight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228</id>
	<title>Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>stonecypher</author>
	<datestamp>1258306200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd create a whole lot less pollution to just knock the garbage into the atmosphere with a mass driver than to burn up than to make nearly a hundred times as many manned space flights as have ever been made (276 as of end-May 2009) to go do janitorial duty.  The energy cost of 18,000 space flights- 836,000 gallons per flight - would be enough to run the United States electrical grid at current draw for nearly six hundred years.</p><p>I'd tell Cringely not to quit his computer commentary job, but, well, he was just as bad at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd create a whole lot less pollution to just knock the garbage into the atmosphere with a mass driver than to burn up than to make nearly a hundred times as many manned space flights as have ever been made ( 276 as of end-May 2009 ) to go do janitorial duty .
The energy cost of 18,000 space flights- 836,000 gallons per flight - would be enough to run the United States electrical grid at current draw for nearly six hundred years.I 'd tell Cringely not to quit his computer commentary job , but , well , he was just as bad at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd create a whole lot less pollution to just knock the garbage into the atmosphere with a mass driver than to burn up than to make nearly a hundred times as many manned space flights as have ever been made (276 as of end-May 2009) to go do janitorial duty.
The energy cost of 18,000 space flights- 836,000 gallons per flight - would be enough to run the United States electrical grid at current draw for nearly six hundred years.I'd tell Cringely not to quit his computer commentary job, but, well, he was just as bad at that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106460</id>
	<title>Why does Slashdot give voice to this moron?</title>
	<author>Noose For A Neck</author>
	<datestamp>1258307880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Cringely have some kind of seedy business relationship with Slashdot's parent company?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Cringely have some kind of seedy business relationship with Slashdot 's parent company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Cringely have some kind of seedy business relationship with Slashdot's parent company?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111436</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>geekboy642</author>
	<datestamp>1258300560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The earth has a giant magnetic field. Induce a powerful opposing magnetic field in your satellite/space tether system that "pushes" against the earth's field. There's no reaction mass, but your satellite can then control its position in orbit. Most satellites don't use the space tether system, although I don't know whether that's because it's inherently impractical or merely too new/expensive/fancy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The earth has a giant magnetic field .
Induce a powerful opposing magnetic field in your satellite/space tether system that " pushes " against the earth 's field .
There 's no reaction mass , but your satellite can then control its position in orbit .
Most satellites do n't use the space tether system , although I do n't know whether that 's because it 's inherently impractical or merely too new/expensive/fancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earth has a giant magnetic field.
Induce a powerful opposing magnetic field in your satellite/space tether system that "pushes" against the earth's field.
There's no reaction mass, but your satellite can then control its position in orbit.
Most satellites don't use the space tether system, although I don't know whether that's because it's inherently impractical or merely too new/expensive/fancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107086</id>
	<title>EXACTLY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258312560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slowing or absorbing into something that itself is not that harmful is a much better idea!  Aerogel is a brilliant idea!</p><p>I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of gun shooting bullets of something harmless... aerogel would be perfect.  similar complex issue of proper aiming and avoiding using up all the fuel.</p><p>Another idea would be to use some sort of ION drive or something to try to stay in orbit;  power source would be a problem and I'm not sure there are enough ions out there to do enough to counter a movement.  Too bad the amount of power needed for a really strong magnetic pulse makes that unlikely as well  (although it would have more range than a big block of aerogel.) Much of the stuff up there is partially magnetic... doesn't take much to mess up an orbit.</p><p>Essentially this problem has been figured to be prohibitive long ago and it will take a lot more progress before we can realistically solve it; possibly many generations from now.  I doubt that we'll ever get to the point where 1 nation can afford to clean while another intentionally dirties the sky (sooner or later there will be war in space-- we already leverage it heavily enough to provoke that now. )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slowing or absorbing into something that itself is not that harmful is a much better idea !
Aerogel is a brilliant idea ! I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of gun shooting bullets of something harmless... aerogel would be perfect .
similar complex issue of proper aiming and avoiding using up all the fuel.Another idea would be to use some sort of ION drive or something to try to stay in orbit ; power source would be a problem and I 'm not sure there are enough ions out there to do enough to counter a movement .
Too bad the amount of power needed for a really strong magnetic pulse makes that unlikely as well ( although it would have more range than a big block of aerogel .
) Much of the stuff up there is partially magnetic... does n't take much to mess up an orbit.Essentially this problem has been figured to be prohibitive long ago and it will take a lot more progress before we can realistically solve it ; possibly many generations from now .
I doubt that we 'll ever get to the point where 1 nation can afford to clean while another intentionally dirties the sky ( sooner or later there will be war in space-- we already leverage it heavily enough to provoke that now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slowing or absorbing into something that itself is not that harmful is a much better idea!
Aerogel is a brilliant idea!I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of gun shooting bullets of something harmless... aerogel would be perfect.
similar complex issue of proper aiming and avoiding using up all the fuel.Another idea would be to use some sort of ION drive or something to try to stay in orbit;  power source would be a problem and I'm not sure there are enough ions out there to do enough to counter a movement.
Too bad the amount of power needed for a really strong magnetic pulse makes that unlikely as well  (although it would have more range than a big block of aerogel.
) Much of the stuff up there is partially magnetic... doesn't take much to mess up an orbit.Essentially this problem has been figured to be prohibitive long ago and it will take a lot more progress before we can realistically solve it; possibly many generations from now.
I doubt that we'll ever get to the point where 1 nation can afford to clean while another intentionally dirties the sky (sooner or later there will be war in space-- we already leverage it heavily enough to provoke that now.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106240</id>
	<title>Why post this crap, Soulskill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soulskill, why are you posting this crap from Cringely? Any article attached to that name is automatically shit.</p><p>I wish Roland Piquepaille had never died. At least his articles had some scientific basis to them, even if he was hated by many people here. Cringley articles, on the other hand, are bunk from top to bottom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soulskill , why are you posting this crap from Cringely ?
Any article attached to that name is automatically shit.I wish Roland Piquepaille had never died .
At least his articles had some scientific basis to them , even if he was hated by many people here .
Cringley articles , on the other hand , are bunk from top to bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soulskill, why are you posting this crap from Cringely?
Any article attached to that name is automatically shit.I wish Roland Piquepaille had never died.
At least his articles had some scientific basis to them, even if he was hated by many people here.
Cringley articles, on the other hand, are bunk from top to bottom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30115912</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1258389660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been told, but have never confirmed, that firing a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.22 caliber bullet into a silk stocking that is hanging from a clothes line will result in the bullet being captured.  The silk bends and is slippery enough that the momentum is absorbed through the entire length.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been told , but have never confirmed , that firing a .22 caliber bullet into a silk stocking that is hanging from a clothes line will result in the bullet being captured .
The silk bends and is slippery enough that the momentum is absorbed through the entire length .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been told, but have never confirmed, that firing a .22 caliber bullet into a silk stocking that is hanging from a clothes line will result in the bullet being captured.
The silk bends and is slippery enough that the momentum is absorbed through the entire length.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376</id>
	<title>Metal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't something like a big ass electromagnet be useful? I mean, compared to a net... or something along the lines of giant flashlight (to push crap into earth)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't something like a big ass electromagnet be useful ?
I mean , compared to a net... or something along the lines of giant flashlight ( to push crap into earth )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't something like a big ass electromagnet be useful?
I mean, compared to a net... or something along the lines of giant flashlight (to push crap into earth)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30109294</id>
	<title>Might be fun.</title>
	<author>northstarlarry</author>
	<datestamp>1258282800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a cool idea for a video game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a cool idea for a video game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a cool idea for a video game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108438</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258276860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe a hybrid system?</p><p>Have an orbital platform with a big ass laser and really good tracking radar to deorbit the chunks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe a hybrid system ? Have an orbital platform with a big ass laser and really good tracking radar to deorbit the chunks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe a hybrid system?Have an orbital platform with a big ass laser and really good tracking radar to deorbit the chunks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106288</id>
	<title>I cannot for his math, but it makes sense to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news is, Cringely's article does not contain any math or physics. Without serious numbers to back it up, the idea is no more than a pipe dream. How do you catch a stone flying with a relative velocity of a few miles per second without getting blown to bits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news is , Cringely 's article does not contain any math or physics .
Without serious numbers to back it up , the idea is no more than a pipe dream .
How do you catch a stone flying with a relative velocity of a few miles per second without getting blown to bits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news is, Cringely's article does not contain any math or physics.
Without serious numbers to back it up, the idea is no more than a pipe dream.
How do you catch a stone flying with a relative velocity of a few miles per second without getting blown to bits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107496</id>
	<title>Re:Make sure.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258314780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't work...  there are too many unknowns and no way to fix the scow when (read inevitable) things go wrong.

The scow approach can really only be designed upfront and then implemented after the fact.... risky.

The lasers idea that he dismissed out of hand early on in the article actually makes more sense.  Except that the lasers
aren't intended to vaporize the entire object, but a tiny fraction to induce a deceleration so that the orbit can decay faster.

The laser approach can go through spiral development which is preferred for high risk projects.  And has the benefit of
being a replicable (parallelizable), and relatively low-tech solution.  I'm sure that NASA could run a $1 million dollar
competition to see who can de-orbit space junk with frickin' laser beams.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't work... there are too many unknowns and no way to fix the scow when ( read inevitable ) things go wrong .
The scow approach can really only be designed upfront and then implemented after the fact.... risky . The lasers idea that he dismissed out of hand early on in the article actually makes more sense .
Except that the lasers are n't intended to vaporize the entire object , but a tiny fraction to induce a deceleration so that the orbit can decay faster .
The laser approach can go through spiral development which is preferred for high risk projects .
And has the benefit of being a replicable ( parallelizable ) , and relatively low-tech solution .
I 'm sure that NASA could run a $ 1 million dollar competition to see who can de-orbit space junk with frickin ' laser beams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't work...  there are too many unknowns and no way to fix the scow when (read inevitable) things go wrong.
The scow approach can really only be designed upfront and then implemented after the fact.... risky.

The lasers idea that he dismissed out of hand early on in the article actually makes more sense.
Except that the lasers
aren't intended to vaporize the entire object, but a tiny fraction to induce a deceleration so that the orbit can decay faster.
The laser approach can go through spiral development which is preferred for high risk projects.
And has the benefit of
being a replicable (parallelizable), and relatively low-tech solution.
I'm sure that NASA could run a $1 million dollar
competition to see who can de-orbit space junk with frickin' laser beams.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108990</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>maitas</author>
	<datestamp>1258280280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry but I dont understand how having to a lot of electricity through "solar power and a space tether" allows a satelite to "stay in its current orbit". For what I know you need action-reaction force to keep a satelite in orbit. In fact the reason satelites stop operating is becouse the run out of propelant.<br>Please explain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but I dont understand how having to a lot of electricity through " solar power and a space tether " allows a satelite to " stay in its current orbit " .
For what I know you need action-reaction force to keep a satelite in orbit .
In fact the reason satelites stop operating is becouse the run out of propelant.Please explain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but I dont understand how having to a lot of electricity through "solar power and a space tether" allows a satelite to "stay in its current orbit".
For what I know you need action-reaction force to keep a satelite in orbit.
In fact the reason satelites stop operating is becouse the run out of propelant.Please explain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106386</id>
	<title>Interesting idea</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258307280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I think that I would prefer a set of these, and dispense of them after a shorter time (burn it up or capture it for material studies). For starters, imagine accumulating a bunch of that junk together and then losing the ship. It could actually make things worst.<br> <br>Also, this would be a good use for the tug concept. At some point, a tug will be useful for space. This could help push the concept.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think that I would prefer a set of these , and dispense of them after a shorter time ( burn it up or capture it for material studies ) .
For starters , imagine accumulating a bunch of that junk together and then losing the ship .
It could actually make things worst .
Also , this would be a good use for the tug concept .
At some point , a tug will be useful for space .
This could help push the concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think that I would prefer a set of these, and dispense of them after a shorter time (burn it up or capture it for material studies).
For starters, imagine accumulating a bunch of that junk together and then losing the ship.
It could actually make things worst.
Also, this would be a good use for the tug concept.
At some point, a tug will be useful for space.
This could help push the concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568</id>
	<title>Speed of debris is 25,000 ft per second.</title>
	<author>lkcl</author>
	<datestamp>1258308660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Particles the size of a grain of sand - assume 1 gram.  Speed: 8333 metres per second.  Kinetic Energy Formula: 0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity.</p><p>Kinetic Energy of grain of sand: 34,719 joules.</p><p>Small car travelling at 30mph, mass 1000kg.  Speed: 13 metres per second.</p><p>Kinetic Energy of car: 84,500 joules.</p><p>Area to which impact of grain of sand occurs: assume 1mm square.</p><p>Kinetic Energy per square metre when grain impacts: 34 billion Joules/Sqm.</p><p>Area to which impact of car occurs at 30mph: assume 1 sq m.</p><p>Kinetic Energy per square metre when car impacts: 84 thousand Joules/Sqm.</p><p>this is why, if a dust particle the size of a grain of sand hits a spacecraft it would leave a micro hole on one side, vapourise and turn to plasma, cutting its way through absolutely everything in its path in a geometrically predictable and expanding pattern.  net result is a gaping cone of missing spacecraft on the other side of the dot, significant additional debris, and some dead astronauts.</p><p>and that's just the dust particles.</p><p>Materials science is simply not up to the job of dealing with this kind of energy impact, which is why, instead, NASA tracks several tens of thousands of objects including an Astronaut's boot, and makes sure that everything that goes up stays well clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Particles the size of a grain of sand - assume 1 gram .
Speed : 8333 metres per second .
Kinetic Energy Formula : 0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity.Kinetic Energy of grain of sand : 34,719 joules.Small car travelling at 30mph , mass 1000kg .
Speed : 13 metres per second.Kinetic Energy of car : 84,500 joules.Area to which impact of grain of sand occurs : assume 1mm square.Kinetic Energy per square metre when grain impacts : 34 billion Joules/Sqm.Area to which impact of car occurs at 30mph : assume 1 sq m.Kinetic Energy per square metre when car impacts : 84 thousand Joules/Sqm.this is why , if a dust particle the size of a grain of sand hits a spacecraft it would leave a micro hole on one side , vapourise and turn to plasma , cutting its way through absolutely everything in its path in a geometrically predictable and expanding pattern .
net result is a gaping cone of missing spacecraft on the other side of the dot , significant additional debris , and some dead astronauts.and that 's just the dust particles.Materials science is simply not up to the job of dealing with this kind of energy impact , which is why , instead , NASA tracks several tens of thousands of objects including an Astronaut 's boot , and makes sure that everything that goes up stays well clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Particles the size of a grain of sand - assume 1 gram.
Speed: 8333 metres per second.
Kinetic Energy Formula: 0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity.Kinetic Energy of grain of sand: 34,719 joules.Small car travelling at 30mph, mass 1000kg.
Speed: 13 metres per second.Kinetic Energy of car: 84,500 joules.Area to which impact of grain of sand occurs: assume 1mm square.Kinetic Energy per square metre when grain impacts: 34 billion Joules/Sqm.Area to which impact of car occurs at 30mph: assume 1 sq m.Kinetic Energy per square metre when car impacts: 84 thousand Joules/Sqm.this is why, if a dust particle the size of a grain of sand hits a spacecraft it would leave a micro hole on one side, vapourise and turn to plasma, cutting its way through absolutely everything in its path in a geometrically predictable and expanding pattern.
net result is a gaping cone of missing spacecraft on the other side of the dot, significant additional debris, and some dead astronauts.and that's just the dust particles.Materials science is simply not up to the job of dealing with this kind of energy impact, which is why, instead, NASA tracks several tens of thousands of objects including an Astronaut's boot, and makes sure that everything that goes up stays well clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106226</id>
	<title>Cringeley Amuses</title>
	<author>Philip K Dickhead</author>
	<datestamp>1258306200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they were just in the early stages of establishing a ring-world, in terrestrial orbit. Oh well...</p><p>There will of course, be no such mission, headed by NASA, or any other fraction of the Federal United States. That banana republic operates on such a scale, only when there is substantial room for contractor and supplier rip-off.  If Cringeley can figure a way for DynaCor to pocket a billion on the side, instead of increasing fuel efficiency in spaceflight? It'd happen next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they were just in the early stages of establishing a ring-world , in terrestrial orbit .
Oh well...There will of course , be no such mission , headed by NASA , or any other fraction of the Federal United States .
That banana republic operates on such a scale , only when there is substantial room for contractor and supplier rip-off .
If Cringeley can figure a way for DynaCor to pocket a billion on the side , instead of increasing fuel efficiency in spaceflight ?
It 'd happen next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they were just in the early stages of establishing a ring-world, in terrestrial orbit.
Oh well...There will of course, be no such mission, headed by NASA, or any other fraction of the Federal United States.
That banana republic operates on such a scale, only when there is substantial room for contractor and supplier rip-off.
If Cringeley can figure a way for DynaCor to pocket a billion on the side, instead of increasing fuel efficiency in spaceflight?
It'd happen next year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108262</id>
	<title>after reading Cringely's rant on fax via VoIP...</title>
	<author>marvinglenn</author>
	<datestamp>1258275840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading Cringely's rant on faximile via VoIP (which exposed that he had extremely little knowledge of the underlying technical issues in the subject), I don't bother wasting my time reading anything from him that requires engineering and technical proficiency in a specialized field to intelligently discuss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading Cringely 's rant on faximile via VoIP ( which exposed that he had extremely little knowledge of the underlying technical issues in the subject ) , I do n't bother wasting my time reading anything from him that requires engineering and technical proficiency in a specialized field to intelligently discuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading Cringely's rant on faximile via VoIP (which exposed that he had extremely little knowledge of the underlying technical issues in the subject), I don't bother wasting my time reading anything from him that requires engineering and technical proficiency in a specialized field to intelligently discuss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106580</id>
	<title>Gain kinetic energy?</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1258308720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energy, not gain it.  Furthermore, everything is not traveling in the same direction.  There are many different orbits and junk is in all sorts of them.  So some junk you'll never "net" since it's traveling in the same direction as the dejunker, and other junk is traveling exactly opposite and will slam into the net with twice the velocity of the denetter's current orbital velocity.  Furthermore if the junk's orbit is 90 degrees to the dejunker, it will never be caught either.  Even if the orbital paths crossed, it would probably just destroy or damage the dejunker satellite (paint fleck or rachet wrench).</p><p>So it wouldn't seem that his idea stands the common sense test (or physics for that matter).  But this is just slashdot and I am not an orbital-mechanics expert.  I failed that class at the starfleet academy (or was that temporal mechanics).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energy , not gain it .
Furthermore , everything is not traveling in the same direction .
There are many different orbits and junk is in all sorts of them .
So some junk you 'll never " net " since it 's traveling in the same direction as the dejunker , and other junk is traveling exactly opposite and will slam into the net with twice the velocity of the denetter 's current orbital velocity .
Furthermore if the junk 's orbit is 90 degrees to the dejunker , it will never be caught either .
Even if the orbital paths crossed , it would probably just destroy or damage the dejunker satellite ( paint fleck or rachet wrench ) .So it would n't seem that his idea stands the common sense test ( or physics for that matter ) .
But this is just slashdot and I am not an orbital-mechanics expert .
I failed that class at the starfleet academy ( or was that temporal mechanics ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energy, not gain it.
Furthermore, everything is not traveling in the same direction.
There are many different orbits and junk is in all sorts of them.
So some junk you'll never "net" since it's traveling in the same direction as the dejunker, and other junk is traveling exactly opposite and will slam into the net with twice the velocity of the denetter's current orbital velocity.
Furthermore if the junk's orbit is 90 degrees to the dejunker, it will never be caught either.
Even if the orbital paths crossed, it would probably just destroy or damage the dejunker satellite (paint fleck or rachet wrench).So it wouldn't seem that his idea stands the common sense test (or physics for that matter).
But this is just slashdot and I am not an orbital-mechanics expert.
I failed that class at the starfleet academy (or was that temporal mechanics).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106348</id>
	<title>Re:gravity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know, maybe you are... how come all these planets including the Earth are still in the sun's orbit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , maybe you are... how come all these planets including the Earth are still in the sun 's orbit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, maybe you are... how come all these planets including the Earth are still in the sun's orbit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166</id>
	<title>Make sure.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258305840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That this doesn't break up any debris into more parts - or cause the "net" to break and provide additional pieces of junk circling the earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That this does n't break up any debris into more parts - or cause the " net " to break and provide additional pieces of junk circling the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That this doesn't break up any debris into more parts - or cause the "net" to break and provide additional pieces of junk circling the earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30119426</id>
	<title>Garbage Scow Captain</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1258401840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The phrase 'Garbage Scow' brings to mind the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Raiders" title="wikipedia.org">Star Raiders</a> [wikipedia.org] rank 'Garbage Scow Captain'.  I've never heard the phrase 'Garbage Scow' anywhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phrase 'Garbage Scow ' brings to mind the Star Raiders [ wikipedia.org ] rank 'Garbage Scow Captain' .
I 've never heard the phrase 'Garbage Scow ' anywhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phrase 'Garbage Scow' brings to mind the Star Raiders [wikipedia.org] rank 'Garbage Scow Captain'.
I've never heard the phrase 'Garbage Scow' anywhere else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30128232</id>
	<title>Ya...dumb idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258469760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like so many college ideas...</p><p>Sounds good on the surface until you think deeply at all about the problem.</p><p>The net is guaranteed to break.  Find out the difference between speed of orbiting objects.  Calculate mass.  Calculate density and material strength.</p><p>This if anything would cause a bigger problem than it solves.</p><p>Can I get some dumb ideas posted too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like so many college ideas...Sounds good on the surface until you think deeply at all about the problem.The net is guaranteed to break .
Find out the difference between speed of orbiting objects .
Calculate mass .
Calculate density and material strength.This if anything would cause a bigger problem than it solves.Can I get some dumb ideas posted too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like so many college ideas...Sounds good on the surface until you think deeply at all about the problem.The net is guaranteed to break.
Find out the difference between speed of orbiting objects.
Calculate mass.
Calculate density and material strength.This if anything would cause a bigger problem than it solves.Can I get some dumb ideas posted too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106202</id>
	<title>gravity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this junk is junk, it has no means of correcting its path to stay in orbit.  Sooner or later it will lose altitude, enter the atmosphere and burn up during descent.  Or am I missing something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this junk is junk , it has no means of correcting its path to stay in orbit .
Sooner or later it will lose altitude , enter the atmosphere and burn up during descent .
Or am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this junk is junk, it has no means of correcting its path to stay in orbit.
Sooner or later it will lose altitude, enter the atmosphere and burn up during descent.
Or am I missing something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106300</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>your and idiot not cringley. even TFS mentions collecting items in sequence, not a single launch for each object..</htmltext>
<tokenext>your and idiot not cringley .
even TFS mentions collecting items in sequence , not a single launch for each object. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your and idiot not cringley.
even TFS mentions collecting items in sequence, not a single launch for each object..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107410</id>
	<title>Re:Make sure.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258314240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.....you might also want to not catch active satelites. Just a thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....you might also want to not catch active satelites .
Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....you might also want to not catch active satelites.
Just a thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30112210</id>
	<title>i just hope it doesn't take killing astronauts</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1258309320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>18,0000 items or not, some day it will need to be cleaned up,i just hope it doesn't take killing astronauts by space debris to get it started/done. But thats normally how things are done,someone has to die to get thing done way too many times</htmltext>
<tokenext>18,0000 items or not , some day it will need to be cleaned up,i just hope it does n't take killing astronauts by space debris to get it started/done .
But thats normally how things are done,someone has to die to get thing done way too many times</tokentext>
<sentencetext>18,0000 items or not, some day it will need to be cleaned up,i just hope it doesn't take killing astronauts by space debris to get it started/done.
But thats normally how things are done,someone has to die to get thing done way too many times</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107546</id>
	<title>Re:Gain kinetic energy?</title>
	<author>starless</author>
	<datestamp>1258315080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energy, not gain it.</p>  </div><p>No, objects in a lower orbit will have higher velocity (= higher kinetic energy), they have less potential energy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energy , not gain it .
No , objects in a lower orbit will have higher velocity ( = higher kinetic energy ) , they have less potential energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energy, not gain it.
No, objects in a lower orbit will have higher velocity (= higher kinetic energy), they have less potential energy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106992</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>Baron\_Yam</author>
	<datestamp>1258312020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like it.  A giant magnet - suck up all the metal particles, never mind the big chunks!  Give the nuclear power an ion engine and let it sweep clean whatever orbit you want.</p><p>In the end, you get a big(ger) metal ball, which you can keep in orbit as a useful mass, or drop on your chosen enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it .
A giant magnet - suck up all the metal particles , never mind the big chunks !
Give the nuclear power an ion engine and let it sweep clean whatever orbit you want.In the end , you get a big ( ger ) metal ball , which you can keep in orbit as a useful mass , or drop on your chosen enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it.
A giant magnet - suck up all the metal particles, never mind the big chunks!
Give the nuclear power an ion engine and let it sweep clean whatever orbit you want.In the end, you get a big(ger) metal ball, which you can keep in orbit as a useful mass, or drop on your chosen enemy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107216</id>
	<title>Re:Quark!</title>
	<author>squidfood</author>
	<datestamp>1258313460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone remember Quark, a space garbage scow show from the 70's?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div><p>We should re-task the Enterprise... it's nothing but a garbage scow anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember Quark , a space garbage scow show from the 70 's ?
: DWe should re-task the Enterprise... it 's nothing but a garbage scow anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember Quark, a space garbage scow show from the 70's?
:DWe should re-task the Enterprise... it's nothing but a garbage scow anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107618</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't that be bad when it re-enters?</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1258315680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The contents that would be accumulated wouldn't be compressed into a 'hard' meteor as it re-entered the atmosphere.  After a few seconds it would break apart into numerous pieces with a huge surface area.   With slight considerations to have it re-enter over an ocean, the risk from these items would be very very low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The contents that would be accumulated would n't be compressed into a 'hard ' meteor as it re-entered the atmosphere .
After a few seconds it would break apart into numerous pieces with a huge surface area .
With slight considerations to have it re-enter over an ocean , the risk from these items would be very very low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The contents that would be accumulated wouldn't be compressed into a 'hard' meteor as it re-entered the atmosphere.
After a few seconds it would break apart into numerous pieces with a huge surface area.
With slight considerations to have it re-enter over an ocean, the risk from these items would be very very low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30113326</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't that be bad when it re-enters?</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1258367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aim it at a space museum and tell them that it's a donation. That way, they have to pick up the bill if one of their newly-acquired artefacts blows up someone important.</p><p>Seriously, though, a net idea makes no sense whatsoever. Would would make a lot more sense, since the real problem isn't the big chunks but the tiny fragments (pea-sized or smaller) is to re-use the shielding idea used on the Giotto probe when it went for Halley's comet.</p><p>Giotto's shielding was alternating layers of aluminium foil and kevlar. The foil would destroy smaller fragments, the kevlar would stop larger pieces. If it was too large for the kevlar, it had probably splintered up by that time and the second round would finish off most of the rest.</p><p>Giotto survived hellish conditions, flying directly towards a jet on Halley's Comet. It survived the encounter, though got a few hearts fluttering when it lost contact at point zero (right next to the cometary nucleus). When it restabilized and found Earth again, astronomers discovered a very large chunk had mashed into the probe and sent it spinning uncontrollably for a while, a-la Darth's Tie Fighter.</p><p>These days, we can even improve on the design, since we can add airgel and other more modern materials and we don't need a whole range of highly delicate sensors for sweeping duties.</p><p>So we pack up a cleaning robot, launch it into space, and get rid of junk that's highly deadly for spacecraft but too small to track reliably (if at all). This satellite's sole mission would be to point at where debris belts are expected to be and slam through them.</p><p>Stuff we can track just isn't an issue, but a fleck of paint a millimeter in diameter would be enough to punch a hole in a communications satellite. If we can get rid of the small junk, we'll massively improve the life-expectancy of everything up there and buy time to develop a means of eliminating the big junk (dead satellites, rocket stages, etc) which we can simply avoid for right now.</p><p>Some of the big junk we might even want to recover in some way. Not only would they be priceless museum exhibits, they're priceless scientific devices for examining the long-term effects of the solar wind, the actual density of natural space debris, long-term effects of exposure to the hard radiation and cosmic rays of space (vital to know for a Mars mission or for any permanent presence in space or another planet).</p><p>The smaller junk will really not tell us anything, so burning it up on strikes and globbing the rest into airgel and kevlar would make sense. A probe like that, once "full", could be crashed almost anywhere as what's captured is non-hazardous waste. Probably not enough to be worth recycling. Chucking it at where the plates are sliding would seem fair enough. It won't cause problems and the magma will be much more effective at natural recycling than anything we can do.</p><p>The big pieces are what most people worry about, despite the fact that we know where they all are and they're all relatively harmless. At the moment, there's not much that anyone could do, anyways. Besides micrometeorite strikes swiss-cheezing anything of size, the radiation will have made many materials extremely brittle. The Saturn V rocket pieces weren't built to last this long under such rough conditions. They might still be solid enough to move, or might break into deadly, untrackable fragments if they're even touched. Deep space is no better for cheap alloys than the deep oceans are for ships like the Titanic (made from another cheap alloy rather than high-quality iron).</p><p>What you'd ideally want to do is enclose those pieces you didn't want to preserve, then create a series of shockwaves such that each adds to the next. The whole structure will shred itself and can be cleaned up safely with the original cleaner robot I outlined.</p><p>Structures you DO want to keep are tougher. You'd need to bind them together very gently to avoid destroying anything preservable. There are resins that could be used. Once it's encased in resin, glue a heat s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aim it at a space museum and tell them that it 's a donation .
That way , they have to pick up the bill if one of their newly-acquired artefacts blows up someone important.Seriously , though , a net idea makes no sense whatsoever .
Would would make a lot more sense , since the real problem is n't the big chunks but the tiny fragments ( pea-sized or smaller ) is to re-use the shielding idea used on the Giotto probe when it went for Halley 's comet.Giotto 's shielding was alternating layers of aluminium foil and kevlar .
The foil would destroy smaller fragments , the kevlar would stop larger pieces .
If it was too large for the kevlar , it had probably splintered up by that time and the second round would finish off most of the rest.Giotto survived hellish conditions , flying directly towards a jet on Halley 's Comet .
It survived the encounter , though got a few hearts fluttering when it lost contact at point zero ( right next to the cometary nucleus ) .
When it restabilized and found Earth again , astronomers discovered a very large chunk had mashed into the probe and sent it spinning uncontrollably for a while , a-la Darth 's Tie Fighter.These days , we can even improve on the design , since we can add airgel and other more modern materials and we do n't need a whole range of highly delicate sensors for sweeping duties.So we pack up a cleaning robot , launch it into space , and get rid of junk that 's highly deadly for spacecraft but too small to track reliably ( if at all ) .
This satellite 's sole mission would be to point at where debris belts are expected to be and slam through them.Stuff we can track just is n't an issue , but a fleck of paint a millimeter in diameter would be enough to punch a hole in a communications satellite .
If we can get rid of the small junk , we 'll massively improve the life-expectancy of everything up there and buy time to develop a means of eliminating the big junk ( dead satellites , rocket stages , etc ) which we can simply avoid for right now.Some of the big junk we might even want to recover in some way .
Not only would they be priceless museum exhibits , they 're priceless scientific devices for examining the long-term effects of the solar wind , the actual density of natural space debris , long-term effects of exposure to the hard radiation and cosmic rays of space ( vital to know for a Mars mission or for any permanent presence in space or another planet ) .The smaller junk will really not tell us anything , so burning it up on strikes and globbing the rest into airgel and kevlar would make sense .
A probe like that , once " full " , could be crashed almost anywhere as what 's captured is non-hazardous waste .
Probably not enough to be worth recycling .
Chucking it at where the plates are sliding would seem fair enough .
It wo n't cause problems and the magma will be much more effective at natural recycling than anything we can do.The big pieces are what most people worry about , despite the fact that we know where they all are and they 're all relatively harmless .
At the moment , there 's not much that anyone could do , anyways .
Besides micrometeorite strikes swiss-cheezing anything of size , the radiation will have made many materials extremely brittle .
The Saturn V rocket pieces were n't built to last this long under such rough conditions .
They might still be solid enough to move , or might break into deadly , untrackable fragments if they 're even touched .
Deep space is no better for cheap alloys than the deep oceans are for ships like the Titanic ( made from another cheap alloy rather than high-quality iron ) .What you 'd ideally want to do is enclose those pieces you did n't want to preserve , then create a series of shockwaves such that each adds to the next .
The whole structure will shred itself and can be cleaned up safely with the original cleaner robot I outlined.Structures you DO want to keep are tougher .
You 'd need to bind them together very gently to avoid destroying anything preservable .
There are resins that could be used .
Once it 's encased in resin , glue a heat s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aim it at a space museum and tell them that it's a donation.
That way, they have to pick up the bill if one of their newly-acquired artefacts blows up someone important.Seriously, though, a net idea makes no sense whatsoever.
Would would make a lot more sense, since the real problem isn't the big chunks but the tiny fragments (pea-sized or smaller) is to re-use the shielding idea used on the Giotto probe when it went for Halley's comet.Giotto's shielding was alternating layers of aluminium foil and kevlar.
The foil would destroy smaller fragments, the kevlar would stop larger pieces.
If it was too large for the kevlar, it had probably splintered up by that time and the second round would finish off most of the rest.Giotto survived hellish conditions, flying directly towards a jet on Halley's Comet.
It survived the encounter, though got a few hearts fluttering when it lost contact at point zero (right next to the cometary nucleus).
When it restabilized and found Earth again, astronomers discovered a very large chunk had mashed into the probe and sent it spinning uncontrollably for a while, a-la Darth's Tie Fighter.These days, we can even improve on the design, since we can add airgel and other more modern materials and we don't need a whole range of highly delicate sensors for sweeping duties.So we pack up a cleaning robot, launch it into space, and get rid of junk that's highly deadly for spacecraft but too small to track reliably (if at all).
This satellite's sole mission would be to point at where debris belts are expected to be and slam through them.Stuff we can track just isn't an issue, but a fleck of paint a millimeter in diameter would be enough to punch a hole in a communications satellite.
If we can get rid of the small junk, we'll massively improve the life-expectancy of everything up there and buy time to develop a means of eliminating the big junk (dead satellites, rocket stages, etc) which we can simply avoid for right now.Some of the big junk we might even want to recover in some way.
Not only would they be priceless museum exhibits, they're priceless scientific devices for examining the long-term effects of the solar wind, the actual density of natural space debris, long-term effects of exposure to the hard radiation and cosmic rays of space (vital to know for a Mars mission or for any permanent presence in space or another planet).The smaller junk will really not tell us anything, so burning it up on strikes and globbing the rest into airgel and kevlar would make sense.
A probe like that, once "full", could be crashed almost anywhere as what's captured is non-hazardous waste.
Probably not enough to be worth recycling.
Chucking it at where the plates are sliding would seem fair enough.
It won't cause problems and the magma will be much more effective at natural recycling than anything we can do.The big pieces are what most people worry about, despite the fact that we know where they all are and they're all relatively harmless.
At the moment, there's not much that anyone could do, anyways.
Besides micrometeorite strikes swiss-cheezing anything of size, the radiation will have made many materials extremely brittle.
The Saturn V rocket pieces weren't built to last this long under such rough conditions.
They might still be solid enough to move, or might break into deadly, untrackable fragments if they're even touched.
Deep space is no better for cheap alloys than the deep oceans are for ships like the Titanic (made from another cheap alloy rather than high-quality iron).What you'd ideally want to do is enclose those pieces you didn't want to preserve, then create a series of shockwaves such that each adds to the next.
The whole structure will shred itself and can be cleaned up safely with the original cleaner robot I outlined.Structures you DO want to keep are tougher.
You'd need to bind them together very gently to avoid destroying anything preservable.
There are resins that could be used.
Once it's encased in resin, glue a heat s</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108270</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1258275840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think that if we went 'spongy', it would make sense to send up a few cubic meters of a densely packed raw material and then extrude it in space; after all, the whole point of those materials is how low density they are.  One jar of popcorn kernels is easier to transport before they're popped.<br> <br>

Do popcorn kernels pop when exposed to vacuum?  I may have solved the issue, right there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that if we went 'spongy ' , it would make sense to send up a few cubic meters of a densely packed raw material and then extrude it in space ; after all , the whole point of those materials is how low density they are .
One jar of popcorn kernels is easier to transport before they 're popped .
Do popcorn kernels pop when exposed to vacuum ?
I may have solved the issue , right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think that if we went 'spongy', it would make sense to send up a few cubic meters of a densely packed raw material and then extrude it in space; after all, the whole point of those materials is how low density they are.
One jar of popcorn kernels is easier to transport before they're popped.
Do popcorn kernels pop when exposed to vacuum?
I may have solved the issue, right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106490</id>
	<title>Every velocity is super-bulletesque</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every velocity in space in orbit is super-bulletesque.  It's the relative velocities that matter.  I could catch the paint fleks with any old material, if, the relative velocities were reasonably close.  Indeed, if you launched me out of a cannon next to a bullet fired out of a rifle, I'd almost be able to catch the bullet with no harm to myself.  It's just the launching and the landing that would suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every velocity in space in orbit is super-bulletesque .
It 's the relative velocities that matter .
I could catch the paint fleks with any old material , if , the relative velocities were reasonably close .
Indeed , if you launched me out of a cannon next to a bullet fired out of a rifle , I 'd almost be able to catch the bullet with no harm to myself .
It 's just the launching and the landing that would suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every velocity in space in orbit is super-bulletesque.
It's the relative velocities that matter.
I could catch the paint fleks with any old material, if, the relative velocities were reasonably close.
Indeed, if you launched me out of a cannon next to a bullet fired out of a rifle, I'd almost be able to catch the bullet with no harm to myself.
It's just the launching and the landing that would suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106790</id>
	<title>Re:Speed of debris is 25,000 ft per second.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your assumptions are wrong.  Assuming a cubic particle, you have a particle density of 1 kg/cm^3, which is far higher than anything on this planet (Osmium only has a density of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.022 kg/cm^3).  To get a particle of that density, you would need to mine the core of a reasonably dense star.</p><p>Or you could reduce the energy of the particle by 2-3 orders of magnitude.  Still a very energetic impact, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your assumptions are wrong .
Assuming a cubic particle , you have a particle density of 1 kg/cm ^ 3 , which is far higher than anything on this planet ( Osmium only has a density of .022 kg/cm ^ 3 ) .
To get a particle of that density , you would need to mine the core of a reasonably dense star.Or you could reduce the energy of the particle by 2-3 orders of magnitude .
Still a very energetic impact , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your assumptions are wrong.
Assuming a cubic particle, you have a particle density of 1 kg/cm^3, which is far higher than anything on this planet (Osmium only has a density of .022 kg/cm^3).
To get a particle of that density, you would need to mine the core of a reasonably dense star.Or you could reduce the energy of the particle by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
Still a very energetic impact, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30112534</id>
	<title>We could have a big ole' Aerogel moon in low orbit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258313700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our planet's own tarbaby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our planet 's own tarbaby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our planet's own tarbaby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30116204</id>
	<title>Re:Make sure.</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1258390980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or accidently pick up a still active satellite on your way round<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or accidently pick up a still active satellite on your way round ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or accidently pick up a still active satellite on your way round ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111534</id>
	<title>Sounds like a job</title>
	<author>slashdime</author>
	<datestamp>1258301340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for Half Section!</htmltext>
<tokenext>for Half Section !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for Half Section!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106710</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't that be bad when it re-enters?</title>
	<author>iksbob</author>
	<datestamp>1258309680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who says it needs to re-enter? If the bits of junk are all lodged in a larger net structure which behaves in a predictable manner, it could just be left up there as a sort of orbital junkyard. The proposed designs for a space elevator require a chunk of ballast to keep the tether taught... Why not a bunch of discarded booster shells and such, tacked together? It took a lot of energy to get that stuff up there... Why waste it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says it needs to re-enter ?
If the bits of junk are all lodged in a larger net structure which behaves in a predictable manner , it could just be left up there as a sort of orbital junkyard .
The proposed designs for a space elevator require a chunk of ballast to keep the tether taught... Why not a bunch of discarded booster shells and such , tacked together ?
It took a lot of energy to get that stuff up there... Why waste it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who says it needs to re-enter?
If the bits of junk are all lodged in a larger net structure which behaves in a predictable manner, it could just be left up there as a sort of orbital junkyard.
The proposed designs for a space elevator require a chunk of ballast to keep the tether taught... Why not a bunch of discarded booster shells and such, tacked together?
It took a lot of energy to get that stuff up there... Why waste it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30109580</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1258284660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't a several km mag field require a lot of power? Much more than can be derived from the limited # of sq meters of solar panels available for a satellite?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a several km mag field require a lot of power ?
Much more than can be derived from the limited # of sq meters of solar panels available for a satellite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a several km mag field require a lot of power?
Much more than can be derived from the limited # of sq meters of solar panels available for a satellite?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106336</id>
	<title>Sounds like.....</title>
	<author>Cinnamon Whirl</author>
	<datestamp>1258306920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>someones been playing <a href="http://www.hemispheregames.com/osmos/" title="hemispheregames.com" rel="nofollow">Osmos</a> [hemispheregames.com] too much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>someones been playing Osmos [ hemispheregames.com ] too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someones been playing Osmos [hemispheregames.com] too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106650</id>
	<title>you are the clone.  no, you are the clone.</title>
	<author>SgtChaireBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258309200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone remember Quark, a space garbage scow show from the 70's?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D
It's nice to see it's time...</p></div><p>
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066/" title="imdb.com">Quark</a> [imdb.com] was the first thing I thought of when I saw the heading.  Life imitating art.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember Quark , a space garbage scow show from the 70 's ?
: D It 's nice to see it 's time.. . Quark [ imdb.com ] was the first thing I thought of when I saw the heading .
Life imitating art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember Quark, a space garbage scow show from the 70's?
:D
It's nice to see it's time...
Quark [imdb.com] was the first thing I thought of when I saw the heading.
Life imitating art.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30114084</id>
	<title>Space Quest?</title>
	<author>arkenian</author>
	<datestamp>1258377960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know this is unmanned, but does anyone else look at this article and get nostalgia for Sierra's Space Quest series?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is unmanned , but does anyone else look at this article and get nostalgia for Sierra 's Space Quest series ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is unmanned, but does anyone else look at this article and get nostalgia for Sierra's Space Quest series?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107508</id>
	<title>Re:Space junk's like any other problem</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258314900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Until something tragic happens because of a piece of space junk, no one will do anything.</p></div></blockquote><p>Scariest sound to an astronaut: <i>*POP* Shshshshshsh....</i><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until something tragic happens because of a piece of space junk , no one will do anything.Scariest sound to an astronaut : * POP * Shshshshshsh... .      </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until something tragic happens because of a piece of space junk, no one will do anything.Scariest sound to an astronaut: *POP* Shshshshshsh....
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106372</id>
	<title>Space junk's like any other problem</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1258307220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until something tragic happens because of a piece of space junk, no one will do anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until something tragic happens because of a piece of space junk , no one will do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until something tragic happens because of a piece of space junk, no one will do anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you're traveling at the same speed and direction as the bulletlike flecks, you don't have to worry about damage.  Given that space is a frictionless environment, it's actually fairly easy to accomplish this.  We do it every time we dock with the ISS.</p><p>Cringley seems to be suggesting traveling slightly slower, as to absorb some kinetic energy in the impact, while preserving the integrity of the net.  This sounds pretty cool in theory, although there are a few problems in practice, such as tracking all the tiny bits of debris, having enough fuel to maneuver, and ensuring that you don't get caught between two pieces of junk traveling in opposite directions.</p><p>It's a difficult problem to be sure, but I wouldn't write it off entirely.</p><p>As an alternate proposal, would it make sense to put huge blocks of aerogel (or a similar substance) into orbit? Junk that strikes the blocks would either get caught inside, or pass straight through (but lose some kinetic energy in the process, leading to its gradual orbital decay or capture).  Aerogel itself has a low enough density that loose chunks of it would be relatively harmless to passing spacecraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you 're traveling at the same speed and direction as the bulletlike flecks , you do n't have to worry about damage .
Given that space is a frictionless environment , it 's actually fairly easy to accomplish this .
We do it every time we dock with the ISS.Cringley seems to be suggesting traveling slightly slower , as to absorb some kinetic energy in the impact , while preserving the integrity of the net .
This sounds pretty cool in theory , although there are a few problems in practice , such as tracking all the tiny bits of debris , having enough fuel to maneuver , and ensuring that you do n't get caught between two pieces of junk traveling in opposite directions.It 's a difficult problem to be sure , but I would n't write it off entirely.As an alternate proposal , would it make sense to put huge blocks of aerogel ( or a similar substance ) into orbit ?
Junk that strikes the blocks would either get caught inside , or pass straight through ( but lose some kinetic energy in the process , leading to its gradual orbital decay or capture ) .
Aerogel itself has a low enough density that loose chunks of it would be relatively harmless to passing spacecraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you're traveling at the same speed and direction as the bulletlike flecks, you don't have to worry about damage.
Given that space is a frictionless environment, it's actually fairly easy to accomplish this.
We do it every time we dock with the ISS.Cringley seems to be suggesting traveling slightly slower, as to absorb some kinetic energy in the impact, while preserving the integrity of the net.
This sounds pretty cool in theory, although there are a few problems in practice, such as tracking all the tiny bits of debris, having enough fuel to maneuver, and ensuring that you don't get caught between two pieces of junk traveling in opposite directions.It's a difficult problem to be sure, but I wouldn't write it off entirely.As an alternate proposal, would it make sense to put huge blocks of aerogel (or a similar substance) into orbit?
Junk that strikes the blocks would either get caught inside, or pass straight through (but lose some kinetic energy in the process, leading to its gradual orbital decay or capture).
Aerogel itself has a low enough density that loose chunks of it would be relatively harmless to passing spacecraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30119322</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>huckamania</author>
	<datestamp>1258401480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For practical purposes, we don't have to sweep the entire region of space, just the areas in which we want to have a long term presence.   It may not be a tunnel, but it is certainly not the surface of a sphere.   Since we are tracking the junk in space, it would certainly be easier to target each item then to try to sweep everywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For practical purposes , we do n't have to sweep the entire region of space , just the areas in which we want to have a long term presence .
It may not be a tunnel , but it is certainly not the surface of a sphere .
Since we are tracking the junk in space , it would certainly be easier to target each item then to try to sweep everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For practical purposes, we don't have to sweep the entire region of space, just the areas in which we want to have a long term presence.
It may not be a tunnel, but it is certainly not the surface of a sphere.
Since we are tracking the junk in space, it would certainly be easier to target each item then to try to sweep everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106930</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>maugle</author>
	<datestamp>1258311600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And as an added bonus, it'll accidentally take out all those pesky military satellites that don't officially exist!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as an added bonus , it 'll accidentally take out all those pesky military satellites that do n't officially exist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as an added bonus, it'll accidentally take out all those pesky military satellites that don't officially exist!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106920</id>
	<title>Re:Metal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258311480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Earth is a big electromagnet.  And if you were able to create one powerful enough to change the velocities of every magnetic piece of space junk, the Earth's field would certainly alter your attitude and velocity as well.  We use magnetic fields to adjust the attitude of spacecraft all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Earth is a big electromagnet .
And if you were able to create one powerful enough to change the velocities of every magnetic piece of space junk , the Earth 's field would certainly alter your attitude and velocity as well .
We use magnetic fields to adjust the attitude of spacecraft all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Earth is a big electromagnet.
And if you were able to create one powerful enough to change the velocities of every magnetic piece of space junk, the Earth's field would certainly alter your attitude and velocity as well.
We use magnetic fields to adjust the attitude of spacecraft all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111236</id>
	<title>Re:Gain kinetic energy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258299120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energy</p><p>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you <b>lost potential</b> energy and <b>gain kinetic</b> energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energyTo drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you lost potential energy and gain kinetic energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you have to lose kinetic energyTo drop from a higher altitude to a lower altitude you lost potential energy and gain kinetic energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30117818</id>
	<title>Space Katamari?</title>
	<author>skabob</author>
	<datestamp>1258396980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like they want to roll all the things in space into a large ball, possibly visible in the night sky??<br>

KATAMARI!<br>

<b>King of All Cosmos</b>: <i>We hope you can visit during the day's rolling. Like that's possible.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like they want to roll all the things in space into a large ball , possibly visible in the night sky ? ?
KATAMARI ! King of All Cosmos : We hope you can visit during the day 's rolling .
Like that 's possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like they want to roll all the things in space into a large ball, possibly visible in the night sky??
KATAMARI!

King of All Cosmos: We hope you can visit during the day's rolling.
Like that's possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106808</id>
	<title>Re:Metal</title>
	<author>Sylos</author>
	<datestamp>1258310460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real trick is a)space saving [magnets are/can be very heavy] and b)What about non-magnetic things?  There are plenty of those up in space, so dealing with them is important as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real trick is a ) space saving [ magnets are/can be very heavy ] and b ) What about non-magnetic things ?
There are plenty of those up in space , so dealing with them is important as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real trick is a)space saving [magnets are/can be very heavy] and b)What about non-magnetic things?
There are plenty of those up in space, so dealing with them is important as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106284</id>
	<title>I have mod points.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to mod the article as (-1, Cringely doesn't understand space). Where's the button for that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to mod the article as ( -1 , Cringely does n't understand space ) .
Where 's the button for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to mod the article as (-1, Cringely doesn't understand space).
Where's the button for that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107440</id>
	<title>Can you Catch a Cannonball in a Fishing Net?</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1258314420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps Cringely doesn't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here.</p></div><p>No, he doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what debris is, or what orbital energy is, or how orbits work, or how <i>BIG</i> space is.
</p><p>It is reasonable to clear debris up from Earth orbit... but not the way he proposes.
</p><p>I'm afraid I have to agree with the people saying that this is not a workable idea.  He needs to put some numbers to it.  He's going to catch <i>basketball sized objects</i> in a <i>net</i>?  Have he thought about what happens when a massive object hits something at several miles per second?  I'd say, picture trying to catch a howitzer shell in a net, but, actually, artillery shells are snail-paced compared to orbital velocities.  Here's a comparison: imagine that you're catching dynamite, and it explodes the instant you touch it, sending out shrapnel in all directions. Got that in your imagination?  OK, it's a lot worse than that.
(And if the answer is, well, make sure you come up on it at slow relative velocity... that means that you have to essentially match orbits with each piece of debris.  This is unrealistically expensive in terms of delta-V.)
</p><p>Also, has he thought about the relative size of the net needed to sweep out a few <i>trillion cubic kilometers</i> of space?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Cringely does n't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here.No , he does n't seem to have a clear idea of what debris is , or what orbital energy is , or how orbits work , or how BIG space is .
It is reasonable to clear debris up from Earth orbit... but not the way he proposes .
I 'm afraid I have to agree with the people saying that this is not a workable idea .
He needs to put some numbers to it .
He 's going to catch basketball sized objects in a net ?
Have he thought about what happens when a massive object hits something at several miles per second ?
I 'd say , picture trying to catch a howitzer shell in a net , but , actually , artillery shells are snail-paced compared to orbital velocities .
Here 's a comparison : imagine that you 're catching dynamite , and it explodes the instant you touch it , sending out shrapnel in all directions .
Got that in your imagination ?
OK , it 's a lot worse than that .
( And if the answer is , well , make sure you come up on it at slow relative velocity... that means that you have to essentially match orbits with each piece of debris .
This is unrealistically expensive in terms of delta-V. ) Also , has he thought about the relative size of the net needed to sweep out a few trillion cubic kilometers of space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Cringely doesn't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here.No, he doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what debris is, or what orbital energy is, or how orbits work, or how BIG space is.
It is reasonable to clear debris up from Earth orbit... but not the way he proposes.
I'm afraid I have to agree with the people saying that this is not a workable idea.
He needs to put some numbers to it.
He's going to catch basketball sized objects in a net?
Have he thought about what happens when a massive object hits something at several miles per second?
I'd say, picture trying to catch a howitzer shell in a net, but, actually, artillery shells are snail-paced compared to orbital velocities.
Here's a comparison: imagine that you're catching dynamite, and it explodes the instant you touch it, sending out shrapnel in all directions.
Got that in your imagination?
OK, it's a lot worse than that.
(And if the answer is, well, make sure you come up on it at slow relative velocity... that means that you have to essentially match orbits with each piece of debris.
This is unrealistically expensive in terms of delta-V.)
Also, has he thought about the relative size of the net needed to sweep out a few trillion cubic kilometers of space?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30110148</id>
	<title>evolve the trajectory</title>
	<author>Gearoid\_Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1258288920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is a perfect application for an evolutionary algorithm,</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is a perfect application for an evolutionary algorithm,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is a perfect application for an evolutionary algorithm,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107418</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1258314300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; That's assuming all (or even the majority) of the debris is ferrous.  Titanium, aluminum, ceramic, propulsion slag, and leaked coolant are at least some of the debris that's up there, and it would happily float past a giant magnet like it wasn't even there.  Lets not forget rock debris that's been floating around up there since before we (humanity) had a space program.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Don't forget, attraction and repulsion work both ways too.  So the satellite pulls the object out of orbit a little.  The object in turn would be pulling the satellite too.  It's an absolutely huge 3 dimensional space, so even at 18k mph, clearing one plain would take a long time.  Clearing all the plains would take an eternity.  We're not talking about a few miles.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacedebris\_small.png" title="wikipedia.org">According to NASA</a> [wikipedia.org], there's debris from  300km to over 10,000km.  That'd take one mighty big EM field, that I don't believe we have the ability to produce any time in the near future.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Even the net, sheet, or garbage collecting satellite would spend an awful lot of time (and fuel) to try to collect them.  The expended fuel would cause new debris too.  Since we're talking about some huge orbital velocities, the impacts would make a bigger mess than they'd cure.  Even something only 1kg at 18k mph at a glancing impact would likely leave fresh debris.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I do wonder what will happen over time.  From what I know about astrophysics (which isn't all that much), I would have to assume that they would eventually drift into a equatorial orbit.  Ahhh, the man made rings of Earth.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    That 's assuming all ( or even the majority ) of the debris is ferrous .
Titanium , aluminum , ceramic , propulsion slag , and leaked coolant are at least some of the debris that 's up there , and it would happily float past a giant magnet like it was n't even there .
Lets not forget rock debris that 's been floating around up there since before we ( humanity ) had a space program .
    Do n't forget , attraction and repulsion work both ways too .
So the satellite pulls the object out of orbit a little .
The object in turn would be pulling the satellite too .
It 's an absolutely huge 3 dimensional space , so even at 18k mph , clearing one plain would take a long time .
Clearing all the plains would take an eternity .
We 're not talking about a few miles .
According to NASA [ wikipedia.org ] , there 's debris from 300km to over 10,000km .
That 'd take one mighty big EM field , that I do n't believe we have the ability to produce any time in the near future .
    Even the net , sheet , or garbage collecting satellite would spend an awful lot of time ( and fuel ) to try to collect them .
The expended fuel would cause new debris too .
Since we 're talking about some huge orbital velocities , the impacts would make a bigger mess than they 'd cure .
Even something only 1kg at 18k mph at a glancing impact would likely leave fresh debris .
    I do wonder what will happen over time .
From what I know about astrophysics ( which is n't all that much ) , I would have to assume that they would eventually drift into a equatorial orbit .
Ahhh , the man made rings of Earth .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    That's assuming all (or even the majority) of the debris is ferrous.
Titanium, aluminum, ceramic, propulsion slag, and leaked coolant are at least some of the debris that's up there, and it would happily float past a giant magnet like it wasn't even there.
Lets not forget rock debris that's been floating around up there since before we (humanity) had a space program.
    Don't forget, attraction and repulsion work both ways too.
So the satellite pulls the object out of orbit a little.
The object in turn would be pulling the satellite too.
It's an absolutely huge 3 dimensional space, so even at 18k mph, clearing one plain would take a long time.
Clearing all the plains would take an eternity.
We're not talking about a few miles.
According to NASA [wikipedia.org], there's debris from  300km to over 10,000km.
That'd take one mighty big EM field, that I don't believe we have the ability to produce any time in the near future.
    Even the net, sheet, or garbage collecting satellite would spend an awful lot of time (and fuel) to try to collect them.
The expended fuel would cause new debris too.
Since we're talking about some huge orbital velocities, the impacts would make a bigger mess than they'd cure.
Even something only 1kg at 18k mph at a glancing impact would likely leave fresh debris.
    I do wonder what will happen over time.
From what I know about astrophysics (which isn't all that much), I would have to assume that they would eventually drift into a equatorial orbit.
Ahhh, the man made rings of Earth.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106732</id>
	<title>Re:Speed of debris is 25,000 ft per second.</title>
	<author>Fleetie</author>
	<datestamp>1258309860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A grain of sand weighing 1 gram? You're an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A grain of sand weighing 1 gram ?
You 're an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A grain of sand weighing 1 gram?
You're an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108894</id>
	<title>Nice idea, but it will never work.</title>
	<author>psychogre</author>
	<datestamp>1258279560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but have done much work-related research in the space junk population calculations.</p><p>Many other posts have already stated that most of the pieces of junk will never be able to be captured with way, due to small size and/or relative velocity issues.</p><p>We will never be able to effectively use space travel until we solve this.  If the space junk population continues to increase, it is liable to set off a collision cascade effect (Kessler syndrome) - errant junk colliding with larger pieces to create more small pieces to collide with other objects, and so on.  Kinda like a nuclear reactor, or the analogous 'room full of ping-pong-loaded mouse traps' demonstration...  Space travel could be even more dangerous when this happens.</p><p>For the time being, we can steer our craft around the larger pieces of junk that we can track, put shielding on our craft to protect us from the small pieces.  But there's a size range of pieces that are too small to be tracked, but too large to be effectively shielded.</p><p>The solution to this problem has to start at the top - take out the biggest pieces of space junk - that will reduce the chance of the collision cascade effect.  A fleet of mini space tugs, each programed to safely de-orbit a specific piece of junk, should be able to put a significant dent in the problem.  The use of lasers would complement the work.  Hopefully, as our technology and experience increase with this, we'll be able to remove the smaller pieces as effectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANARS ( I am not a rocket scientist ) , but have done much work-related research in the space junk population calculations.Many other posts have already stated that most of the pieces of junk will never be able to be captured with way , due to small size and/or relative velocity issues.We will never be able to effectively use space travel until we solve this .
If the space junk population continues to increase , it is liable to set off a collision cascade effect ( Kessler syndrome ) - errant junk colliding with larger pieces to create more small pieces to collide with other objects , and so on .
Kinda like a nuclear reactor , or the analogous 'room full of ping-pong-loaded mouse traps ' demonstration... Space travel could be even more dangerous when this happens.For the time being , we can steer our craft around the larger pieces of junk that we can track , put shielding on our craft to protect us from the small pieces .
But there 's a size range of pieces that are too small to be tracked , but too large to be effectively shielded.The solution to this problem has to start at the top - take out the biggest pieces of space junk - that will reduce the chance of the collision cascade effect .
A fleet of mini space tugs , each programed to safely de-orbit a specific piece of junk , should be able to put a significant dent in the problem .
The use of lasers would complement the work .
Hopefully , as our technology and experience increase with this , we 'll be able to remove the smaller pieces as effectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but have done much work-related research in the space junk population calculations.Many other posts have already stated that most of the pieces of junk will never be able to be captured with way, due to small size and/or relative velocity issues.We will never be able to effectively use space travel until we solve this.
If the space junk population continues to increase, it is liable to set off a collision cascade effect (Kessler syndrome) - errant junk colliding with larger pieces to create more small pieces to collide with other objects, and so on.
Kinda like a nuclear reactor, or the analogous 'room full of ping-pong-loaded mouse traps' demonstration...  Space travel could be even more dangerous when this happens.For the time being, we can steer our craft around the larger pieces of junk that we can track, put shielding on our craft to protect us from the small pieces.
But there's a size range of pieces that are too small to be tracked, but too large to be effectively shielded.The solution to this problem has to start at the top - take out the biggest pieces of space junk - that will reduce the chance of the collision cascade effect.
A fleet of mini space tugs, each programed to safely de-orbit a specific piece of junk, should be able to put a significant dent in the problem.
The use of lasers would complement the work.
Hopefully, as our technology and experience increase with this, we'll be able to remove the smaller pieces as effectively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108826</id>
	<title>Cringely must read my posts... Or parts of them...</title>
	<author>pjt48108</author>
	<datestamp>1258279140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1353599&amp;cid=29268653&amp;art\_pos=4" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1353599&amp;cid=29268653&amp;art\_pos=4</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1353599&amp;cid = 29268653&amp;art \ _pos = 4 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1353599&amp;cid=29268653&amp;art\_pos=4 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107140</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1258312980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Perhaps Cringely doesn't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here</i> <br>
<br>
He probably doesn't, but that's never stopped him opening his mouth before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Cringely does n't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here He probably does n't , but that 's never stopped him opening his mouth before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Cringely doesn't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here 

He probably doesn't, but that's never stopped him opening his mouth before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30138832</id>
	<title>Bring back Adam Quark</title>
	<author>kvap</author>
	<datestamp>1258472760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking we need a return of Adam Quark!
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking we need a return of Adam Quark !
http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066 [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking we need a return of Adam Quark!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077066 [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106370</id>
	<title>Not a big fan of "momentum," I see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you catch something stationary while you move, you won't increase your momentum; nor will you increase your kinetic energy. I don't care how much you want it to be akin to tacking into the wind, it won't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you catch something stationary while you move , you wo n't increase your momentum ; nor will you increase your kinetic energy .
I do n't care how much you want it to be akin to tacking into the wind , it wo n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you catch something stationary while you move, you won't increase your momentum; nor will you increase your kinetic energy.
I don't care how much you want it to be akin to tacking into the wind, it won't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106416</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1258307520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you even read TF<b>S</b>?</p><p>He's not proposing 18,000 spaceflights manned or otherwise.  He's proposing a gigantic billiards shot where all the balls are in motion, salvaging the motion of some of the balls to line up the next one and eventually encounter and sink all the balls in one shot.</p><p>Then he's got some weird ideas about orbital energy this "net" concept that seems tricky (although a sufficiently strong, ductile net would increase the target area for intercept and it doesn't matter if the net gets torn to shreds as long as the shreds stay attached), but the underlying idea is interesting, and it certainly doesn't need to be so tricky as to sink all the debris in only one flight with no inter-object maneuvering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even read TFS ? He 's not proposing 18,000 spaceflights manned or otherwise .
He 's proposing a gigantic billiards shot where all the balls are in motion , salvaging the motion of some of the balls to line up the next one and eventually encounter and sink all the balls in one shot.Then he 's got some weird ideas about orbital energy this " net " concept that seems tricky ( although a sufficiently strong , ductile net would increase the target area for intercept and it does n't matter if the net gets torn to shreds as long as the shreds stay attached ) , but the underlying idea is interesting , and it certainly does n't need to be so tricky as to sink all the debris in only one flight with no inter-object maneuvering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even read TFS?He's not proposing 18,000 spaceflights manned or otherwise.
He's proposing a gigantic billiards shot where all the balls are in motion, salvaging the motion of some of the balls to line up the next one and eventually encounter and sink all the balls in one shot.Then he's got some weird ideas about orbital energy this "net" concept that seems tricky (although a sufficiently strong, ductile net would increase the target area for intercept and it doesn't matter if the net gets torn to shreds as long as the shreds stay attached), but the underlying idea is interesting, and it certainly doesn't need to be so tricky as to sink all the debris in only one flight with no inter-object maneuvering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107646</id>
	<title>Re:Cringely is an idiot.</title>
	<author>CantGetAUserName</author>
	<datestamp>1258315920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I have always wondered was why ice wasn't considered. It'd have to be something in a low orbit so the drag would bring it down, but wouldn't an ice projectile of an appropriate mass and velocity be sufficient to de-orbit some items? Or would the risk of shattering the target be too great?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I have always wondered was why ice was n't considered .
It 'd have to be something in a low orbit so the drag would bring it down , but would n't an ice projectile of an appropriate mass and velocity be sufficient to de-orbit some items ?
Or would the risk of shattering the target be too great ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I have always wondered was why ice wasn't considered.
It'd have to be something in a low orbit so the drag would bring it down, but wouldn't an ice projectile of an appropriate mass and velocity be sufficient to de-orbit some items?
Or would the risk of shattering the target be too great?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30109486</id>
	<title>Bad physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258284060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Dragging the net behind a little unmanned spacecraft my idea would be to go past each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the net, but that doing so adds kinetic energy (hitting at shallow angles to essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris).  But wait, there&rsquo;s more!  You not only have to try to get energy from each encounter, it helps if &mdash; like in a game of billiards or pool &mdash; each encounter results in an effective ricochet sending the net in the proper trajectory for its next encounter.  Rinse and repeat 18,000 times.</p></div><p>There is a basic physics problem.  The whole idea that you can capture the debris and control the space ship's velocity after the collision is a flawed.</p><p>His sailboat analogy breaks down because a sailboat does not capture the air; it deflects the air.  If the space craft deflected the debris and controlled the way it "bounced off of the debris" it could control the velocity after the collision.  Of course this defeats the whole point of the space craft.</p><p>However, if the space craft captures debris then it can't control it's resulting velocity.  The resulting velocity will be governed by conservation of momentum.</p><p>Imagine playing pool with a sticky cue ball that stuck to any other balls that it struck.  Because the cue ball was sticky, you'd loose the ability to control the direction of either ball after the collision.  If the cue ball struck a ball that was at rest, the resulting velocity would always be 1/2 the cue ball's original velocity in the same direction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : Dragging the net behind a little unmanned spacecraft my idea would be to go past each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the net , but that doing so adds kinetic energy ( hitting at shallow angles to essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris ) .
But wait , there    s more !
You not only have to try to get energy from each encounter , it helps if    like in a game of billiards or pool    each encounter results in an effective ricochet sending the net in the proper trajectory for its next encounter .
Rinse and repeat 18,000 times.There is a basic physics problem .
The whole idea that you can capture the debris and control the space ship 's velocity after the collision is a flawed.His sailboat analogy breaks down because a sailboat does not capture the air ; it deflects the air .
If the space craft deflected the debris and controlled the way it " bounced off of the debris " it could control the velocity after the collision .
Of course this defeats the whole point of the space craft.However , if the space craft captures debris then it ca n't control it 's resulting velocity .
The resulting velocity will be governed by conservation of momentum.Imagine playing pool with a sticky cue ball that stuck to any other balls that it struck .
Because the cue ball was sticky , you 'd loose the ability to control the direction of either ball after the collision .
If the cue ball struck a ball that was at rest , the resulting velocity would always be 1/2 the cue ball 's original velocity in the same direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:Dragging the net behind a little unmanned spacecraft my idea would be to go past each piece of junk in such a way that it not only lodges permanently in the net, but that doing so adds kinetic energy (hitting at shallow angles to essentially tack like a sailboat off the debris).
But wait, there’s more!
You not only have to try to get energy from each encounter, it helps if — like in a game of billiards or pool — each encounter results in an effective ricochet sending the net in the proper trajectory for its next encounter.
Rinse and repeat 18,000 times.There is a basic physics problem.
The whole idea that you can capture the debris and control the space ship's velocity after the collision is a flawed.His sailboat analogy breaks down because a sailboat does not capture the air; it deflects the air.
If the space craft deflected the debris and controlled the way it "bounced off of the debris" it could control the velocity after the collision.
Of course this defeats the whole point of the space craft.However, if the space craft captures debris then it can't control it's resulting velocity.
The resulting velocity will be governed by conservation of momentum.Imagine playing pool with a sticky cue ball that stuck to any other balls that it struck.
Because the cue ball was sticky, you'd loose the ability to control the direction of either ball after the collision.
If the cue ball struck a ball that was at rest, the resulting velocity would always be 1/2 the cue ball's original velocity in the same direction.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30112310</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a thought- what about a solar-powered electromagnet, surrounded by an aerogel trap?  If it's powerful enough, it could pull in the slower pieces and slow the faster ones from a distance, though space is really too large to get a powerful enough magnet at this point.  Over time, it might work better then just having a "net."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a thought- what about a solar-powered electromagnet , surrounded by an aerogel trap ?
If it 's powerful enough , it could pull in the slower pieces and slow the faster ones from a distance , though space is really too large to get a powerful enough magnet at this point .
Over time , it might work better then just having a " net .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a thought- what about a solar-powered electromagnet, surrounded by an aerogel trap?
If it's powerful enough, it could pull in the slower pieces and slow the faster ones from a distance, though space is really too large to get a powerful enough magnet at this point.
Over time, it might work better then just having a "net.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107478</id>
	<title>Re:"net"?</title>
	<author>RNLockwood</author>
	<datestamp>1258314720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As long as you're traveling at the same speed and direction as the bulletlike flecks, you don't have to worry about damage"</p><p>That's not true.  Consider two objects in the same circular orbit traveling in opposite directions exactly 180 degrees apart.  They are traveling in the same speed and direction (in physics that's called velocity) and will surely collide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As long as you 're traveling at the same speed and direction as the bulletlike flecks , you do n't have to worry about damage " That 's not true .
Consider two objects in the same circular orbit traveling in opposite directions exactly 180 degrees apart .
They are traveling in the same speed and direction ( in physics that 's called velocity ) and will surely collide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As long as you're traveling at the same speed and direction as the bulletlike flecks, you don't have to worry about damage"That's not true.
Consider two objects in the same circular orbit traveling in opposite directions exactly 180 degrees apart.
They are traveling in the same speed and direction (in physics that's called velocity) and will surely collide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30113982</id>
	<title>First off-center collision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that thing would be spinning like a top.  Good luck trying to do guidance once that happens.  I suppose it would be spin-stabilized, in an unpredictable way, but in practice it would make predicting the impact of the next piece that much harder.  You'd have to spend fuel to remove the effect or have a configuration where uncontrolled spinning doesn't matter.</p><p>It's still not much different than trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, and then predicting the ricochet for that bullet to hit another, and another, and another, 18000 times.  You'd have some time in between each to assess the impact and prepare for the next one, but it sounds immensely challenging, and each time you might have an impact that trashes your "net", the sensors and thrusters that guide it, and changes its dynamics.  It's an interesting idea but it sure looks impractical to implement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that thing would be spinning like a top .
Good luck trying to do guidance once that happens .
I suppose it would be spin-stabilized , in an unpredictable way , but in practice it would make predicting the impact of the next piece that much harder .
You 'd have to spend fuel to remove the effect or have a configuration where uncontrolled spinning does n't matter.It 's still not much different than trying to hit a bullet with a bullet , and then predicting the ricochet for that bullet to hit another , and another , and another , 18000 times .
You 'd have some time in between each to assess the impact and prepare for the next one , but it sounds immensely challenging , and each time you might have an impact that trashes your " net " , the sensors and thrusters that guide it , and changes its dynamics .
It 's an interesting idea but it sure looks impractical to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that thing would be spinning like a top.
Good luck trying to do guidance once that happens.
I suppose it would be spin-stabilized, in an unpredictable way, but in practice it would make predicting the impact of the next piece that much harder.
You'd have to spend fuel to remove the effect or have a configuration where uncontrolled spinning doesn't matter.It's still not much different than trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, and then predicting the ricochet for that bullet to hit another, and another, and another, 18000 times.
You'd have some time in between each to assess the impact and prepare for the next one, but it sounds immensely challenging, and each time you might have an impact that trashes your "net", the sensors and thrusters that guide it, and changes its dynamics.
It's an interesting idea but it sure looks impractical to implement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108118</id>
	<title>Re:Quark!</title>
	<author>Brett Johnson</author>
	<datestamp>1258318200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Them's fightin' words!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Them 's fightin ' words !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Them's fightin' words!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30144520</id>
	<title>Just walk away.</title>
	<author>Wargames</author>
	<datestamp>1257094680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem as I see it is that the Earth is going around the sun carrying a bunch of space junk with it.  This space junk make it miserable for people who want to shoot more stuff into space.  Therefore, all we have to do is get all our buddies together ( the moon and other satellites we want to keep), then just stop orbitting the sun for about 4 hours (distance to the moon/helocentric velocity). Then we should be in a nice clean portion of the orbit.  Usually, it is heck of alot easier to litter and walk away than it is to pick it up and put it in the trash bin.

<a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+to+moon+\%2F+speed+of+earth+orbit" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+to+moon+\%2F+speed+of+earth+orbit</a> [wolframalpha.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem as I see it is that the Earth is going around the sun carrying a bunch of space junk with it .
This space junk make it miserable for people who want to shoot more stuff into space .
Therefore , all we have to do is get all our buddies together ( the moon and other satellites we want to keep ) , then just stop orbitting the sun for about 4 hours ( distance to the moon/helocentric velocity ) .
Then we should be in a nice clean portion of the orbit .
Usually , it is heck of alot easier to litter and walk away than it is to pick it up and put it in the trash bin .
http : //www.wolframalpha.com/input/ ? i = distance + to + moon + \ % 2F + speed + of + earth + orbit [ wolframalpha.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem as I see it is that the Earth is going around the sun carrying a bunch of space junk with it.
This space junk make it miserable for people who want to shoot more stuff into space.
Therefore, all we have to do is get all our buddies together ( the moon and other satellites we want to keep), then just stop orbitting the sun for about 4 hours (distance to the moon/helocentric velocity).
Then we should be in a nice clean portion of the orbit.
Usually, it is heck of alot easier to litter and walk away than it is to pick it up and put it in the trash bin.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+to+moon+\%2F+speed+of+earth+orbit [wolframalpha.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106540</id>
	<title>Re:Quark!</title>
	<author>rirugrat</author>
	<datestamp>1258308540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>QUARK!  GARBAGE!

Having Betty I and Betty II around made up for it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>QUARK !
GARBAGE ! Having Betty I and Betty II around made up for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>QUARK!
GARBAGE!

Having Betty I and Betty II around made up for it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111928</id>
	<title>Tacking may not work in Space</title>
	<author>AmericanInKiev</author>
	<datestamp>1258305780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The notion of capturing energy from objects already in orbit is intriguing - but I doubt that "tacking" is sufficient to explain how this works. Tacking occurs when two fluids are connected by airfoils; moreover, the essence of tacking requires the deflection, or bouncing, of the fluids - not the collection of same.</p><p>So, in what way could you approach an object and steal its energy. But before that question, what does it mean to steal energy from these captured items? If the trash ends up a part of the garbage scow's orbital dynamics, then "stealing" energy is moot - unless the trash is ejected into a less energetic orbit, the scow cannot end up with a more energetic orbit - which of course defined the solution. The desired "net" may be an electromagnet on a long wire. The intercept is made with a near miss, such that trash and the scow end up like a double-star, tumbling around a common axis - then the electromagnet is released in a moment when the trash is tumbling counter-orbital, leaving the trash in an inferior (and hopefully terminal) orbit - and the scow in a new trajectory of choice - based largely on the intercept angle (to establish the tumble plane) and the release timing to select the angular acceleration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion of capturing energy from objects already in orbit is intriguing - but I doubt that " tacking " is sufficient to explain how this works .
Tacking occurs when two fluids are connected by airfoils ; moreover , the essence of tacking requires the deflection , or bouncing , of the fluids - not the collection of same.So , in what way could you approach an object and steal its energy .
But before that question , what does it mean to steal energy from these captured items ?
If the trash ends up a part of the garbage scow 's orbital dynamics , then " stealing " energy is moot - unless the trash is ejected into a less energetic orbit , the scow can not end up with a more energetic orbit - which of course defined the solution .
The desired " net " may be an electromagnet on a long wire .
The intercept is made with a near miss , such that trash and the scow end up like a double-star , tumbling around a common axis - then the electromagnet is released in a moment when the trash is tumbling counter-orbital , leaving the trash in an inferior ( and hopefully terminal ) orbit - and the scow in a new trajectory of choice - based largely on the intercept angle ( to establish the tumble plane ) and the release timing to select the angular acceleration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion of capturing energy from objects already in orbit is intriguing - but I doubt that "tacking" is sufficient to explain how this works.
Tacking occurs when two fluids are connected by airfoils; moreover, the essence of tacking requires the deflection, or bouncing, of the fluids - not the collection of same.So, in what way could you approach an object and steal its energy.
But before that question, what does it mean to steal energy from these captured items?
If the trash ends up a part of the garbage scow's orbital dynamics, then "stealing" energy is moot - unless the trash is ejected into a less energetic orbit, the scow cannot end up with a more energetic orbit - which of course defined the solution.
The desired "net" may be an electromagnet on a long wire.
The intercept is made with a near miss, such that trash and the scow end up like a double-star, tumbling around a common axis - then the electromagnet is released in a moment when the trash is tumbling counter-orbital, leaving the trash in an inferior (and hopefully terminal) orbit - and the scow in a new trajectory of choice - based largely on the intercept angle (to establish the tumble plane) and the release timing to select the angular acceleration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230</id>
	<title>"net"?</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1258306260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps Cringely doesn't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here<br> <br>

There are, certainly, some big chunks out there; but unpleasant enough(and far more numerous) are the little flecks of paint, bolts, and general fragments of this and that zipping around at bulletesque velocities.<br> <br>

Either this "net" will be made of very close-woven unobtanium, of the sort that we don't yet have, despite decades of interest in the personnel armor industry, or it will have to be a vast spongy particle trap, of the sort whose volume would be completely prohibitive for any available launch mechanism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Cringely does n't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here There are , certainly , some big chunks out there ; but unpleasant enough ( and far more numerous ) are the little flecks of paint , bolts , and general fragments of this and that zipping around at bulletesque velocities .
Either this " net " will be made of very close-woven unobtanium , of the sort that we do n't yet have , despite decades of interest in the personnel armor industry , or it will have to be a vast spongy particle trap , of the sort whose volume would be completely prohibitive for any available launch mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Cringely doesn't have a clear idea what sort of debris we are dealing with here 

There are, certainly, some big chunks out there; but unpleasant enough(and far more numerous) are the little flecks of paint, bolts, and general fragments of this and that zipping around at bulletesque velocities.
Either this "net" will be made of very close-woven unobtanium, of the sort that we don't yet have, despite decades of interest in the personnel armor industry, or it will have to be a vast spongy particle trap, of the sort whose volume would be completely prohibitive for any available launch mechanism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30119322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30109580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30110966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30112310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30115912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30113326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30110088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30114594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30113738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30128232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30114650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30116204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1516222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30113326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30110966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30110088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30114594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30128232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30116204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30119322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30114650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30115912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30113738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30112310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30108990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30111436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30107646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30109580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1516222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1516222.30106708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
