<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_17_1632207</id>
	<title>PhD Candidate Talks About the Physics of Space Battles</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1261077480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>darthvader100 writes <i>"Gizmodo has run an article with some predictions on <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles">what future space battles will be like</a>. The author brings up several theories on propulsion (and orbits), weapons (explosives, kinetic and laser), and design. Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical, like the one in the <em>Hitchhiker's Guide</em> movie."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>darthvader100 writes " Gizmodo has run an article with some predictions on what future space battles will be like .
The author brings up several theories on propulsion ( and orbits ) , weapons ( explosives , kinetic and laser ) , and design .
Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical , like the one in the Hitchhiker 's Guide movie .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>darthvader100 writes "Gizmodo has run an article with some predictions on what future space battles will be like.
The author brings up several theories on propulsion (and orbits), weapons (explosives, kinetic and laser), and design.
Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical, like the one in the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483118</id>
	<title>Re:in the war of 1812</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Central command not having immediate control is nothing new.  Simply look at how navies operated pre-radio communication and that's how they would operate in deep space.  Captain's and Admirals will make decisions themselves guided by a mandate received from a central command.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Central command not having immediate control is nothing new .
Simply look at how navies operated pre-radio communication and that 's how they would operate in deep space .
Captain 's and Admirals will make decisions themselves guided by a mandate received from a central command .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Central command not having immediate control is nothing new.
Simply look at how navies operated pre-radio communication and that's how they would operate in deep space.
Captain's and Admirals will make decisions themselves guided by a mandate received from a central command.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479930</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261047540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If your enemy is smart enough to put one fleet directly in front of you while having another flank from the top or bottom, all you've done is make your ships easier to hit.</i></p><p>Yes, well, the genetic engineered brain apparently didn't think of that, it was too busy quoting Shakespeare.</p><p><i>If you're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible, your best bet would be a needle-shape.</i></p><p>Those guys were bastards in Homeworld. They actually weren't too bad, until they suddenly turned-tail and tried to ram and one-hit-kill your capital ships.</p><p>Wait... what were we talking about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your enemy is smart enough to put one fleet directly in front of you while having another flank from the top or bottom , all you 've done is make your ships easier to hit.Yes , well , the genetic engineered brain apparently did n't think of that , it was too busy quoting Shakespeare.If you 're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible , your best bet would be a needle-shape.Those guys were bastards in Homeworld .
They actually were n't too bad , until they suddenly turned-tail and tried to ram and one-hit-kill your capital ships.Wait... what were we talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your enemy is smart enough to put one fleet directly in front of you while having another flank from the top or bottom, all you've done is make your ships easier to hit.Yes, well, the genetic engineered brain apparently didn't think of that, it was too busy quoting Shakespeare.If you're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible, your best bet would be a needle-shape.Those guys were bastards in Homeworld.
They actually weren't too bad, until they suddenly turned-tail and tried to ram and one-hit-kill your capital ships.Wait... what were we talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478418</id>
	<title>Re:Round ships?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doc Smith has it right about the shape but not the tactics, Peter Hamilton makes a more realistic use of orbital mechanics, energy dissipation, heat exchange, etc.. The shady part is living starships, FTL spetialy with the Lady Mac in Lalonde and Morora and Zero Tau (time suspention) but as there are teories about it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doc Smith has it right about the shape but not the tactics , Peter Hamilton makes a more realistic use of orbital mechanics , energy dissipation , heat exchange , etc.. The shady part is living starships , FTL spetialy with the Lady Mac in Lalonde and Morora and Zero Tau ( time suspention ) but as there are teories about it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doc Smith has it right about the shape but not the tactics, Peter Hamilton makes a more realistic use of orbital mechanics, energy dissipation, heat exchange, etc.. The shady part is living starships, FTL spetialy with the Lady Mac in Lalonde and Morora and Zero Tau (time suspention) but as there are teories about it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478404</id>
	<title>It all depends on the hypothetical technologies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space battles are still the realm of science fiction. Depending on how far out we push the speculative technology, we could stick with relatively hard SF with direct extrapolations of current technology or softer SF with more fanciful tech employed in a plausible and self-consistent fashion.</p><p>There are certain things you would expect, regardless of the technology. For example, consider the Starfury from Babylon 5. You have omnidirectional thrusters. This would be expected in a combat ship. It might be considered economical for a civilian ship to have one big thruster in back and for the whole ship to rotate ass-backwards for deceleration. But it might also be the case that a military ship would require the omnidirectional thrusters as well so that it can perform significant delta-v in various directions while keeping a specific attitude. One example I could think of is if the ship's primary armament is a big gun running the length of the ship necessitating the entire ship be maneuvered to aim it. You wouldn't want to have to point it away from the enemy just so the ship could maneuver.</p><p>I think the only thing that's really safe to say is that space warships will not be directly analogous to anything in our current or past experience. It's not going to be Horatio Hornblower in space, it's not going to be WWII in space, it's going to be different. I like watching the scifi movies and seeing how fairly contemporary industrial design is simply ported into space. Bulky monochrome CRT's in the 70's, color going into the 80's, flat panels start showing up in the 90's. Star Trek completely missed the idea of brilliant pretty displays though I would have to imagine trying to simulate them with the sfx budget at the time would be difficult. Robots were seen as being able to walk, that's the easy part, but doing math is hard! And those old writers had no idea just how much math something like Asimo has to do just to walk. Likewise, the robot could understand your spoken question of what's 2234*542 but it takes a minute to compute.</p><p>In all honesty, I'd put my money on a realistic space warship as driven by expert systems and automation. The humans may give operational guidelines and issue a specific command here and there but everything else is automated. No captain on the bridge shouting commands, no sweating rated crew struggling to load photon torps, no engineer running around the engine room. I think that it would make for fairly boring cinema unless the story is not about the adventure of the fight. Look at drone operations in the current wars. Guys sitting behind monitors blowing up people on the other side of the planet, then going home to the family. You're not going to get people on the edge of their seats describing the fight but there could be fertile ground for exploring the dehumanization of this remote control warfare. Joe Haldman explored it before it was a reality, now we can see how much he got right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space battles are still the realm of science fiction .
Depending on how far out we push the speculative technology , we could stick with relatively hard SF with direct extrapolations of current technology or softer SF with more fanciful tech employed in a plausible and self-consistent fashion.There are certain things you would expect , regardless of the technology .
For example , consider the Starfury from Babylon 5 .
You have omnidirectional thrusters .
This would be expected in a combat ship .
It might be considered economical for a civilian ship to have one big thruster in back and for the whole ship to rotate ass-backwards for deceleration .
But it might also be the case that a military ship would require the omnidirectional thrusters as well so that it can perform significant delta-v in various directions while keeping a specific attitude .
One example I could think of is if the ship 's primary armament is a big gun running the length of the ship necessitating the entire ship be maneuvered to aim it .
You would n't want to have to point it away from the enemy just so the ship could maneuver.I think the only thing that 's really safe to say is that space warships will not be directly analogous to anything in our current or past experience .
It 's not going to be Horatio Hornblower in space , it 's not going to be WWII in space , it 's going to be different .
I like watching the scifi movies and seeing how fairly contemporary industrial design is simply ported into space .
Bulky monochrome CRT 's in the 70 's , color going into the 80 's , flat panels start showing up in the 90 's .
Star Trek completely missed the idea of brilliant pretty displays though I would have to imagine trying to simulate them with the sfx budget at the time would be difficult .
Robots were seen as being able to walk , that 's the easy part , but doing math is hard !
And those old writers had no idea just how much math something like Asimo has to do just to walk .
Likewise , the robot could understand your spoken question of what 's 2234 * 542 but it takes a minute to compute.In all honesty , I 'd put my money on a realistic space warship as driven by expert systems and automation .
The humans may give operational guidelines and issue a specific command here and there but everything else is automated .
No captain on the bridge shouting commands , no sweating rated crew struggling to load photon torps , no engineer running around the engine room .
I think that it would make for fairly boring cinema unless the story is not about the adventure of the fight .
Look at drone operations in the current wars .
Guys sitting behind monitors blowing up people on the other side of the planet , then going home to the family .
You 're not going to get people on the edge of their seats describing the fight but there could be fertile ground for exploring the dehumanization of this remote control warfare .
Joe Haldman explored it before it was a reality , now we can see how much he got right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space battles are still the realm of science fiction.
Depending on how far out we push the speculative technology, we could stick with relatively hard SF with direct extrapolations of current technology or softer SF with more fanciful tech employed in a plausible and self-consistent fashion.There are certain things you would expect, regardless of the technology.
For example, consider the Starfury from Babylon 5.
You have omnidirectional thrusters.
This would be expected in a combat ship.
It might be considered economical for a civilian ship to have one big thruster in back and for the whole ship to rotate ass-backwards for deceleration.
But it might also be the case that a military ship would require the omnidirectional thrusters as well so that it can perform significant delta-v in various directions while keeping a specific attitude.
One example I could think of is if the ship's primary armament is a big gun running the length of the ship necessitating the entire ship be maneuvered to aim it.
You wouldn't want to have to point it away from the enemy just so the ship could maneuver.I think the only thing that's really safe to say is that space warships will not be directly analogous to anything in our current or past experience.
It's not going to be Horatio Hornblower in space, it's not going to be WWII in space, it's going to be different.
I like watching the scifi movies and seeing how fairly contemporary industrial design is simply ported into space.
Bulky monochrome CRT's in the 70's, color going into the 80's, flat panels start showing up in the 90's.
Star Trek completely missed the idea of brilliant pretty displays though I would have to imagine trying to simulate them with the sfx budget at the time would be difficult.
Robots were seen as being able to walk, that's the easy part, but doing math is hard!
And those old writers had no idea just how much math something like Asimo has to do just to walk.
Likewise, the robot could understand your spoken question of what's 2234*542 but it takes a minute to compute.In all honesty, I'd put my money on a realistic space warship as driven by expert systems and automation.
The humans may give operational guidelines and issue a specific command here and there but everything else is automated.
No captain on the bridge shouting commands, no sweating rated crew struggling to load photon torps, no engineer running around the engine room.
I think that it would make for fairly boring cinema unless the story is not about the adventure of the fight.
Look at drone operations in the current wars.
Guys sitting behind monitors blowing up people on the other side of the planet, then going home to the family.
You're not going to get people on the edge of their seats describing the fight but there could be fertile ground for exploring the dehumanization of this remote control warfare.
Joe Haldman explored it before it was a reality, now we can see how much he got right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478050</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1261040520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO, the best science fiction depiction of this type of space combat was in the Neutronium Alchemist/Night's Dawn trilogy.  All the mechanical (non-living) spacecraft were spherical, and space-to-space combat was accomplished through volleys of pods that contained weapons and countermeasures launched in swarms.  The series depicts several space battles, as well as some space-to-ground attacks that are pretty fascinating reads.  The series is highly recommended except for the ending-- in paperback it's split into 6 books, and I recommend just reading the first 5 then imagining how it might end.  You'll definitely come up with a better plotline than the author's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , the best science fiction depiction of this type of space combat was in the Neutronium Alchemist/Night 's Dawn trilogy .
All the mechanical ( non-living ) spacecraft were spherical , and space-to-space combat was accomplished through volleys of pods that contained weapons and countermeasures launched in swarms .
The series depicts several space battles , as well as some space-to-ground attacks that are pretty fascinating reads .
The series is highly recommended except for the ending-- in paperback it 's split into 6 books , and I recommend just reading the first 5 then imagining how it might end .
You 'll definitely come up with a better plotline than the author 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, the best science fiction depiction of this type of space combat was in the Neutronium Alchemist/Night's Dawn trilogy.
All the mechanical (non-living) spacecraft were spherical, and space-to-space combat was accomplished through volleys of pods that contained weapons and countermeasures launched in swarms.
The series depicts several space battles, as well as some space-to-ground attacks that are pretty fascinating reads.
The series is highly recommended except for the ending-- in paperback it's split into 6 books, and I recommend just reading the first 5 then imagining how it might end.
You'll definitely come up with a better plotline than the author's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483750</id>
	<title>Are the battles only occurring in 3 dimensions?</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1261072860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on advances in technology and physics, mere positioning in a space battle might not be all that decisive in itself. For example, could a ship be armed with a shield that acts as an "always on" wormhole, redirecting all incoming weapons fire to an alternate point in space... such as the interior of the enemy ship itself?</p><p>The anime series "Gurren Lagann" used another interesting weapon system in which a form of time travel was applied to warheads, allowing them to make impact with a target randomly at multiple points on the timeline from a few seconds into the past to a few seconds into the future, effectively negating the possibility of blocking the attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on advances in technology and physics , mere positioning in a space battle might not be all that decisive in itself .
For example , could a ship be armed with a shield that acts as an " always on " wormhole , redirecting all incoming weapons fire to an alternate point in space... such as the interior of the enemy ship itself ? The anime series " Gurren Lagann " used another interesting weapon system in which a form of time travel was applied to warheads , allowing them to make impact with a target randomly at multiple points on the timeline from a few seconds into the past to a few seconds into the future , effectively negating the possibility of blocking the attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on advances in technology and physics, mere positioning in a space battle might not be all that decisive in itself.
For example, could a ship be armed with a shield that acts as an "always on" wormhole, redirecting all incoming weapons fire to an alternate point in space... such as the interior of the enemy ship itself?The anime series "Gurren Lagann" used another interesting weapon system in which a form of time travel was applied to warheads, allowing them to make impact with a target randomly at multiple points on the timeline from a few seconds into the past to a few seconds into the future, effectively negating the possibility of blocking the attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479940</id>
	<title>"2300 AD" said it better</title>
	<author>Fuseboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261047600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a great essay in the starship combat supplement of the pen-and-paper role-playing game 2300 AD which is very entertaining reading.  The space combat it describes is based on stealth.  To avoid detection, ships rely heavily on remotes, which can use radar to illuminate and identify targets without the controlling ship giving itself away.  Similarly, a lot of weaponry, usually lasers, is fired from drone 'submunitions'.</p><p>Rather than trying to actually collide with you or explode near you, "missiles" fly near you and zap you.  Some use detonation lasers, channeling the radiation from a nuclear explosion through a short-lived lens, punching you with a nice concentrated blast of gamma rays.</p><p>Under fire, ships can release "shields" - clouds of water (or other) crystals to diffuse incoming laser light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a great essay in the starship combat supplement of the pen-and-paper role-playing game 2300 AD which is very entertaining reading .
The space combat it describes is based on stealth .
To avoid detection , ships rely heavily on remotes , which can use radar to illuminate and identify targets without the controlling ship giving itself away .
Similarly , a lot of weaponry , usually lasers , is fired from drone 'submunitions'.Rather than trying to actually collide with you or explode near you , " missiles " fly near you and zap you .
Some use detonation lasers , channeling the radiation from a nuclear explosion through a short-lived lens , punching you with a nice concentrated blast of gamma rays.Under fire , ships can release " shields " - clouds of water ( or other ) crystals to diffuse incoming laser light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a great essay in the starship combat supplement of the pen-and-paper role-playing game 2300 AD which is very entertaining reading.
The space combat it describes is based on stealth.
To avoid detection, ships rely heavily on remotes, which can use radar to illuminate and identify targets without the controlling ship giving itself away.
Similarly, a lot of weaponry, usually lasers, is fired from drone 'submunitions'.Rather than trying to actually collide with you or explode near you, "missiles" fly near you and zap you.
Some use detonation lasers, channeling the radiation from a nuclear explosion through a short-lived lens, punching you with a nice concentrated blast of gamma rays.Under fire, ships can release "shields" - clouds of water (or other) crystals to diffuse incoming laser light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016</id>
	<title>Flying near c.?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1261040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down, looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down , looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down, looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c.?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478060</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1261040580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>kinetic weapons would be ideal</p></div><p>Just fit some armor hardeners and that thing will tank like a mutha...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>kinetic weapons would be idealJust fit some armor hardeners and that thing will tank like a mutha.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kinetic weapons would be idealJust fit some armor hardeners and that thing will tank like a mutha...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483376</id>
	<title>Re:not quite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion. Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.</p></div><p>On the contrary - stealth spacecraft are an impossible problem, <i>because</i> of propulsion.  A rocket in operation is easy to spot against the cold background of space, and there's nothing that you can do to stealth it, apart from just not thrusting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion .
Space is huge , you 're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.On the contrary - stealth spacecraft are an impossible problem , because of propulsion .
A rocket in operation is easy to spot against the cold background of space , and there 's nothing that you can do to stealth it , apart from just not thrusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion.
Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.On the contrary - stealth spacecraft are an impossible problem, because of propulsion.
A rocket in operation is easy to spot against the cold background of space, and there's nothing that you can do to stealth it, apart from just not thrusting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484088</id>
	<title>Re:Peace</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261077600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was that wonderful short (really short!) story by Harry Harrison, which starts with a similar premise: a father, lecturing children on his part in the grisly "final war", which was over because the side he was on invented a new weapon which was so deadly that it couldn't be countered. He then proceeds to explain that, since now said weapon is known and accessible to everyone, any further war is impossible, because of that deadliness - "most battles would end with both sides dead or dying".</p><p>The story closes by him taking that weapon - a bow, so powerful because it can kill from a distance - off the wall of the cave he and the children are sitting in, around the fire, wrapped in leathers.</p><p>I've read it in translation, so I may not be entirely correct as to what the original is called, but I think it's "The Final Battle".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was that wonderful short ( really short !
) story by Harry Harrison , which starts with a similar premise : a father , lecturing children on his part in the grisly " final war " , which was over because the side he was on invented a new weapon which was so deadly that it could n't be countered .
He then proceeds to explain that , since now said weapon is known and accessible to everyone , any further war is impossible , because of that deadliness - " most battles would end with both sides dead or dying " .The story closes by him taking that weapon - a bow , so powerful because it can kill from a distance - off the wall of the cave he and the children are sitting in , around the fire , wrapped in leathers.I 've read it in translation , so I may not be entirely correct as to what the original is called , but I think it 's " The Final Battle " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was that wonderful short (really short!
) story by Harry Harrison, which starts with a similar premise: a father, lecturing children on his part in the grisly "final war", which was over because the side he was on invented a new weapon which was so deadly that it couldn't be countered.
He then proceeds to explain that, since now said weapon is known and accessible to everyone, any further war is impossible, because of that deadliness - "most battles would end with both sides dead or dying".The story closes by him taking that weapon - a bow, so powerful because it can kill from a distance - off the wall of the cave he and the children are sitting in, around the fire, wrapped in leathers.I've read it in translation, so I may not be entirely correct as to what the original is called, but I think it's "The Final Battle".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479508</id>
	<title>Re:C.J. Cherryh has the most realistic handling</title>
	<author>Carbaholic</author>
	<datestamp>1261045800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My father was an engineer for NASA for a few years and one of his colleagues dedicated a few years to writing a science fiction novel based on real physics. Since he was an engineer at NASA, I'm confident the physics were real.</p><p>The result was very boring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My father was an engineer for NASA for a few years and one of his colleagues dedicated a few years to writing a science fiction novel based on real physics .
Since he was an engineer at NASA , I 'm confident the physics were real.The result was very boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father was an engineer for NASA for a few years and one of his colleagues dedicated a few years to writing a science fiction novel based on real physics.
Since he was an engineer at NASA, I'm confident the physics were real.The result was very boring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261083420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that reducing the profile in one direction means you have to make it larger in a different dimension.  Now, that's not much of a problem when you're fighting 2D land-battles, but zero-gravity gives you the ultimate 3D battle-space.  If your enemy is smart enough to put one fleet directly in front of you while having another flank from the top or bottom, all you've done is make your ships easier to hit.</p><p>If you're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible, your best bet would be a needle-shape.  Very long, and as thin as possible.  However, that runs into other problems, such as maneuverability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that reducing the profile in one direction means you have to make it larger in a different dimension .
Now , that 's not much of a problem when you 're fighting 2D land-battles , but zero-gravity gives you the ultimate 3D battle-space .
If your enemy is smart enough to put one fleet directly in front of you while having another flank from the top or bottom , all you 've done is make your ships easier to hit.If you 're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible , your best bet would be a needle-shape .
Very long , and as thin as possible .
However , that runs into other problems , such as maneuverability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that reducing the profile in one direction means you have to make it larger in a different dimension.
Now, that's not much of a problem when you're fighting 2D land-battles, but zero-gravity gives you the ultimate 3D battle-space.
If your enemy is smart enough to put one fleet directly in front of you while having another flank from the top or bottom, all you've done is make your ships easier to hit.If you're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible, your best bet would be a needle-shape.
Very long, and as thin as possible.
However, that runs into other problems, such as maneuverability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477870</id>
	<title>Reading it and I recall the Lensman series</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1261083120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman\_series" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman\_series</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>and how in the end it was about making sure your opponent didn't have the time to react, FTL planets are fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman \ _series [ wikipedia.org ] and how in the end it was about making sure your opponent did n't have the time to react , FTL planets are fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman\_series [wikipedia.org]and how in the end it was about making sure your opponent didn't have the time to react, FTL planets are fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481992</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1261058220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seen from the front though the rectangle only presents a profile of 100. The maximum profile it will exhibit is 1000, and thats only directly from the side. The sphere, if I'm not mistaken, will always present in the region of 1800.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seen from the front though the rectangle only presents a profile of 100 .
The maximum profile it will exhibit is 1000 , and thats only directly from the side .
The sphere , if I 'm not mistaken , will always present in the region of 1800 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seen from the front though the rectangle only presents a profile of 100.
The maximum profile it will exhibit is 1000, and thats only directly from the side.
The sphere, if I'm not mistaken, will always present in the region of 1800.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30496288</id>
	<title>Space is big</title>
	<author>Kuruk</author>
	<datestamp>1261153980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well in space the range of battles is massively vast. All you need is a weapon with the best range and speed. Considering the distances you need speed as close to C as possible. Focused laser or radiation is probably best. The ship is irrelevant as long as it can detect and destroy from outside the enemies kill space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well in space the range of battles is massively vast .
All you need is a weapon with the best range and speed .
Considering the distances you need speed as close to C as possible .
Focused laser or radiation is probably best .
The ship is irrelevant as long as it can detect and destroy from outside the enemies kill space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well in space the range of battles is massively vast.
All you need is a weapon with the best range and speed.
Considering the distances you need speed as close to C as possible.
Focused laser or radiation is probably best.
The ship is irrelevant as long as it can detect and destroy from outside the enemies kill space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480352</id>
	<title>Unmanned ships</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1261049280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>Or, at least, crewing some of them &ndash; robotic drone fighters would be a tremendous boon to space soldiers, but the communication lag between planets and vessels in orbit would make the split-second judgments of humans necessary at times. (Until we perfect AIs but if we're giving them the space fighters from the beginning, we deserve the robot uprising we'll get.)</p></div></blockquote><p>I disagree. He seems to think that AI has to be human-level AI. But I think the intelligence needed would be roughly at the level of wolves. The ships have to cooperate, they have to react on the enemy ships, they have to distinguish between own and enemy ships, they have to do a certain amount of tactics. For any more advanced tactics or even strategy, a lag of a few minutes in communication probably doesn't matter. If the battlefield is too far away, there would probably a manned ship in distance which is short enough to allow "low" delay communications, but far enough to not be directly involved in the fight (just to remind you: The sun-earth distance is just about eight light-minutes, so you can get <em>quite</em> far away if you can tolerate moderate communications lag).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : Or , at least , crewing some of them    robotic drone fighters would be a tremendous boon to space soldiers , but the communication lag between planets and vessels in orbit would make the split-second judgments of humans necessary at times .
( Until we perfect AIs but if we 're giving them the space fighters from the beginning , we deserve the robot uprising we 'll get .
) I disagree .
He seems to think that AI has to be human-level AI .
But I think the intelligence needed would be roughly at the level of wolves .
The ships have to cooperate , they have to react on the enemy ships , they have to distinguish between own and enemy ships , they have to do a certain amount of tactics .
For any more advanced tactics or even strategy , a lag of a few minutes in communication probably does n't matter .
If the battlefield is too far away , there would probably a manned ship in distance which is short enough to allow " low " delay communications , but far enough to not be directly involved in the fight ( just to remind you : The sun-earth distance is just about eight light-minutes , so you can get quite far away if you can tolerate moderate communications lag ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:Or, at least, crewing some of them – robotic drone fighters would be a tremendous boon to space soldiers, but the communication lag between planets and vessels in orbit would make the split-second judgments of humans necessary at times.
(Until we perfect AIs but if we're giving them the space fighters from the beginning, we deserve the robot uprising we'll get.
)I disagree.
He seems to think that AI has to be human-level AI.
But I think the intelligence needed would be roughly at the level of wolves.
The ships have to cooperate, they have to react on the enemy ships, they have to distinguish between own and enemy ships, they have to do a certain amount of tactics.
For any more advanced tactics or even strategy, a lag of a few minutes in communication probably doesn't matter.
If the battlefield is too far away, there would probably a manned ship in distance which is short enough to allow "low" delay communications, but far enough to not be directly involved in the fight (just to remind you: The sun-earth distance is just about eight light-minutes, so you can get quite far away if you can tolerate moderate communications lag).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477480</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261081740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we can call these ships...</p><p>Spaceballs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we can call these ships...Spaceballs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we can call these ships...Spaceballs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477560</id>
	<title>Re:Round ships?</title>
	<author>JonStewartMill</author>
	<datestamp>1261082040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tfts56.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">jacket illustrator</a> [wikipedia.org] for at least one of Robert Heinlein's 'juvies'?
<br> <br>
Okay, so it's actually lightbulb-shaped.  Close enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the jacket illustrator [ wikipedia.org ] for at least one of Robert Heinlein 's 'juvies ' ?
Okay , so it 's actually lightbulb-shaped .
Close enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the jacket illustrator [wikipedia.org] for at least one of Robert Heinlein's 'juvies'?
Okay, so it's actually lightbulb-shaped.
Close enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479064</id>
	<title>I disagree with spherical ships</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In combat, you want to minimize the surface area the enemies can fire at, to increase the chances that they'll miss. If your ship is at the back and it's elongated, you can point it in the right direction and you'll have a very low surface area in which the enemies can hit with the same firepower. You could say that with computer assisted aiming everyone has 100\% accuracy, but in reality that's way incorrect - space battles will not be occurring at 200m distance like in Star Trek, you'll start firing at a hundred thousand kilometers, where there's a mandatory 700ms sensor delay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In combat , you want to minimize the surface area the enemies can fire at , to increase the chances that they 'll miss .
If your ship is at the back and it 's elongated , you can point it in the right direction and you 'll have a very low surface area in which the enemies can hit with the same firepower .
You could say that with computer assisted aiming everyone has 100 \ % accuracy , but in reality that 's way incorrect - space battles will not be occurring at 200m distance like in Star Trek , you 'll start firing at a hundred thousand kilometers , where there 's a mandatory 700ms sensor delay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In combat, you want to minimize the surface area the enemies can fire at, to increase the chances that they'll miss.
If your ship is at the back and it's elongated, you can point it in the right direction and you'll have a very low surface area in which the enemies can hit with the same firepower.
You could say that with computer assisted aiming everyone has 100\% accuracy, but in reality that's way incorrect - space battles will not be occurring at 200m distance like in Star Trek, you'll start firing at a hundred thousand kilometers, where there's a mandatory 700ms sensor delay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477732</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1261082700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a point, but I would like to add a bit on that subject...</p><p>All you have to do is knock the Moon off orbit and Earth could be in for a fun ride...  You wouldn't need to directly attack Earth.  Just an object big enough (or a small object traveling fast enough) to change or degrade the orbit of the Moon.  If you planned it well enough (and I'm assuming computers in that time would be able to calculate multiple trajectories...) you could simply upset the balance of the meteor belt and send objects hurling at us without us knowing where it came from.</p><p>In fact, it's making me wonder why we'd want to remain on such a fragile environment (when/if space travel becomes viable) and we start a conflict in space or piss off the natives of a more advanced society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a point , but I would like to add a bit on that subject...All you have to do is knock the Moon off orbit and Earth could be in for a fun ride... You would n't need to directly attack Earth .
Just an object big enough ( or a small object traveling fast enough ) to change or degrade the orbit of the Moon .
If you planned it well enough ( and I 'm assuming computers in that time would be able to calculate multiple trajectories... ) you could simply upset the balance of the meteor belt and send objects hurling at us without us knowing where it came from.In fact , it 's making me wonder why we 'd want to remain on such a fragile environment ( when/if space travel becomes viable ) and we start a conflict in space or piss off the natives of a more advanced society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a point, but I would like to add a bit on that subject...All you have to do is knock the Moon off orbit and Earth could be in for a fun ride...  You wouldn't need to directly attack Earth.
Just an object big enough (or a small object traveling fast enough) to change or degrade the orbit of the Moon.
If you planned it well enough (and I'm assuming computers in that time would be able to calculate multiple trajectories...) you could simply upset the balance of the meteor belt and send objects hurling at us without us knowing where it came from.In fact, it's making me wonder why we'd want to remain on such a fragile environment (when/if space travel becomes viable) and we start a conflict in space or piss off the natives of a more advanced society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477926</id>
	<title>Explosions in Space</title>
	<author>Xphile101361</author>
	<datestamp>1261083360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Explosions are basically a waste of energy in space. On the ground, these are devastating because of the shock wave that goes along with them.</p></div><p>This I would heavily disagree with.  Explosions are usually devastating on the ground because of the amounts of shrapnel that are generated by them.  I don't believe a grenade is deadly because of the shock wave caused by them.  Bits of metal flying in all directions is deadly both on the ground and in space.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explosions are basically a waste of energy in space .
On the ground , these are devastating because of the shock wave that goes along with them.This I would heavily disagree with .
Explosions are usually devastating on the ground because of the amounts of shrapnel that are generated by them .
I do n't believe a grenade is deadly because of the shock wave caused by them .
Bits of metal flying in all directions is deadly both on the ground and in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explosions are basically a waste of energy in space.
On the ground, these are devastating because of the shock wave that goes along with them.This I would heavily disagree with.
Explosions are usually devastating on the ground because of the amounts of shrapnel that are generated by them.
I don't believe a grenade is deadly because of the shock wave caused by them.
Bits of metal flying in all directions is deadly both on the ground and in space.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479436</id>
	<title>Great: We Need More Space Battles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261045560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are starving on Earth, and, as usual, a Ph.D. decides to waste more time AND money, about space wars.</p><p>What a FUCKING idiot !  Slashdot is as idiotic as the<br>Ph.D. fuckwad for posting the story.</p><p>Yours In Ashgabat,<br>Kilgore Trout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are starving on Earth , and , as usual , a Ph.D. decides to waste more time AND money , about space wars.What a FUCKING idiot !
Slashdot is as idiotic as thePh.D .
fuckwad for posting the story.Yours In Ashgabat,Kilgore Trout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are starving on Earth, and, as usual, a Ph.D. decides to waste more time AND money, about space wars.What a FUCKING idiot !
Slashdot is as idiotic as thePh.D.
fuckwad for posting the story.Yours In Ashgabat,Kilgore Trout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478432</id>
	<title>Couple More Issues</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1261042020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:  "It's different than land, sea and air battles in that the enemy can come at you from any direction".   I don't know what kind of aircraft you fly, but mine generally operate in 3 dimensions. </p><p>Second, are we assuming that the aliens have equal technology as us?  If we set up our defense network in an orbit as they suggest, and the aliens have alternative means of propulsion, we are hosed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " It 's different than land , sea and air battles in that the enemy can come at you from any direction " .
I do n't know what kind of aircraft you fly , but mine generally operate in 3 dimensions .
Second , are we assuming that the aliens have equal technology as us ?
If we set up our defense network in an orbit as they suggest , and the aliens have alternative means of propulsion , we are hosed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:  "It's different than land, sea and air battles in that the enemy can come at you from any direction".
I don't know what kind of aircraft you fly, but mine generally operate in 3 dimensions.
Second, are we assuming that the aliens have equal technology as us?
If we set up our defense network in an orbit as they suggest, and the aliens have alternative means of propulsion, we are hosed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481374</id>
	<title>Re:not quite</title>
	<author>tolomea</author>
	<datestamp>1261054860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space</p></div></blockquote><p> That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion.  Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.</p></div><p>
It's not that big, about 40,000 square degrees for a full spherical sweep, a wide angle lens is 100 square degrees, so call it 500 exposures. Assuming the crew have turned off everything except life support then it'll be radiating at some 280 kelvin against a background of nearly 0. Which is good and bright in the thermal band. But to be conservative we'll assume that it needs a full minute per exposure, that's 
</p><p>
Of course the real situation is much simpler than this needle in a hay stack approach. Presumably you know who your enemies are. So you know where they are coming from. There a basically 2 ways of getting from A to B in space. Transfer orbits and continuous thrust maneuvers. Transfer orbits greatly limit the amount of sky to be searched. And something thrusting continuously is going to be a lot lot more visible.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space That is n't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion .
Space is huge , you 're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship .
It 's not that big , about 40,000 square degrees for a full spherical sweep , a wide angle lens is 100 square degrees , so call it 500 exposures .
Assuming the crew have turned off everything except life support then it 'll be radiating at some 280 kelvin against a background of nearly 0 .
Which is good and bright in the thermal band .
But to be conservative we 'll assume that it needs a full minute per exposure , that 's Of course the real situation is much simpler than this needle in a hay stack approach .
Presumably you know who your enemies are .
So you know where they are coming from .
There a basically 2 ways of getting from A to B in space .
Transfer orbits and continuous thrust maneuvers .
Transfer orbits greatly limit the amount of sky to be searched .
And something thrusting continuously is going to be a lot lot more visible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion.
Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.
It's not that big, about 40,000 square degrees for a full spherical sweep, a wide angle lens is 100 square degrees, so call it 500 exposures.
Assuming the crew have turned off everything except life support then it'll be radiating at some 280 kelvin against a background of nearly 0.
Which is good and bright in the thermal band.
But to be conservative we'll assume that it needs a full minute per exposure, that's 

Of course the real situation is much simpler than this needle in a hay stack approach.
Presumably you know who your enemies are.
So you know where they are coming from.
There a basically 2 ways of getting from A to B in space.
Transfer orbits and continuous thrust maneuvers.
Transfer orbits greatly limit the amount of sky to be searched.
And something thrusting continuously is going to be a lot lot more visible.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30485664</id>
	<title>Has been modeled already.....</title>
	<author>SomeoneGotMyNick</author>
	<datestamp>1261143000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shoer, from the article, mentions colonizing Mars and then the colonists revolt.</p><p>That scenario has already been depicted in the game <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminus\_(computer\_game)" title="wikipedia.org">Terminus</a> [wikipedia.org], including some realistic newtonian flight physics:</p><ul><li>You're not always at the same roll angle as another ship</li><li>Inertia rules!!! You continue moving in your current direction until you spin around and apply opposing thrust</li><li>You need to make constant corrections to complete a precision approach to a distant object.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shoer , from the article , mentions colonizing Mars and then the colonists revolt.That scenario has already been depicted in the game Terminus [ wikipedia.org ] , including some realistic newtonian flight physics : You 're not always at the same roll angle as another shipInertia rules ! ! !
You continue moving in your current direction until you spin around and apply opposing thrustYou need to make constant corrections to complete a precision approach to a distant object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shoer, from the article, mentions colonizing Mars and then the colonists revolt.That scenario has already been depicted in the game Terminus [wikipedia.org], including some realistic newtonian flight physics:You're not always at the same roll angle as another shipInertia rules!!!
You continue moving in your current direction until you spin around and apply opposing thrustYou need to make constant corrections to complete a precision approach to a distant object.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478520</id>
	<title>Re:Nukes in Space. . .</title>
	<author>virg\_mattes</author>
	<datestamp>1261042380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a question about the Nukes in space thing. I know that, without an atmosphere, you don't get the massive shockwave which causes much of the damage that you see in atmospheric detonations. . . but, wouldn't the Nuke still generate several million degrees of thermal energy? Wouldn't it tend to vaporize anything nearby, and melt things that are a little farther away, but still within like a mile or two? Wouldn't it also release a massive amount of Neutron radiation? (I'm not sure - could you effectively shield against that much neutron radiation? I know that space craft have to have a certain level of shielding just to remain safe from 'normal' Solar radiation, but could you effectively shield against the radiation released from an H-Bomb?)</p></div><p>
You're right about how an H-bomb would generate a massive amount of radiation.  The problem is that getting a bomb within a mile or two of a ship isn't easy.  The most important part is that the bomb can't cover that kind of distance really quickly, in terms of detection.  Sure, you can shoot it at your opponent at high rate, but remember that in space you'll probably be considered "engaged with the enemy" from hundreds of miles out.  They'll see the nuke coming, and can easily take measures to shoot it as it approaches.  All they'd have to do is damage it and it won't detonate.  If you could get it close it would certainly damage or destroy a ship, but in space it's the "get it close" part that turns into the challenge.<br>
<br>
Virg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a question about the Nukes in space thing .
I know that , without an atmosphere , you do n't get the massive shockwave which causes much of the damage that you see in atmospheric detonations .
. .
but , would n't the Nuke still generate several million degrees of thermal energy ?
Would n't it tend to vaporize anything nearby , and melt things that are a little farther away , but still within like a mile or two ?
Would n't it also release a massive amount of Neutron radiation ?
( I 'm not sure - could you effectively shield against that much neutron radiation ?
I know that space craft have to have a certain level of shielding just to remain safe from 'normal ' Solar radiation , but could you effectively shield against the radiation released from an H-Bomb ?
) You 're right about how an H-bomb would generate a massive amount of radiation .
The problem is that getting a bomb within a mile or two of a ship is n't easy .
The most important part is that the bomb ca n't cover that kind of distance really quickly , in terms of detection .
Sure , you can shoot it at your opponent at high rate , but remember that in space you 'll probably be considered " engaged with the enemy " from hundreds of miles out .
They 'll see the nuke coming , and can easily take measures to shoot it as it approaches .
All they 'd have to do is damage it and it wo n't detonate .
If you could get it close it would certainly damage or destroy a ship , but in space it 's the " get it close " part that turns into the challenge .
Virg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a question about the Nukes in space thing.
I know that, without an atmosphere, you don't get the massive shockwave which causes much of the damage that you see in atmospheric detonations.
. .
but, wouldn't the Nuke still generate several million degrees of thermal energy?
Wouldn't it tend to vaporize anything nearby, and melt things that are a little farther away, but still within like a mile or two?
Wouldn't it also release a massive amount of Neutron radiation?
(I'm not sure - could you effectively shield against that much neutron radiation?
I know that space craft have to have a certain level of shielding just to remain safe from 'normal' Solar radiation, but could you effectively shield against the radiation released from an H-Bomb?
)
You're right about how an H-bomb would generate a massive amount of radiation.
The problem is that getting a bomb within a mile or two of a ship isn't easy.
The most important part is that the bomb can't cover that kind of distance really quickly, in terms of detection.
Sure, you can shoot it at your opponent at high rate, but remember that in space you'll probably be considered "engaged with the enemy" from hundreds of miles out.
They'll see the nuke coming, and can easily take measures to shoot it as it approaches.
All they'd have to do is damage it and it won't detonate.
If you could get it close it would certainly damage or destroy a ship, but in space it's the "get it close" part that turns into the challenge.
Virg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481080</id>
	<title>Re:Like evolution of the navy, but much further?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>black in visible light? what about 99\% of the EM spectrum that our eyes cannot see but CCDs can detect? and you will be blocking light from stars behind you. plenty of ways to detect black things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>black in visible light ?
what about 99 \ % of the EM spectrum that our eyes can not see but CCDs can detect ?
and you will be blocking light from stars behind you .
plenty of ways to detect black things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>black in visible light?
what about 99\% of the EM spectrum that our eyes cannot see but CCDs can detect?
and you will be blocking light from stars behind you.
plenty of ways to detect black things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1261045140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible, your best bet would be a needle-shape.  Very long, and as thin as possible.  However, that runs into other problems, such as maneuverability.</p></div><p>Let's examine that claim a little closer:<br>
Sum of Profile Surface Areas from the each end of each (x/y/z) axis:
<br>10x10x100 Ship (pick your own units) = (1000x4 + 100x2) = 4200
<br>Spherical Ship with Radius of 14 = ((pi x 14^2) x 6) = 3,694
<br> <br>Volume of Ship (kind of a top priority, even if the quantity changes according to the purpose/application of the ship):
<br>Rectangular 10x10x100 Ship = 10,000
<br>Spherical Ship with Radius of 14 (same units) = (4/3 x pi x 14^3) = 11,494
<br> <br>
This is leaving alone the fact that the profile for the rectangular ship inreases from the above values when looked at from from any angle besides perpendicular to the plane of each side. Any way you cut it a sphere is the most efficient in terms of the ratio between volume and profile area. In fact, a cube is actually the most efficient of all possible rectangular prisms (hence the genius of Roddenberry with the Borg). Remember a ship (space or sea) is just a container to protect the contents from exposure to the medium, and the most efficient container (leaving aside the shapes of the contained objects) will always be a sphere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible , your best bet would be a needle-shape .
Very long , and as thin as possible .
However , that runs into other problems , such as maneuverability.Let 's examine that claim a little closer : Sum of Profile Surface Areas from the each end of each ( x/y/z ) axis : 10x10x100 Ship ( pick your own units ) = ( 1000x4 + 100x2 ) = 4200 Spherical Ship with Radius of 14 = ( ( pi x 14 ^ 2 ) x 6 ) = 3,694 Volume of Ship ( kind of a top priority , even if the quantity changes according to the purpose/application of the ship ) : Rectangular 10x10x100 Ship = 10,000 Spherical Ship with Radius of 14 ( same units ) = ( 4/3 x pi x 14 ^ 3 ) = 11,494 This is leaving alone the fact that the profile for the rectangular ship inreases from the above values when looked at from from any angle besides perpendicular to the plane of each side .
Any way you cut it a sphere is the most efficient in terms of the ratio between volume and profile area .
In fact , a cube is actually the most efficient of all possible rectangular prisms ( hence the genius of Roddenberry with the Borg ) .
Remember a ship ( space or sea ) is just a container to protect the contents from exposure to the medium , and the most efficient container ( leaving aside the shapes of the contained objects ) will always be a sphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking at it purely from the perspective of presenting the smallest profile possible, your best bet would be a needle-shape.
Very long, and as thin as possible.
However, that runs into other problems, such as maneuverability.Let's examine that claim a little closer:
Sum of Profile Surface Areas from the each end of each (x/y/z) axis:
10x10x100 Ship (pick your own units) = (1000x4 + 100x2) = 4200
Spherical Ship with Radius of 14 = ((pi x 14^2) x 6) = 3,694
 Volume of Ship (kind of a top priority, even if the quantity changes according to the purpose/application of the ship):
Rectangular 10x10x100 Ship = 10,000
Spherical Ship with Radius of 14 (same units) = (4/3 x pi x 14^3) = 11,494
 
This is leaving alone the fact that the profile for the rectangular ship inreases from the above values when looked at from from any angle besides perpendicular to the plane of each side.
Any way you cut it a sphere is the most efficient in terms of the ratio between volume and profile area.
In fact, a cube is actually the most efficient of all possible rectangular prisms (hence the genius of Roddenberry with the Borg).
Remember a ship (space or sea) is just a container to protect the contents from exposure to the medium, and the most efficient container (leaving aside the shapes of the contained objects) will always be a sphere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479226</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1261044840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point that nukes wouldn't generally be useful is a good one. And the point that kinetic weapons would be ideal also makes sense. However, I'm not completely convinced by the emphasis on orbital mechanics. In order for that make sense, one needs space travel to be cheap enough and convenient enough that one can easily have lots of ships in space. If that's the case, one needs efficient enough propulsion systems that will make orbital mechanics not matter as much. They'll still matter probably (and certainly matter more than they do in standard scifi) but I'm not at all convinced they'll matter as much as he makes it out.</p></div><p>That's all a question of the posited tech for the battle. There's the old question of whether it's better to build bigger ships with bigger weapons or smaller ships with smaller weapons. Bigger ships are assumed to be better-protected. But what's the damage model like for taking a critical hit? In the age of sail, combat effectiveness was whittled away with the cannon fire. The bigger ship always lasted longer in a fight. In the age of battleships, sudden critical hits could happen but armor still ruled the day -- light ships with heavy punches would be destroyed before they could do much good. Torpedo boats threatened that balance with a small plywood boat potentially having the power to sink a ship of the line. This upset continued in the age of the guided missile, a disposable patrol boat has a punch equal to a guided missile cruiser. In Cold War calculations, you're looking at the total number of weapons spread across your fleet so the more hulls the better, especially seeing as any given hit could well destroy a ship.</p><p>If the new railgun for navy ships pan out, we'll now be able to fire weapons with the hitting power of a cruise missile up to 200 miles away with very minimal chance of intercept. If it takes a big ship to mount a weapon like that, the battleship has just come back into vogue. That kind of hitting power also hornes in on aircraft carrier territory. Anti-ship missiles like the sunburn threaten to be powerful enough to crack the backs of carriers. Could it be possible to armor a battleship sufficient to counter one, or develop active defenses that could credibly take them down? And how many sunburns would it take to saturate those hypothetical defenses? If it costs you $100 million in missiles to take down a $10 billion carrier (factoring in cost of air wing on top of hull, plus inflation), is it a fair trade? I'd think so.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, he doesn't address the issue that long-range kinetic impactors can make most space combat irrelevant if they are going fast enough. There's not much Earth could do if there were large mass drivers on say Demos and Phobos sending fairly small projectiles at targets on the Moon or Earth or targeting large space installations. Again in this situation orbital mechanics would matter. But when the planets are in the correct positions, such setups would render local space combat irrelevant.</p></div><p>In any space combat scenario I can imagine, planets are fucked. Like you said above, the planets can't maneuver. I don't know if you could count on accurately targeting space stations -- I'd think a weapon traveling slow enough to maneuver effectively like that would be slow enough to intercept. But if you have antimatter available you just put enough fuel onboard to push that sucker up to a significant fraction of the speed of light. Assuming you can bring it up to speed far enough away the engine plume is not detected, there's no way to counter such a thing, not unless you have yottawatt lasers that can vaporize the damn thing so completely even relativistic dust particles aren't hitting the planet. As has been said about asteroid impact scenarios, you can't just break the thing apart and let it burn up in the atmosphere. Even if we hit a magic button and the 5km-wide rock turned into free-flying dust, that dust still weighs the same as the full asteroid, still has the same kinetic energy, and will still impart every bit as much energy into the atmosphere. So rather than making a crater and shooting ejecta into the stratosphere we're seeing the sky turn a blinding white and half the planet is flash-seared to 10k degrees and then 500mph winds strip the surface down to bedrock. Is it worse than taking the hit of the full asteroid? I dunno. It would take some phenomenal, magical technology to counter a weapon like that.</p><p>In a "civilized warfare" setting, planets might be considered off-limits. It's ungentlemanly to bombard while it might still be considered sporting to blockade. If the goal is to take the planet, the attacker would want to refrain from destroying the biosphere. In unrestricted warfare, if the goal is to wreck the enemy's home, not take it for your own, the planet's toast.</p><p>My thinking is in a dangerous setting like that, most significant powers would graduate to living in worldships. Build something like Clarke's Rama, maybe thousands of them, scatter them throughout interstellar space. You could have lovely bioshperes inside and not feel like you're living in a tin can. The idea is that they would be harder to find and destroy than planets and can also be kept on the move. Depending on the technology posited in the story, they might be easier to deal with than terraforming worlds. Building a Babylon 5 in Earth orbit would be one of the greatest engineering challenges ever faced by man but it would be utterly trivial in comparison to the task of terraforming Venus or Mars. Man will be living happily in O'Neil colonies like that long before we're prancing about on earth-norm terraformed planets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point that nukes would n't generally be useful is a good one .
And the point that kinetic weapons would be ideal also makes sense .
However , I 'm not completely convinced by the emphasis on orbital mechanics .
In order for that make sense , one needs space travel to be cheap enough and convenient enough that one can easily have lots of ships in space .
If that 's the case , one needs efficient enough propulsion systems that will make orbital mechanics not matter as much .
They 'll still matter probably ( and certainly matter more than they do in standard scifi ) but I 'm not at all convinced they 'll matter as much as he makes it out.That 's all a question of the posited tech for the battle .
There 's the old question of whether it 's better to build bigger ships with bigger weapons or smaller ships with smaller weapons .
Bigger ships are assumed to be better-protected .
But what 's the damage model like for taking a critical hit ?
In the age of sail , combat effectiveness was whittled away with the cannon fire .
The bigger ship always lasted longer in a fight .
In the age of battleships , sudden critical hits could happen but armor still ruled the day -- light ships with heavy punches would be destroyed before they could do much good .
Torpedo boats threatened that balance with a small plywood boat potentially having the power to sink a ship of the line .
This upset continued in the age of the guided missile , a disposable patrol boat has a punch equal to a guided missile cruiser .
In Cold War calculations , you 're looking at the total number of weapons spread across your fleet so the more hulls the better , especially seeing as any given hit could well destroy a ship.If the new railgun for navy ships pan out , we 'll now be able to fire weapons with the hitting power of a cruise missile up to 200 miles away with very minimal chance of intercept .
If it takes a big ship to mount a weapon like that , the battleship has just come back into vogue .
That kind of hitting power also hornes in on aircraft carrier territory .
Anti-ship missiles like the sunburn threaten to be powerful enough to crack the backs of carriers .
Could it be possible to armor a battleship sufficient to counter one , or develop active defenses that could credibly take them down ?
And how many sunburns would it take to saturate those hypothetical defenses ?
If it costs you $ 100 million in missiles to take down a $ 10 billion carrier ( factoring in cost of air wing on top of hull , plus inflation ) , is it a fair trade ?
I 'd think so.Also , he does n't address the issue that long-range kinetic impactors can make most space combat irrelevant if they are going fast enough .
There 's not much Earth could do if there were large mass drivers on say Demos and Phobos sending fairly small projectiles at targets on the Moon or Earth or targeting large space installations .
Again in this situation orbital mechanics would matter .
But when the planets are in the correct positions , such setups would render local space combat irrelevant.In any space combat scenario I can imagine , planets are fucked .
Like you said above , the planets ca n't maneuver .
I do n't know if you could count on accurately targeting space stations -- I 'd think a weapon traveling slow enough to maneuver effectively like that would be slow enough to intercept .
But if you have antimatter available you just put enough fuel onboard to push that sucker up to a significant fraction of the speed of light .
Assuming you can bring it up to speed far enough away the engine plume is not detected , there 's no way to counter such a thing , not unless you have yottawatt lasers that can vaporize the damn thing so completely even relativistic dust particles are n't hitting the planet .
As has been said about asteroid impact scenarios , you ca n't just break the thing apart and let it burn up in the atmosphere .
Even if we hit a magic button and the 5km-wide rock turned into free-flying dust , that dust still weighs the same as the full asteroid , still has the same kinetic energy , and will still impart every bit as much energy into the atmosphere .
So rather than making a crater and shooting ejecta into the stratosphere we 're seeing the sky turn a blinding white and half the planet is flash-seared to 10k degrees and then 500mph winds strip the surface down to bedrock .
Is it worse than taking the hit of the full asteroid ?
I dunno .
It would take some phenomenal , magical technology to counter a weapon like that.In a " civilized warfare " setting , planets might be considered off-limits .
It 's ungentlemanly to bombard while it might still be considered sporting to blockade .
If the goal is to take the planet , the attacker would want to refrain from destroying the biosphere .
In unrestricted warfare , if the goal is to wreck the enemy 's home , not take it for your own , the planet 's toast.My thinking is in a dangerous setting like that , most significant powers would graduate to living in worldships .
Build something like Clarke 's Rama , maybe thousands of them , scatter them throughout interstellar space .
You could have lovely bioshperes inside and not feel like you 're living in a tin can .
The idea is that they would be harder to find and destroy than planets and can also be kept on the move .
Depending on the technology posited in the story , they might be easier to deal with than terraforming worlds .
Building a Babylon 5 in Earth orbit would be one of the greatest engineering challenges ever faced by man but it would be utterly trivial in comparison to the task of terraforming Venus or Mars .
Man will be living happily in O'Neil colonies like that long before we 're prancing about on earth-norm terraformed planets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point that nukes wouldn't generally be useful is a good one.
And the point that kinetic weapons would be ideal also makes sense.
However, I'm not completely convinced by the emphasis on orbital mechanics.
In order for that make sense, one needs space travel to be cheap enough and convenient enough that one can easily have lots of ships in space.
If that's the case, one needs efficient enough propulsion systems that will make orbital mechanics not matter as much.
They'll still matter probably (and certainly matter more than they do in standard scifi) but I'm not at all convinced they'll matter as much as he makes it out.That's all a question of the posited tech for the battle.
There's the old question of whether it's better to build bigger ships with bigger weapons or smaller ships with smaller weapons.
Bigger ships are assumed to be better-protected.
But what's the damage model like for taking a critical hit?
In the age of sail, combat effectiveness was whittled away with the cannon fire.
The bigger ship always lasted longer in a fight.
In the age of battleships, sudden critical hits could happen but armor still ruled the day -- light ships with heavy punches would be destroyed before they could do much good.
Torpedo boats threatened that balance with a small plywood boat potentially having the power to sink a ship of the line.
This upset continued in the age of the guided missile, a disposable patrol boat has a punch equal to a guided missile cruiser.
In Cold War calculations, you're looking at the total number of weapons spread across your fleet so the more hulls the better, especially seeing as any given hit could well destroy a ship.If the new railgun for navy ships pan out, we'll now be able to fire weapons with the hitting power of a cruise missile up to 200 miles away with very minimal chance of intercept.
If it takes a big ship to mount a weapon like that, the battleship has just come back into vogue.
That kind of hitting power also hornes in on aircraft carrier territory.
Anti-ship missiles like the sunburn threaten to be powerful enough to crack the backs of carriers.
Could it be possible to armor a battleship sufficient to counter one, or develop active defenses that could credibly take them down?
And how many sunburns would it take to saturate those hypothetical defenses?
If it costs you $100 million in missiles to take down a $10 billion carrier (factoring in cost of air wing on top of hull, plus inflation), is it a fair trade?
I'd think so.Also, he doesn't address the issue that long-range kinetic impactors can make most space combat irrelevant if they are going fast enough.
There's not much Earth could do if there were large mass drivers on say Demos and Phobos sending fairly small projectiles at targets on the Moon or Earth or targeting large space installations.
Again in this situation orbital mechanics would matter.
But when the planets are in the correct positions, such setups would render local space combat irrelevant.In any space combat scenario I can imagine, planets are fucked.
Like you said above, the planets can't maneuver.
I don't know if you could count on accurately targeting space stations -- I'd think a weapon traveling slow enough to maneuver effectively like that would be slow enough to intercept.
But if you have antimatter available you just put enough fuel onboard to push that sucker up to a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Assuming you can bring it up to speed far enough away the engine plume is not detected, there's no way to counter such a thing, not unless you have yottawatt lasers that can vaporize the damn thing so completely even relativistic dust particles aren't hitting the planet.
As has been said about asteroid impact scenarios, you can't just break the thing apart and let it burn up in the atmosphere.
Even if we hit a magic button and the 5km-wide rock turned into free-flying dust, that dust still weighs the same as the full asteroid, still has the same kinetic energy, and will still impart every bit as much energy into the atmosphere.
So rather than making a crater and shooting ejecta into the stratosphere we're seeing the sky turn a blinding white and half the planet is flash-seared to 10k degrees and then 500mph winds strip the surface down to bedrock.
Is it worse than taking the hit of the full asteroid?
I dunno.
It would take some phenomenal, magical technology to counter a weapon like that.In a "civilized warfare" setting, planets might be considered off-limits.
It's ungentlemanly to bombard while it might still be considered sporting to blockade.
If the goal is to take the planet, the attacker would want to refrain from destroying the biosphere.
In unrestricted warfare, if the goal is to wreck the enemy's home, not take it for your own, the planet's toast.My thinking is in a dangerous setting like that, most significant powers would graduate to living in worldships.
Build something like Clarke's Rama, maybe thousands of them, scatter them throughout interstellar space.
You could have lovely bioshperes inside and not feel like you're living in a tin can.
The idea is that they would be harder to find and destroy than planets and can also be kept on the move.
Depending on the technology posited in the story, they might be easier to deal with than terraforming worlds.
Building a Babylon 5 in Earth orbit would be one of the greatest engineering challenges ever faced by man but it would be utterly trivial in comparison to the task of terraforming Venus or Mars.
Man will be living happily in O'Neil colonies like that long before we're prancing about on earth-norm terraformed planets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478212</id>
	<title>Another good article on this topic</title>
	<author>Chicken\_Kickers</author>
	<datestamp>1261041120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the Strange Horizons website, oldie but still a goodie: <a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050606/hunter-1-a.shtml" title="strangehorizons.com">http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050606/hunter-1-a.shtml</a> [strangehorizons.com]. It comes in 2 parts and there is a link to it at the end of the article. Also, while you're there, this is my favourite (off-topic) article: <a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040405/badger.shtml" title="strangehorizons.com">http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040405/badger.shtml</a> [strangehorizons.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Strange Horizons website , oldie but still a goodie : http : //www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050606/hunter-1-a.shtml [ strangehorizons.com ] .
It comes in 2 parts and there is a link to it at the end of the article .
Also , while you 're there , this is my favourite ( off-topic ) article : http : //www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040405/badger.shtml [ strangehorizons.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Strange Horizons website, oldie but still a goodie: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050606/hunter-1-a.shtml [strangehorizons.com].
It comes in 2 parts and there is a link to it at the end of the article.
Also, while you're there, this is my favourite (off-topic) article: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040405/badger.shtml [strangehorizons.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477806</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261082880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree that nukes wouldn't be useful. Put enough tiny metal balls on it, send it into the middle of a fleet of ships and detonate. It will tear everything to shreds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree that nukes would n't be useful .
Put enough tiny metal balls on it , send it into the middle of a fleet of ships and detonate .
It will tear everything to shreds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree that nukes wouldn't be useful.
Put enough tiny metal balls on it, send it into the middle of a fleet of ships and detonate.
It will tear everything to shreds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478292</id>
	<title>Re:Explosions in Space</title>
	<author>TiberiusMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261041420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While you're right that the shrapnel is deadly, the shockwave from a grenade is enough to cause a lot of harm, the closer you are the worse off you'll be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're right that the shrapnel is deadly , the shockwave from a grenade is enough to cause a lot of harm , the closer you are the worse off you 'll be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're right that the shrapnel is deadly, the shockwave from a grenade is enough to cause a lot of harm, the closer you are the worse off you'll be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479112</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261044480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on. Everyone knows that in ultimate 3D battle-space you need at least 3 fleets to effectively flank an enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on .
Everyone knows that in ultimate 3D battle-space you need at least 3 fleets to effectively flank an enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on.
Everyone knows that in ultimate 3D battle-space you need at least 3 fleets to effectively flank an enemy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479236</id>
	<title>Re:not quite</title>
	<author>quacking duck</author>
	<datestamp>1261044900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>So, I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical, with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward.</p></div></blockquote><p> Only if you don't plan on re-entry as a sphere is non-optimal for utilising the effect that shaceship one was supposed to use; that is using a flat surface to force a ubble of air to pool in front of the craft and buffer against the heat.</p></div><p>Isn't an ablative/heat-dissipating re-entry surface only needed because of limited fuel for propulsion?</p><p>If we assume that the propulsion problem is licked (as you did earlier), wouldn't you be able to use the engines to continually slow down as you descend lower into thicker atmosphere, thus avoiding the intense heat of friction braking?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical , with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward .
Only if you do n't plan on re-entry as a sphere is non-optimal for utilising the effect that shaceship one was supposed to use ; that is using a flat surface to force a ubble of air to pool in front of the craft and buffer against the heat.Is n't an ablative/heat-dissipating re-entry surface only needed because of limited fuel for propulsion ? If we assume that the propulsion problem is licked ( as you did earlier ) , would n't you be able to use the engines to continually slow down as you descend lower into thicker atmosphere , thus avoiding the intense heat of friction braking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical, with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward.
Only if you don't plan on re-entry as a sphere is non-optimal for utilising the effect that shaceship one was supposed to use; that is using a flat surface to force a ubble of air to pool in front of the craft and buffer against the heat.Isn't an ablative/heat-dissipating re-entry surface only needed because of limited fuel for propulsion?If we assume that the propulsion problem is licked (as you did earlier), wouldn't you be able to use the engines to continually slow down as you descend lower into thicker atmosphere, thus avoiding the intense heat of friction braking?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480704</id>
	<title>Re:Nukes in Space. . .</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1261050720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5cm would be thin for a capital ship in space IMO. As wide as a pack of cigarettes(5.5cm)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5cm would be thin for a capital ship in space IMO .
As wide as a pack of cigarettes ( 5.5cm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5cm would be thin for a capital ship in space IMO.
As wide as a pack of cigarettes(5.5cm)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477816</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>JockTroll</author>
	<datestamp>1261082940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ain't no one. But if you're not a loserboy nerd, I mean if you're a real jock, an athletic mentally and physically superior specimen, a true quarterback of the Cosmos, you could try the freeware space simulator Orbiter which is based on real, meaty, harsh physics. The stuff nerds cannot understand with their laughable trekkie obsessions.<br>Of course, space combat is not really a feature there but a work in progress. But as a real jock who can command programming, you should be able to write your own space-fighter add-on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ai n't no one .
But if you 're not a loserboy nerd , I mean if you 're a real jock , an athletic mentally and physically superior specimen , a true quarterback of the Cosmos , you could try the freeware space simulator Orbiter which is based on real , meaty , harsh physics .
The stuff nerds can not understand with their laughable trekkie obsessions.Of course , space combat is not really a feature there but a work in progress .
But as a real jock who can command programming , you should be able to write your own space-fighter add-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ain't no one.
But if you're not a loserboy nerd, I mean if you're a real jock, an athletic mentally and physically superior specimen, a true quarterback of the Cosmos, you could try the freeware space simulator Orbiter which is based on real, meaty, harsh physics.
The stuff nerds cannot understand with their laughable trekkie obsessions.Of course, space combat is not really a feature there but a work in progress.
But as a real jock who can command programming, you should be able to write your own space-fighter add-on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478414</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I disagree that nukes wouldn't be useful. Put enough tiny metal balls on it, send it into the middle of a fleet of ships and detonate. It will tear everything to shreds.</p></div><p>
No, it wouldn't.  Without an atomosphere there's no shockwave to propagate outward, and with no shockwave there's nothing to push the balls.  A nuclear detonation isn't like using an explosive that creates an expanding ball of gas.  In space it would just be a huge ball of heat and hard radiation, which would melt the balls without motivating them outward at any real rate of speed.<br>
<br>
Virg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree that nukes would n't be useful .
Put enough tiny metal balls on it , send it into the middle of a fleet of ships and detonate .
It will tear everything to shreds .
No , it would n't .
Without an atomosphere there 's no shockwave to propagate outward , and with no shockwave there 's nothing to push the balls .
A nuclear detonation is n't like using an explosive that creates an expanding ball of gas .
In space it would just be a huge ball of heat and hard radiation , which would melt the balls without motivating them outward at any real rate of speed .
Virg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree that nukes wouldn't be useful.
Put enough tiny metal balls on it, send it into the middle of a fleet of ships and detonate.
It will tear everything to shreds.
No, it wouldn't.
Without an atomosphere there's no shockwave to propagate outward, and with no shockwave there's nothing to push the balls.
A nuclear detonation isn't like using an explosive that creates an expanding ball of gas.
In space it would just be a huge ball of heat and hard radiation, which would melt the balls without motivating them outward at any real rate of speed.
Virg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478400</id>
	<title>Re:Nukes in Space. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's little radiant thermal energy directly from a nuke, and even in the atmosphere where there's a lot more, a sheet of bright white posterboard would be 100\% eccective as a defense.  Drop and cover.</p><p>The energy directly from a nuke is mostly expresses as gamma and x-rays.  These are planty damaging, but fall off with the square of distance.  You'd need to get a pretty large nuke in pretty close to your target to produce more radiation than bad weather.  Space this close to the Sun is <i>harsh</i>, radiation-wise.</p><p>So the solution is to use the energy of a nuke, but overcome the range^2 thing: nuke-pumped X-ray lasers.  This is not a new idea - it's why Reagan's missile defense program was called "Star Wars".  For all I know, we have this weapon in orbit already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's little radiant thermal energy directly from a nuke , and even in the atmosphere where there 's a lot more , a sheet of bright white posterboard would be 100 \ % eccective as a defense .
Drop and cover.The energy directly from a nuke is mostly expresses as gamma and x-rays .
These are planty damaging , but fall off with the square of distance .
You 'd need to get a pretty large nuke in pretty close to your target to produce more radiation than bad weather .
Space this close to the Sun is harsh , radiation-wise.So the solution is to use the energy of a nuke , but overcome the range ^ 2 thing : nuke-pumped X-ray lasers .
This is not a new idea - it 's why Reagan 's missile defense program was called " Star Wars " .
For all I know , we have this weapon in orbit already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's little radiant thermal energy directly from a nuke, and even in the atmosphere where there's a lot more, a sheet of bright white posterboard would be 100\% eccective as a defense.
Drop and cover.The energy directly from a nuke is mostly expresses as gamma and x-rays.
These are planty damaging, but fall off with the square of distance.
You'd need to get a pretty large nuke in pretty close to your target to produce more radiation than bad weather.
Space this close to the Sun is harsh, radiation-wise.So the solution is to use the energy of a nuke, but overcome the range^2 thing: nuke-pumped X-ray lasers.
This is not a new idea - it's why Reagan's missile defense program was called "Star Wars".
For all I know, we have this weapon in orbit already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478188</id>
	<title>Re:Babylon5</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1261040940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have always respected JMS for how 'realistic' he chose to portray space physics with the movement of his StarFury ships and the beam weapons.</p></div><p>Too bad he ruined it by having psychics and alien space-gods, and messiahs coming back from the dead.  Love the stories anyway, but as far as realism goes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... not so much.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> (As a side note, I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive.</p></div><p>I always assumed that the stationary portions of the station had thrusters.  You use the stationary structure to induce a rotation in the rest of the station, and then use the thrusters to counter the natural reaction.  Once everything's rotating at it's proper speed you'd only need the thrusters once in a while in order to counter whatever friction is present in the system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always respected JMS for how 'realistic ' he chose to portray space physics with the movement of his StarFury ships and the beam weapons.Too bad he ruined it by having psychics and alien space-gods , and messiahs coming back from the dead .
Love the stories anyway , but as far as realism goes .... not so much .
( As a side note , I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive.I always assumed that the stationary portions of the station had thrusters .
You use the stationary structure to induce a rotation in the rest of the station , and then use the thrusters to counter the natural reaction .
Once everything 's rotating at it 's proper speed you 'd only need the thrusters once in a while in order to counter whatever friction is present in the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always respected JMS for how 'realistic' he chose to portray space physics with the movement of his StarFury ships and the beam weapons.Too bad he ruined it by having psychics and alien space-gods, and messiahs coming back from the dead.
Love the stories anyway, but as far as realism goes .... not so much.
(As a side note, I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive.I always assumed that the stationary portions of the station had thrusters.
You use the stationary structure to induce a rotation in the rest of the station, and then use the thrusters to counter the natural reaction.
Once everything's rotating at it's proper speed you'd only need the thrusters once in a while in order to counter whatever friction is present in the system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478424</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1261041960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mass drivers, as used to destroy planets in fiction such Babylon 5 is ideal.  Proper use of the technology will insure victory, just like the atom bomb ended world war two.
<p>
If we are talking about some sort interplanetary war, the winner will be decided by the planet that has the technology of efficiently shifting the orbit of the solar detritus so that there is high probability of impacting the desired planet.  It would be reasonable that planetary defenses could destroy several of these rocks before they impacted the planet, but could they destroy them all. If the attacking planet could set up an impact a month, even a few near missing would insure victory.  While one planet sends their fancy rockets to destroy individual cities, thousands of rocks could be targeted to a planet, insuring destruction.  Perhaps it takes a year for the rocks to arrive, and perhaps 90\% of them are diverted or destroyed, but the 10\% could destroy a planet.
</p><p>
On another note, any kinetic weapon fired from anything smaller than a large moon is, in my opinion, a losing proposition.  The amount of fuel that would have  be burned to counteract the force would be prohibitive.  On earth we have friction and gravity which makes these weapons works.  Independent missiles that fire after they leave the host, such as in current war plane designs, car work for close combat.  Otherwise I see novel countermeasures that makes use of the fact that space is mostly empty.  I have often though some exotic particle beam might work.  An unstable particle that could penetrate shielding and wreak havoc with the electronics would be nice.  The particles might have a life time of microseconds, but accelerated to relativistic velocities they might survive long enough to travel the distance between two ships, say several thousand miles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mass drivers , as used to destroy planets in fiction such Babylon 5 is ideal .
Proper use of the technology will insure victory , just like the atom bomb ended world war two .
If we are talking about some sort interplanetary war , the winner will be decided by the planet that has the technology of efficiently shifting the orbit of the solar detritus so that there is high probability of impacting the desired planet .
It would be reasonable that planetary defenses could destroy several of these rocks before they impacted the planet , but could they destroy them all .
If the attacking planet could set up an impact a month , even a few near missing would insure victory .
While one planet sends their fancy rockets to destroy individual cities , thousands of rocks could be targeted to a planet , insuring destruction .
Perhaps it takes a year for the rocks to arrive , and perhaps 90 \ % of them are diverted or destroyed , but the 10 \ % could destroy a planet .
On another note , any kinetic weapon fired from anything smaller than a large moon is , in my opinion , a losing proposition .
The amount of fuel that would have be burned to counteract the force would be prohibitive .
On earth we have friction and gravity which makes these weapons works .
Independent missiles that fire after they leave the host , such as in current war plane designs , car work for close combat .
Otherwise I see novel countermeasures that makes use of the fact that space is mostly empty .
I have often though some exotic particle beam might work .
An unstable particle that could penetrate shielding and wreak havoc with the electronics would be nice .
The particles might have a life time of microseconds , but accelerated to relativistic velocities they might survive long enough to travel the distance between two ships , say several thousand miles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mass drivers, as used to destroy planets in fiction such Babylon 5 is ideal.
Proper use of the technology will insure victory, just like the atom bomb ended world war two.
If we are talking about some sort interplanetary war, the winner will be decided by the planet that has the technology of efficiently shifting the orbit of the solar detritus so that there is high probability of impacting the desired planet.
It would be reasonable that planetary defenses could destroy several of these rocks before they impacted the planet, but could they destroy them all.
If the attacking planet could set up an impact a month, even a few near missing would insure victory.
While one planet sends their fancy rockets to destroy individual cities, thousands of rocks could be targeted to a planet, insuring destruction.
Perhaps it takes a year for the rocks to arrive, and perhaps 90\% of them are diverted or destroyed, but the 10\% could destroy a planet.
On another note, any kinetic weapon fired from anything smaller than a large moon is, in my opinion, a losing proposition.
The amount of fuel that would have  be burned to counteract the force would be prohibitive.
On earth we have friction and gravity which makes these weapons works.
Independent missiles that fire after they leave the host, such as in current war plane designs, car work for close combat.
Otherwise I see novel countermeasures that makes use of the fact that space is mostly empty.
I have often though some exotic particle beam might work.
An unstable particle that could penetrate shielding and wreak havoc with the electronics would be nice.
The particles might have a life time of microseconds, but accelerated to relativistic velocities they might survive long enough to travel the distance between two ships, say several thousand miles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478502</id>
	<title>Heinlein</title>
	<author>Garrett Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1261042260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like the premise of Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress". Revolutionaries on the Moon take control of a mass driver and start flinging multi-ton barges at Earth, with just enough remote-control maneuvering that the shooters can call up Earth <i>afterward</i> and ask if they'd like to surrender.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the premise of Heinlein 's " The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress " .
Revolutionaries on the Moon take control of a mass driver and start flinging multi-ton barges at Earth , with just enough remote-control maneuvering that the shooters can call up Earth afterward and ask if they 'd like to surrender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the premise of Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress".
Revolutionaries on the Moon take control of a mass driver and start flinging multi-ton barges at Earth, with just enough remote-control maneuvering that the shooters can call up Earth afterward and ask if they'd like to surrender.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479642</id>
	<title>Re:Like evolution of the navy, but much further?</title>
	<author>VeNoM0619</author>
	<datestamp>1261046280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mostly only active countermeasures are effective, unless you can exploit the environment somehow or are good at camouflage</p></div><p> In space? Paint it black.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly only active countermeasures are effective , unless you can exploit the environment somehow or are good at camouflage In space ?
Paint it black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly only active countermeasures are effective, unless you can exploit the environment somehow or are good at camouflage In space?
Paint it black.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478022</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>kliklik</author>
	<datestamp>1261040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember having a lot of fun playing Frontier on my Amiga. It's the only game I've played that has a realistic space flying physics. For example, if you come out of the hyperspace at some 1000km/s , the fastest way to slow down is to turn around and fire the main engines. I also loved manually landing on space stations. First you get to the star system, navigate to the planet, get to the space station (monitoring the relative speed to the station so you don't slam into it) then find the docking bay, sync your rotation to the stations and slowly float in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember having a lot of fun playing Frontier on my Amiga .
It 's the only game I 've played that has a realistic space flying physics .
For example , if you come out of the hyperspace at some 1000km/s , the fastest way to slow down is to turn around and fire the main engines .
I also loved manually landing on space stations .
First you get to the star system , navigate to the planet , get to the space station ( monitoring the relative speed to the station so you do n't slam into it ) then find the docking bay , sync your rotation to the stations and slowly float in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember having a lot of fun playing Frontier on my Amiga.
It's the only game I've played that has a realistic space flying physics.
For example, if you come out of the hyperspace at some 1000km/s , the fastest way to slow down is to turn around and fire the main engines.
I also loved manually landing on space stations.
First you get to the star system, navigate to the planet, get to the space station (monitoring the relative speed to the station so you don't slam into it) then find the docking bay, sync your rotation to the stations and slowly float in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30490212</id>
	<title>Re:I predict...</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1261163040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a buddy of mine likes to say, we're so technologically advanced, that we've put guidance fins on concrete bombs - we're effectively throwing high-precision rocks at our enemies.<br><br>I think you're on to something...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a buddy of mine likes to say , we 're so technologically advanced , that we 've put guidance fins on concrete bombs - we 're effectively throwing high-precision rocks at our enemies.I think you 're on to something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a buddy of mine likes to say, we're so technologically advanced, that we've put guidance fins on concrete bombs - we're effectively throwing high-precision rocks at our enemies.I think you're on to something...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480870</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261051680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flanking?  LOL. That would:<br>A) be extremely visible to the enemy when you fire up your thrusters.  There's isn't exactly anything to hide behind to disguize it.<br>B) horrendously expensive in terms of fuel.  This isn't Star Trek; fast maneuvering is hard as hell to do.</p><p>Flanking, indeed.  Space tactics are more like WWII naval tactics, not army tactics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flanking ?
LOL. That would : A ) be extremely visible to the enemy when you fire up your thrusters .
There 's is n't exactly anything to hide behind to disguize it.B ) horrendously expensive in terms of fuel .
This is n't Star Trek ; fast maneuvering is hard as hell to do.Flanking , indeed .
Space tactics are more like WWII naval tactics , not army tactics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flanking?
LOL. That would:A) be extremely visible to the enemy when you fire up your thrusters.
There's isn't exactly anything to hide behind to disguize it.B) horrendously expensive in terms of fuel.
This isn't Star Trek; fast maneuvering is hard as hell to do.Flanking, indeed.
Space tactics are more like WWII naval tactics, not army tactics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477890</id>
	<title>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261083240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's no moon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's no moon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's no moon...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</id>
	<title>Not much surprising</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1261081920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The point that nukes wouldn't generally  be useful is a good one. And the point that kinetic weapons would be ideal also makes sense. However, I'm not completely convinced by the emphasis on orbital mechanics. In order for that make sense, one needs space travel to be cheap enough and convenient enough that one can easily have lots of ships in space. If that's the case, one needs efficient enough propulsion systems that will make orbital mechanics not matter as much. They'll still matter probably (and certainly matter more than they do in standard scifi) but I'm not at all convinced they'll matter as  much as he makes it out.
</p><p>
Also, he doesn't address the issue that long-range kinetic impactors can make most space combat irrelevant if they are going fast enough. There's not much Earth could do if there were large mass drivers on say Demos and Phobos sending fairly small projectiles at targets on the Moon or Earth or targeting large space installations. Again in this situation orbital mechanics would matter. But when the planets are in the correct positions, such setups would render local space combat irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point that nukes would n't generally be useful is a good one .
And the point that kinetic weapons would be ideal also makes sense .
However , I 'm not completely convinced by the emphasis on orbital mechanics .
In order for that make sense , one needs space travel to be cheap enough and convenient enough that one can easily have lots of ships in space .
If that 's the case , one needs efficient enough propulsion systems that will make orbital mechanics not matter as much .
They 'll still matter probably ( and certainly matter more than they do in standard scifi ) but I 'm not at all convinced they 'll matter as much as he makes it out .
Also , he does n't address the issue that long-range kinetic impactors can make most space combat irrelevant if they are going fast enough .
There 's not much Earth could do if there were large mass drivers on say Demos and Phobos sending fairly small projectiles at targets on the Moon or Earth or targeting large space installations .
Again in this situation orbital mechanics would matter .
But when the planets are in the correct positions , such setups would render local space combat irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The point that nukes wouldn't generally  be useful is a good one.
And the point that kinetic weapons would be ideal also makes sense.
However, I'm not completely convinced by the emphasis on orbital mechanics.
In order for that make sense, one needs space travel to be cheap enough and convenient enough that one can easily have lots of ships in space.
If that's the case, one needs efficient enough propulsion systems that will make orbital mechanics not matter as much.
They'll still matter probably (and certainly matter more than they do in standard scifi) but I'm not at all convinced they'll matter as  much as he makes it out.
Also, he doesn't address the issue that long-range kinetic impactors can make most space combat irrelevant if they are going fast enough.
There's not much Earth could do if there were large mass drivers on say Demos and Phobos sending fairly small projectiles at targets on the Moon or Earth or targeting large space installations.
Again in this situation orbital mechanics would matter.
But when the planets are in the correct positions, such setups would render local space combat irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478838</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>RonMcMahon</author>
	<datestamp>1261043520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, isn't the BEST shape the Buckyball?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , is n't the BEST shape the Buckyball ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, isn't the BEST shape the Buckyball?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479676</id>
	<title>Best space battle model...</title>
	<author>agw</author>
	<datestamp>1261046400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO the best space battle model was created by David Weber in the Honor Harrington series.<br>The technologies and limitations he created make up for interesting and also "realistic" space battles.</p><p>It's a bit like mixing 3D solar system mechanics with WWI and II battleship tactics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO the best space battle model was created by David Weber in the Honor Harrington series.The technologies and limitations he created make up for interesting and also " realistic " space battles.It 's a bit like mixing 3D solar system mechanics with WWI and II battleship tactics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO the best space battle model was created by David Weber in the Honor Harrington series.The technologies and limitations he created make up for interesting and also "realistic" space battles.It's a bit like mixing 3D solar system mechanics with WWI and II battleship tactics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483166</id>
	<title>Yet We Know NOTHING About</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>our President - Obama.  Nothing,  Other than he has terrorist friends, tax cheat friends, and has no clue as to what he is doing in the white house.  Not a damn clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>our President - Obama .
Nothing , Other than he has terrorist friends , tax cheat friends , and has no clue as to what he is doing in the white house .
Not a damn clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our President - Obama.
Nothing,  Other than he has terrorist friends, tax cheat friends, and has no clue as to what he is doing in the white house.
Not a damn clue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479108</id>
	<title>Re:Flying near c.?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1261044480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down, looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c.?</i></p><p>Yes, and no.  While from an inertial frame your acceleration appears to reduce as you approach c, from your own frame it appears constant, but c appears faster: c always appears to be a constant amount faster than you're travelling.</p><p>(IANAP, YMMV, which it almost certainly would if you were travelling anywhere close to c.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down , looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c. ? Yes , and no .
While from an inertial frame your acceleration appears to reduce as you approach c , from your own frame it appears constant , but c appears faster : c always appears to be a constant amount faster than you 're travelling .
( IANAP , YMMV , which it almost certainly would if you were travelling anywhere close to c. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you fly at near the speed of c. since time on your ship would slow down, looking out your view port would it appear as if your ship was traveling faster than c.?Yes, and no.
While from an inertial frame your acceleration appears to reduce as you approach c, from your own frame it appears constant, but c appears faster: c always appears to be a constant amount faster than you're travelling.
(IANAP, YMMV, which it almost certainly would if you were travelling anywhere close to c.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480008</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1261047840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re-read "The Warriors", by Larry Niven, 1966.  Warship == spherical is not a new idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re-read " The Warriors " , by Larry Niven , 1966 .
Warship = = spherical is not a new idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re-read "The Warriors", by Larry Niven, 1966.
Warship == spherical is not a new idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480834</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>netjiro</author>
	<datestamp>1261051380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The independence war series is very interesting for more "reality" in the space battles. And a lot of fun to play.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-War\_(Independence\_War)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-War\_(Independence\_War)</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge\_of\_Chaos" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge\_of\_Chaos</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I spent quite a few hours on I-War, Defiance, and Edge of Chaos, and they certianly take some training to get good at. Before those there was only the old amiga game "Warhead".<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhead\_(computer\_game)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhead\_(computer\_game)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Of course I also enjoy Descent, Freespace, Tie Fighter, etc. But more for the general feeling or dogfighting, not very "realistic", just fun game systems. Even EVE is a lot of fun to play, but it has nothing to do with space battle. It is just EVE battle, i.e. coordination, logistics, social management, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The independence war series is very interesting for more " reality " in the space battles .
And a lot of fun to play.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-War \ _ ( Independence \ _War ) [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge \ _of \ _Chaos [ wikipedia.org ] I spent quite a few hours on I-War , Defiance , and Edge of Chaos , and they certianly take some training to get good at .
Before those there was only the old amiga game " Warhead " .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhead \ _ ( computer \ _game ) [ wikipedia.org ] Of course I also enjoy Descent , Freespace , Tie Fighter , etc .
But more for the general feeling or dogfighting , not very " realistic " , just fun game systems .
Even EVE is a lot of fun to play , but it has nothing to do with space battle .
It is just EVE battle , i.e .
coordination , logistics , social management , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The independence war series is very interesting for more "reality" in the space battles.
And a lot of fun to play.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-War\_(Independence\_War) [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge\_of\_Chaos [wikipedia.org]I spent quite a few hours on I-War, Defiance, and Edge of Chaos, and they certianly take some training to get good at.
Before those there was only the old amiga game "Warhead".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhead\_(computer\_game) [wikipedia.org]Of course I also enjoy Descent, Freespace, Tie Fighter, etc.
But more for the general feeling or dogfighting, not very "realistic", just fun game systems.
Even EVE is a lot of fun to play, but it has nothing to do with space battle.
It is just EVE battle, i.e.
coordination, logistics, social management, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483732</id>
	<title>Nukes in space, space... space... space.......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nukes in space would have one devastating effect: EMP.</p><p>Knocking out all, or even most, of a spacecrafts' electrical systems (including: life-support, comm, power, guidance control, nav, etc) would pretty much be a 'checkmate' move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nukes in space would have one devastating effect : EMP.Knocking out all , or even most , of a spacecrafts ' electrical systems ( including : life-support , comm , power , guidance control , nav , etc ) would pretty much be a 'checkmate ' move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nukes in space would have one devastating effect: EMP.Knocking out all, or even most, of a spacecrafts' electrical systems (including: life-support, comm, power, guidance control, nav, etc) would pretty much be a 'checkmate' move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482128</id>
	<title>Static mines</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1261059000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you not make your own cover with static mines or similar, pump out enough interference that its very hard to pinpoint the target?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you not make your own cover with static mines or similar , pump out enough interference that its very hard to pinpoint the target ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you not make your own cover with static mines or similar, pump out enough interference that its very hard to pinpoint the target?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478008</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>Xphile101361</author>
	<datestamp>1261040400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-War\_(Independence\_War)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Independence War</a> [wikipedia.org] was a game that my friends loved back in the day for its space physics (we were all flight sim geeks at the time).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Independence War [ wikipedia.org ] was a game that my friends loved back in the day for its space physics ( we were all flight sim geeks at the time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Independence War [wikipedia.org] was a game that my friends loved back in the day for its space physics (we were all flight sim geeks at the time).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480096</id>
	<title>Good, but shortsighted.</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1261048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It talks about space battles the way someone from 16th century (or earlier) might imagine late 20th century naval battles.</p><p>All those limitations author gets stuck at (gravity, trajectories, armor, weapons, energy limitations, shields... even dropping space-marines on a planet FFS) are basically what WE would face TODAY.<br>Not some civilization that considers an actual possibility of battles in space. Heck... you could take out today's spacecraft with a slingshot - once in space.</p><p>With all those limitations, which ARE correct, there would be NO space battles.<br>Worst case scenario - there would be some orbital bombardment platforms with limited shuttles and most probably completely robotic crews.<br>Why drop humans when you can drop terminators or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114367/" title="imdb.com">screamers.</a> [imdb.com] Or just chuck an asteroid at the rebellious colonists.</p><p>On the other hand, if you have the capability to launch (or have permanently stationed) several fighter squadrons into space - you are way beyond most of those limitations.<br>Energy, fuel, efficient and maneuverable non-rocket engines are certainly not your problem at that stage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It talks about space battles the way someone from 16th century ( or earlier ) might imagine late 20th century naval battles.All those limitations author gets stuck at ( gravity , trajectories , armor , weapons , energy limitations , shields... even dropping space-marines on a planet FFS ) are basically what WE would face TODAY.Not some civilization that considers an actual possibility of battles in space .
Heck... you could take out today 's spacecraft with a slingshot - once in space.With all those limitations , which ARE correct , there would be NO space battles.Worst case scenario - there would be some orbital bombardment platforms with limited shuttles and most probably completely robotic crews.Why drop humans when you can drop terminators or screamers .
[ imdb.com ] Or just chuck an asteroid at the rebellious colonists.On the other hand , if you have the capability to launch ( or have permanently stationed ) several fighter squadrons into space - you are way beyond most of those limitations.Energy , fuel , efficient and maneuverable non-rocket engines are certainly not your problem at that stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It talks about space battles the way someone from 16th century (or earlier) might imagine late 20th century naval battles.All those limitations author gets stuck at (gravity, trajectories, armor, weapons, energy limitations, shields... even dropping space-marines on a planet FFS) are basically what WE would face TODAY.Not some civilization that considers an actual possibility of battles in space.
Heck... you could take out today's spacecraft with a slingshot - once in space.With all those limitations, which ARE correct, there would be NO space battles.Worst case scenario - there would be some orbital bombardment platforms with limited shuttles and most probably completely robotic crews.Why drop humans when you can drop terminators or screamers.
[imdb.com] Or just chuck an asteroid at the rebellious colonists.On the other hand, if you have the capability to launch (or have permanently stationed) several fighter squadrons into space - you are way beyond most of those limitations.Energy, fuel, efficient and maneuverable non-rocket engines are certainly not your problem at that stage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30488852</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>maitas</author>
	<datestamp>1261158480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except is someone develop nanofactories that can manipulate single atoms to create whatever they need...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except is someone develop nanofactories that can manipulate single atoms to create whatever they need.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except is someone develop nanofactories that can manipulate single atoms to create whatever they need...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479372</id>
	<title>Re:Couple More Issues</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1261045380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While most fighters can fly fairly effectively straight up, it's a real strain on the pilots, and the plane is a lot less maneuverable. Coming down from above is certainly possible but only works within a small range - there's an altitude ceiling that defines the highest point you can start from, and there's the ground. At the speeds a fighter flies, especially in a dive, there isn't a lot of room in between. Finally, while you might actually make contact with enemy planes from below or above or something, they had to take off from somewhere and that somewhere is most likely over the horizon. Thus, no matter what altitude they're flying at, the first time you "see" the enemy (you probably don't actually see them, might not even detect them on radar initially) they are approaching your latitude/longitude, meaning maneuvering in north/south and east/west directions.</p><p>Deep space is very different. There's no ceiling, and no ground (unless you're in orbit). It's just as efficient to fly in any direction, and no harder on the pilot. There's no horizon either - your detection range is spherical, rather than being essentially a cylinder centered on your location. If you're using radar to scan, you have to do so in three dimensions - the beam doesn't spread out enough to encompass the full area that the enemy could be in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While most fighters can fly fairly effectively straight up , it 's a real strain on the pilots , and the plane is a lot less maneuverable .
Coming down from above is certainly possible but only works within a small range - there 's an altitude ceiling that defines the highest point you can start from , and there 's the ground .
At the speeds a fighter flies , especially in a dive , there is n't a lot of room in between .
Finally , while you might actually make contact with enemy planes from below or above or something , they had to take off from somewhere and that somewhere is most likely over the horizon .
Thus , no matter what altitude they 're flying at , the first time you " see " the enemy ( you probably do n't actually see them , might not even detect them on radar initially ) they are approaching your latitude/longitude , meaning maneuvering in north/south and east/west directions.Deep space is very different .
There 's no ceiling , and no ground ( unless you 're in orbit ) .
It 's just as efficient to fly in any direction , and no harder on the pilot .
There 's no horizon either - your detection range is spherical , rather than being essentially a cylinder centered on your location .
If you 're using radar to scan , you have to do so in three dimensions - the beam does n't spread out enough to encompass the full area that the enemy could be in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While most fighters can fly fairly effectively straight up, it's a real strain on the pilots, and the plane is a lot less maneuverable.
Coming down from above is certainly possible but only works within a small range - there's an altitude ceiling that defines the highest point you can start from, and there's the ground.
At the speeds a fighter flies, especially in a dive, there isn't a lot of room in between.
Finally, while you might actually make contact with enemy planes from below or above or something, they had to take off from somewhere and that somewhere is most likely over the horizon.
Thus, no matter what altitude they're flying at, the first time you "see" the enemy (you probably don't actually see them, might not even detect them on radar initially) they are approaching your latitude/longitude, meaning maneuvering in north/south and east/west directions.Deep space is very different.
There's no ceiling, and no ground (unless you're in orbit).
It's just as efficient to fly in any direction, and no harder on the pilot.
There's no horizon either - your detection range is spherical, rather than being essentially a cylinder centered on your location.
If you're using radar to scan, you have to do so in three dimensions - the beam doesn't spread out enough to encompass the full area that the enemy could be in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477954</id>
	<title>Lets not forget Time Dilation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261083420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since theres no friction, there may be some ships really cruising along.  Maybe not so much in orbit battles, but at lagrange points for example.  Your enemy could be sitting at L2 waiting for you to fly by, but your coming from mars with a ion drive, and have approached 2/10's C.  Now every second to you is 2 or 3 seconds to the defending guy...<br>Were gonna need some faster computers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since theres no friction , there may be some ships really cruising along .
Maybe not so much in orbit battles , but at lagrange points for example .
Your enemy could be sitting at L2 waiting for you to fly by , but your coming from mars with a ion drive , and have approached 2/10 's C. Now every second to you is 2 or 3 seconds to the defending guy...Were gon na need some faster computers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since theres no friction, there may be some ships really cruising along.
Maybe not so much in orbit battles, but at lagrange points for example.
Your enemy could be sitting at L2 waiting for you to fly by, but your coming from mars with a ion drive, and have approached 2/10's C.  Now every second to you is 2 or 3 seconds to the defending guy...Were gonna need some faster computers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479194</id>
	<title>Must read articles on space combat....</title>
	<author>gura</author>
	<datestamp>1261044720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies.shtml" title="denbeste.nu" rel="nofollow">http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies.shtml</a> [denbeste.nu] </p><p><a href="http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies2.shtml" title="denbeste.nu" rel="nofollow">http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies2.shtml</a> [denbeste.nu] </p><p><a href="http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/05/Warshippowersystems.shtml" title="denbeste.nu" rel="nofollow">http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/05/Warshippowersystems</a> [denbeste.nu] </p><p><a href="http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2003/10/Orbitalkineticweapons.shtml" title="denbeste.nu" rel="nofollow">http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2003/10/Orbitalkineticweapons.shtml</a> [denbeste.nu] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //denbeste.nu/cd \ _log \ _entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies.shtml [ denbeste.nu ] http : //denbeste.nu/cd \ _log \ _entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies2.shtml [ denbeste.nu ] http : //denbeste.nu/cd \ _log \ _entries/2004/05/Warshippowersystems [ denbeste.nu ] http : //denbeste.nu/cd \ _log \ _entries/2003/10/Orbitalkineticweapons.shtml [ denbeste.nu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies.shtml [denbeste.nu] http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/04/SpaceNavies2.shtml [denbeste.nu] http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2004/05/Warshippowersystems [denbeste.nu] http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2003/10/Orbitalkineticweapons.shtml [denbeste.nu] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482030</id>
	<title>No Love for Hamilton?</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1261058400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm giving up mod privileges in this thread to spread some love for Peter F. Hamilton's books, mentioned in passing by TFA.</p><p>From the Night's Dawn trilogy to the Void series (still only two books long, but promising a third), he's got at least eight novels that somehow manage to weave together hard SF with space opera in a way that works.  While his writing does have some less desirable aspects (wordy, prosaic, and travelogue-y in places), one thing he does well is invent and describe weapons and combat.  From the first marines vs. possessed combat scene in Reality Dysfunction, I was hooked.  And he continues to please in this regard.</p><p>Also, lots of love, too for Niven and Pournelle in The Mote in God's Eye and The Gripping Hand, and other novels (Footfall?) for making the most use of real physics to depict space battles that don't resemble pewpewflashgordon WWII dogfighting in space operas of yore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm giving up mod privileges in this thread to spread some love for Peter F. Hamilton 's books , mentioned in passing by TFA.From the Night 's Dawn trilogy to the Void series ( still only two books long , but promising a third ) , he 's got at least eight novels that somehow manage to weave together hard SF with space opera in a way that works .
While his writing does have some less desirable aspects ( wordy , prosaic , and travelogue-y in places ) , one thing he does well is invent and describe weapons and combat .
From the first marines vs. possessed combat scene in Reality Dysfunction , I was hooked .
And he continues to please in this regard.Also , lots of love , too for Niven and Pournelle in The Mote in God 's Eye and The Gripping Hand , and other novels ( Footfall ?
) for making the most use of real physics to depict space battles that do n't resemble pewpewflashgordon WWII dogfighting in space operas of yore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm giving up mod privileges in this thread to spread some love for Peter F. Hamilton's books, mentioned in passing by TFA.From the Night's Dawn trilogy to the Void series (still only two books long, but promising a third), he's got at least eight novels that somehow manage to weave together hard SF with space opera in a way that works.
While his writing does have some less desirable aspects (wordy, prosaic, and travelogue-y in places), one thing he does well is invent and describe weapons and combat.
From the first marines vs. possessed combat scene in Reality Dysfunction, I was hooked.
And he continues to please in this regard.Also, lots of love, too for Niven and Pournelle in The Mote in God's Eye and The Gripping Hand, and other novels (Footfall?
) for making the most use of real physics to depict space battles that don't resemble pewpewflashgordon WWII dogfighting in space operas of yore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478550</id>
	<title>Re:Flying near c.?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1261042500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your perception of time would be unaltered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your perception of time would be unaltered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your perception of time would be unaltered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478166</id>
	<title>Re:Round ships?</title>
	<author>Xupa</author>
	<datestamp>1261040820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>General Products Hull #4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>General Products Hull # 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>General Products Hull #4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478508</id>
	<title>nuclear weapons still best (worst) weapons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261042320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't agree with his thoughts on armour or nukes; my preference for a space weapon would be nuclear missiles with a warhead wrapped in polystyrene and a vast number of depleted uranium rods. No point in armour with something like that around; stealth and agility are the important things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't agree with his thoughts on armour or nukes ; my preference for a space weapon would be nuclear missiles with a warhead wrapped in polystyrene and a vast number of depleted uranium rods .
No point in armour with something like that around ; stealth and agility are the important things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't agree with his thoughts on armour or nukes; my preference for a space weapon would be nuclear missiles with a warhead wrapped in polystyrene and a vast number of depleted uranium rods.
No point in armour with something like that around; stealth and agility are the important things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478944</id>
	<title>Re:Nukes in Space. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wouldn't it tend to vaporize anything nearby, and melt things that are a little farther away, but still within like a mile or two?</i></p><p>Well, let's think about this using the power of the maths!  Let's assume a 300 kT TNT =~ 1300 TJ yield bomb (most common in our arsenal today, and bigger thermonuclear devices are probably impractical to carry into space), detonating at 1km from the target.  Let's assume a normal warhead with a spherical energy dispersion pattern, and that's an energy density of 103 MJ/m^2 at the target.</p><p>The specific heat of aluminum is 897 J/(Kg*K) according to WP, though it would change with temp I'll use that figure as a constant.  The mass of 1 m^2 of aluminum hull is 27kg/cm of thickness.  Assuming all the energy is absorbed as heat and that it also magically heats the hull evenly through that's 4256 K*cm.  Aluminum melts at 993K.  So, whatever the starting temperature of the hull, you'd need at least about 5cm thick armor to prevent it from melting all the way through.</p><p>Now I actually have no idea how thick hulls are, but that seems pretty hefty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it tend to vaporize anything nearby , and melt things that are a little farther away , but still within like a mile or two ? Well , let 's think about this using the power of the maths !
Let 's assume a 300 kT TNT = ~ 1300 TJ yield bomb ( most common in our arsenal today , and bigger thermonuclear devices are probably impractical to carry into space ) , detonating at 1km from the target .
Let 's assume a normal warhead with a spherical energy dispersion pattern , and that 's an energy density of 103 MJ/m ^ 2 at the target.The specific heat of aluminum is 897 J/ ( Kg * K ) according to WP , though it would change with temp I 'll use that figure as a constant .
The mass of 1 m ^ 2 of aluminum hull is 27kg/cm of thickness .
Assuming all the energy is absorbed as heat and that it also magically heats the hull evenly through that 's 4256 K * cm .
Aluminum melts at 993K .
So , whatever the starting temperature of the hull , you 'd need at least about 5cm thick armor to prevent it from melting all the way through.Now I actually have no idea how thick hulls are , but that seems pretty hefty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it tend to vaporize anything nearby, and melt things that are a little farther away, but still within like a mile or two?Well, let's think about this using the power of the maths!
Let's assume a 300 kT TNT =~ 1300 TJ yield bomb (most common in our arsenal today, and bigger thermonuclear devices are probably impractical to carry into space), detonating at 1km from the target.
Let's assume a normal warhead with a spherical energy dispersion pattern, and that's an energy density of 103 MJ/m^2 at the target.The specific heat of aluminum is 897 J/(Kg*K) according to WP, though it would change with temp I'll use that figure as a constant.
The mass of 1 m^2 of aluminum hull is 27kg/cm of thickness.
Assuming all the energy is absorbed as heat and that it also magically heats the hull evenly through that's 4256 K*cm.
Aluminum melts at 993K.
So, whatever the starting temperature of the hull, you'd need at least about 5cm thick armor to prevent it from melting all the way through.Now I actually have no idea how thick hulls are, but that seems pretty hefty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30499584</id>
	<title>Re:Round ships?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261248720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had a choice limited to a spherical schema, I think I'd go with <a href="http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w104/jackphantom13/reviews/heavymetal13.jpg" title="photobucket.com" rel="nofollow">this particular design</a> [photobucket.com]. And no, I don't think it needs too much explanation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had a choice limited to a spherical schema , I think I 'd go with this particular design [ photobucket.com ] .
And no , I do n't think it needs too much explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had a choice limited to a spherical schema, I think I'd go with this particular design [photobucket.com].
And no, I don't think it needs too much explanation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480728</id>
	<title>Re:I predict...</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1261050840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the <a href="http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Eridani\_Edict" title="wikia.com">Eridani Edict</a> [wikia.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Eridani Edict [ wikia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Eridani Edict [wikia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478930</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Bandman</author>
	<datestamp>1261043880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignoring the possibility that by the time we have space battles, we won't be able to eliminate our exposed profile by hiding in a convenient dimension somewhere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the possibility that by the time we have space battles , we wo n't be able to eliminate our exposed profile by hiding in a convenient dimension somewhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the possibility that by the time we have space battles, we won't be able to eliminate our exposed profile by hiding in a convenient dimension somewhere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477470</id>
	<title>Hey, rember in the TNG finale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261081740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the future Enterprise flew at the other ship all perpendicular?!  That was crazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the future Enterprise flew at the other ship all perpendicular ? !
That was crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the future Enterprise flew at the other ship all perpendicular?!
That was crazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478518</id>
	<title>Space is a big place...</title>
	<author>maino82</author>
	<datestamp>1261042320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do we really need to fight over it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need to fight over it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need to fight over it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478888</id>
	<title>Re:in the war of 1812</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261043700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>central command will be your planetary feudal lord.<br>See the Roman Empire or the Kzin, from Larry Niven. The farther away the local ruler is, the more authority and autonomy he will (have to) have.<br>Might lead to a situation similar to the german empire before Napoleon came: lots of splintered Kingdoms, city-states, fiefdoms sometimes fighting each other, but nominally part of one empire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>central command will be your planetary feudal lord.See the Roman Empire or the Kzin , from Larry Niven .
The farther away the local ruler is , the more authority and autonomy he will ( have to ) have.Might lead to a situation similar to the german empire before Napoleon came : lots of splintered Kingdoms , city-states , fiefdoms sometimes fighting each other , but nominally part of one empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>central command will be your planetary feudal lord.See the Roman Empire or the Kzin, from Larry Niven.
The farther away the local ruler is, the more authority and autonomy he will (have to) have.Might lead to a situation similar to the german empire before Napoleon came: lots of splintered Kingdoms, city-states, fiefdoms sometimes fighting each other, but nominally part of one empire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478268</id>
	<title>Kim Stanley Robinson, "Red Mars"</title>
	<author>MoralHazard</author>
	<datestamp>1261041300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Martian colonists get angsty, and decide to get liberated. The Earth-based companies that own the colonies decide (naturally) to launch a transport full of a few thousand space marines to retake control. That trip takes a few months, minimum, even on the fastest, least fuel-efficient course that the transport is capable of making. So the colonists know that the marines will be dropping in, well in advance of their showing up in orbit.</p><p>Now, instead of using the ship's main engines to decelerate completely on arrival, most of the Earth-Mars ships aero-brake in the thin Martian atmosphere, which conserves fuel (which can instead be used at the beginning of the trip, to accelerate out from Earth, so that the whole trip takes less time). The ship slows down partially with its engines, and then flies into the beginnings of a very close hyperbolic "slingshot" pass that grazes the upper reaches the atmosphere. The added friction slows the ship down, curling the orbit inward and turning the actual course into a parabola. In theory, if done correctly, the ship would end up in a stable "parked" orbit, with zero fuel expenditures after the slowdown and course-correction it performed at the beginning of the approach.</p><p>But, unfortunately for the intrepid space marines, a crafty scientist amongst the colonists builds a small, cheap solid-fuel rocket with a basic guidance system and a nasty payload: An explosive packed with scrap-metal shrapnel. As the marines' ship approaches and its pilots initiate their aero-braking manoeuvre, the lone colonist launches his flak rocket into the ship's approach path, where it explodes and scatters a cloud of metallic debris.</p><p>The ship's radar detects the sudden appearance of the cloud of space junk, and the navigation computer performs an emergency space-ward course adjustment to avoid a collision with the potentially dangerous debris. But the new course is too high in the atmosphere to burn off enough of its momentum, and its course stays hyperbolic--the transport ship "skips" off the Martian atmosphere and continues back out into space at high speed, on a random new course. Sorry, no invasion, this year.</p><p>The troop ship has enough fuel left to change course toward Jupiter, and it takes a conventional hyperbolic return course around the gas giant to get back heading toward the inner Solar system. Eventually, it DOES manage to get into a Martian orbit (much more carefully, this time), but the additional Jupiter round-trip buys the colonists the extra time they need to prepare to handle the invaders on the ground.</p><p>Amazing stuff, fantastic book (and trilogy, too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Martian colonists get angsty , and decide to get liberated .
The Earth-based companies that own the colonies decide ( naturally ) to launch a transport full of a few thousand space marines to retake control .
That trip takes a few months , minimum , even on the fastest , least fuel-efficient course that the transport is capable of making .
So the colonists know that the marines will be dropping in , well in advance of their showing up in orbit.Now , instead of using the ship 's main engines to decelerate completely on arrival , most of the Earth-Mars ships aero-brake in the thin Martian atmosphere , which conserves fuel ( which can instead be used at the beginning of the trip , to accelerate out from Earth , so that the whole trip takes less time ) .
The ship slows down partially with its engines , and then flies into the beginnings of a very close hyperbolic " slingshot " pass that grazes the upper reaches the atmosphere .
The added friction slows the ship down , curling the orbit inward and turning the actual course into a parabola .
In theory , if done correctly , the ship would end up in a stable " parked " orbit , with zero fuel expenditures after the slowdown and course-correction it performed at the beginning of the approach.But , unfortunately for the intrepid space marines , a crafty scientist amongst the colonists builds a small , cheap solid-fuel rocket with a basic guidance system and a nasty payload : An explosive packed with scrap-metal shrapnel .
As the marines ' ship approaches and its pilots initiate their aero-braking manoeuvre , the lone colonist launches his flak rocket into the ship 's approach path , where it explodes and scatters a cloud of metallic debris.The ship 's radar detects the sudden appearance of the cloud of space junk , and the navigation computer performs an emergency space-ward course adjustment to avoid a collision with the potentially dangerous debris .
But the new course is too high in the atmosphere to burn off enough of its momentum , and its course stays hyperbolic--the transport ship " skips " off the Martian atmosphere and continues back out into space at high speed , on a random new course .
Sorry , no invasion , this year.The troop ship has enough fuel left to change course toward Jupiter , and it takes a conventional hyperbolic return course around the gas giant to get back heading toward the inner Solar system .
Eventually , it DOES manage to get into a Martian orbit ( much more carefully , this time ) , but the additional Jupiter round-trip buys the colonists the extra time they need to prepare to handle the invaders on the ground.Amazing stuff , fantastic book ( and trilogy , too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Martian colonists get angsty, and decide to get liberated.
The Earth-based companies that own the colonies decide (naturally) to launch a transport full of a few thousand space marines to retake control.
That trip takes a few months, minimum, even on the fastest, least fuel-efficient course that the transport is capable of making.
So the colonists know that the marines will be dropping in, well in advance of their showing up in orbit.Now, instead of using the ship's main engines to decelerate completely on arrival, most of the Earth-Mars ships aero-brake in the thin Martian atmosphere, which conserves fuel (which can instead be used at the beginning of the trip, to accelerate out from Earth, so that the whole trip takes less time).
The ship slows down partially with its engines, and then flies into the beginnings of a very close hyperbolic "slingshot" pass that grazes the upper reaches the atmosphere.
The added friction slows the ship down, curling the orbit inward and turning the actual course into a parabola.
In theory, if done correctly, the ship would end up in a stable "parked" orbit, with zero fuel expenditures after the slowdown and course-correction it performed at the beginning of the approach.But, unfortunately for the intrepid space marines, a crafty scientist amongst the colonists builds a small, cheap solid-fuel rocket with a basic guidance system and a nasty payload: An explosive packed with scrap-metal shrapnel.
As the marines' ship approaches and its pilots initiate their aero-braking manoeuvre, the lone colonist launches his flak rocket into the ship's approach path, where it explodes and scatters a cloud of metallic debris.The ship's radar detects the sudden appearance of the cloud of space junk, and the navigation computer performs an emergency space-ward course adjustment to avoid a collision with the potentially dangerous debris.
But the new course is too high in the atmosphere to burn off enough of its momentum, and its course stays hyperbolic--the transport ship "skips" off the Martian atmosphere and continues back out into space at high speed, on a random new course.
Sorry, no invasion, this year.The troop ship has enough fuel left to change course toward Jupiter, and it takes a conventional hyperbolic return course around the gas giant to get back heading toward the inner Solar system.
Eventually, it DOES manage to get into a Martian orbit (much more carefully, this time), but the additional Jupiter round-trip buys the colonists the extra time they need to prepare to handle the invaders on the ground.Amazing stuff, fantastic book (and trilogy, too).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480536</id>
	<title>All your marines...</title>
	<author>reilwin</author>
	<datestamp>1261050000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, the victorious orbital forces would have to bring in a transport ship chock full of Space Marines and drop them all at once in little capsules (little because they can only be so big for the atmosphere to effectively brake them, and because you don't want all your Marines perishing in some unfortunate incident</p></div><p>
Ah, so I suppose a few of them perishing would be acceptable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the victorious orbital forces would have to bring in a transport ship chock full of Space Marines and drop them all at once in little capsules ( little because they can only be so big for the atmosphere to effectively brake them , and because you do n't want all your Marines perishing in some unfortunate incident Ah , so I suppose a few of them perishing would be acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the victorious orbital forces would have to bring in a transport ship chock full of Space Marines and drop them all at once in little capsules (little because they can only be so big for the atmosphere to effectively brake them, and because you don't want all your Marines perishing in some unfortunate incident
Ah, so I suppose a few of them perishing would be acceptable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478954</id>
	<title>No way!</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1261043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody what actually awarded a PhD for that tripe?!  It better have come from a school that also offers a degree in small engine repair.</p><p>As a PhD in a hard science, that is offensive.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody what actually awarded a PhD for that tripe ? !
It better have come from a school that also offers a degree in small engine repair.As a PhD in a hard science , that is offensive.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody what actually awarded a PhD for that tripe?!
It better have come from a school that also offers a degree in small engine repair.As a PhD in a hard science, that is offensive.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478610</id>
	<title>Re:Flying near c.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly, your reaction time would be less because of the time dilation. Also, because mass increases as you approach c, it would be harder to maneuver. For those reasons, I think most battles would take place well below relativistic velocities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , your reaction time would be less because of the time dilation .
Also , because mass increases as you approach c , it would be harder to maneuver .
For those reasons , I think most battles would take place well below relativistic velocities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, your reaction time would be less because of the time dilation.
Also, because mass increases as you approach c, it would be harder to maneuver.
For those reasons, I think most battles would take place well below relativistic velocities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480354</id>
	<title>Why does a 3D space battlefield mean different?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1261049280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have 3D aerial battlefields now.  Covering yourself all over with guns isn't efficient and you're always going to point at a target.  The relatively sleek, low profile shapes will win out.  In a space battle, it's all about not getting hit and shooting first, not Star Trek style slug fests.  That means, the business end of your ship will have the lowest profile from the perspective of the target.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have 3D aerial battlefields now .
Covering yourself all over with guns is n't efficient and you 're always going to point at a target .
The relatively sleek , low profile shapes will win out .
In a space battle , it 's all about not getting hit and shooting first , not Star Trek style slug fests .
That means , the business end of your ship will have the lowest profile from the perspective of the target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have 3D aerial battlefields now.
Covering yourself all over with guns isn't efficient and you're always going to point at a target.
The relatively sleek, low profile shapes will win out.
In a space battle, it's all about not getting hit and shooting first, not Star Trek style slug fests.
That means, the business end of your ship will have the lowest profile from the perspective of the target.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479882</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261047240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Very long, and as thin as possible.  However, that runs into other problems, such as maneuverability.</p></div><p>And not being able to present much fire power directly fore and aft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very long , and as thin as possible .
However , that runs into other problems , such as maneuverability.And not being able to present much fire power directly fore and aft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very long, and as thin as possible.
However, that runs into other problems, such as maneuverability.And not being able to present much fire power directly fore and aft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668</id>
	<title>I predict...</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1261082460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming technology exists to accelerate space ships to interplanetarily practical speeds, what's to stop warring planets from accelerating an asteroid in the same way and in the direction of the enemy planet? Or take that acceleration technique and speed up some ball bearings to ridiculous speeds and send them on their way towards something with a predictable position like a space station? Hell, you could use millions of ball bearings like a mine field, because any ship traveling through the bearings will have such a high speed relative to them. I just wonder that if we currently get so butthurt about orbiting space debris, a space war will focus on simple kinetic weapons at huge speeds and from huge distances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming technology exists to accelerate space ships to interplanetarily practical speeds , what 's to stop warring planets from accelerating an asteroid in the same way and in the direction of the enemy planet ?
Or take that acceleration technique and speed up some ball bearings to ridiculous speeds and send them on their way towards something with a predictable position like a space station ?
Hell , you could use millions of ball bearings like a mine field , because any ship traveling through the bearings will have such a high speed relative to them .
I just wonder that if we currently get so butthurt about orbiting space debris , a space war will focus on simple kinetic weapons at huge speeds and from huge distances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming technology exists to accelerate space ships to interplanetarily practical speeds, what's to stop warring planets from accelerating an asteroid in the same way and in the direction of the enemy planet?
Or take that acceleration technique and speed up some ball bearings to ridiculous speeds and send them on their way towards something with a predictable position like a space station?
Hell, you could use millions of ball bearings like a mine field, because any ship traveling through the bearings will have such a high speed relative to them.
I just wonder that if we currently get so butthurt about orbiting space debris, a space war will focus on simple kinetic weapons at huge speeds and from huge distances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>skelterjohn</author>
	<datestamp>1261081620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't they want to be able to have a small profile?</p><p>Seems like some sort of lozenge shape would work best for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't they want to be able to have a small profile ? Seems like some sort of lozenge shape would work best for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't they want to be able to have a small profile?Seems like some sort of lozenge shape would work best for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478620</id>
	<title>lack of sensory feedback</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1261042740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In earth battles its the assault on the senses: incredibly loud noise all the time, the smells of gunnpowder and burning. And you are in hand-combat situation, you have the bitter smells of sweat and blood, the shooting and screaming. This all helps pump up the adrenaline. In contrast space battles would be mostly sterile and silent, until you took a direct hit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In earth battles its the assault on the senses : incredibly loud noise all the time , the smells of gunnpowder and burning .
And you are in hand-combat situation , you have the bitter smells of sweat and blood , the shooting and screaming .
This all helps pump up the adrenaline .
In contrast space battles would be mostly sterile and silent , until you took a direct hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In earth battles its the assault on the senses: incredibly loud noise all the time, the smells of gunnpowder and burning.
And you are in hand-combat situation, you have the bitter smells of sweat and blood, the shooting and screaming.
This all helps pump up the adrenaline.
In contrast space battles would be mostly sterile and silent, until you took a direct hit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477720</id>
	<title>Ideal shape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261082580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ideal shape will depend on the materials available and what its capabilities need to be.  eg. does it need to be able to fly in an atmosphere, what type of lift propulsion is available, etc.</p><p>Spheres are great but also difficult to design and build around.  In other words, complicated and expensive.  Sometimes a cheap, simple, easy to build box is the best.</p><p>Could end up being anything because we aren't even close to actually creating something like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ideal shape will depend on the materials available and what its capabilities need to be .
eg. does it need to be able to fly in an atmosphere , what type of lift propulsion is available , etc.Spheres are great but also difficult to design and build around .
In other words , complicated and expensive .
Sometimes a cheap , simple , easy to build box is the best.Could end up being anything because we are n't even close to actually creating something like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ideal shape will depend on the materials available and what its capabilities need to be.
eg. does it need to be able to fly in an atmosphere, what type of lift propulsion is available, etc.Spheres are great but also difficult to design and build around.
In other words, complicated and expensive.
Sometimes a cheap, simple, easy to build box is the best.Could end up being anything because we aren't even close to actually creating something like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481420</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1261055100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical
</p><p>
That'll be boring: round ships, round planets, round explosions, and round movie goers.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
   Obligatory reference to Doc Smith here - <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20869" title="gutenberg.org">Skylark of Space</a> [gutenberg.org] was first serialised in 1928.  First and greatest exponent of your classical space opera.  The first and subsequent versions of the Skylark were spherical.  Although I would have thought, given the subject matter of his PhD, that it would have been more toroidal. </p><p>Mmmm toroids!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical That 'll be boring : round ships , round planets , round explosions , and round movie goers .
Obligatory reference to Doc Smith here - Skylark of Space [ gutenberg.org ] was first serialised in 1928 .
First and greatest exponent of your classical space opera .
The first and subsequent versions of the Skylark were spherical .
Although I would have thought , given the subject matter of his PhD , that it would have been more toroidal .
Mmmm toroids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical

That'll be boring: round ships, round planets, round explosions, and round movie goers.
Obligatory reference to Doc Smith here - Skylark of Space [gutenberg.org] was first serialised in 1928.
First and greatest exponent of your classical space opera.
The first and subsequent versions of the Skylark were spherical.
Although I would have thought, given the subject matter of his PhD, that it would have been more toroidal.
Mmmm toroids!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480646</id>
	<title>Atomic Rockets</title>
	<author>Nyrath the nearly wi</author>
	<datestamp>1261050480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a few notes on space combat, lasers, railguns, stealth, tactics, delta v, nuclear shaped charges, ship design, and whatnot on my website. I am not a Ph.D, but many of the people who contributed are.</p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html" title="projectrho.com">Atomic Rockets (index)</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Introduction</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Detection</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Weapons Intro</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x1.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Weapons: Conventional</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x2.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Weapons: Exotic</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3y.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Defenses</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3as.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Warship Design</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3z.html" title="projectrho.com">Space War: Strategy and Tactics</a> [projectrho.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a few notes on space combat , lasers , railguns , stealth , tactics , delta v , nuclear shaped charges , ship design , and whatnot on my website .
I am not a Ph.D , but many of the people who contributed are .
Atomic Rockets ( index ) [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Introduction [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Detection [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Weapons Intro [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Weapons : Conventional [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Weapons : Exotic [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Defenses [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Warship Design [ projectrho.com ] Space War : Strategy and Tactics [ projectrho.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a few notes on space combat, lasers, railguns, stealth, tactics, delta v, nuclear shaped charges, ship design, and whatnot on my website.
I am not a Ph.D, but many of the people who contributed are.
Atomic Rockets (index) [projectrho.com]  Space War: Introduction [projectrho.com]  Space War: Detection [projectrho.com]  Space War: Weapons Intro [projectrho.com]  Space War: Weapons: Conventional [projectrho.com]  Space War: Weapons: Exotic [projectrho.com]  Space War: Defenses [projectrho.com]  Space War: Warship Design [projectrho.com]  Space War: Strategy and Tactics [projectrho.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478644</id>
	<title>Re:Babylon5</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1261042860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>psychics and alien space-gods, and messiahs coming back from the dead</p></div><p>Did you miss the memo about sufficiently advanced technology?  I believe it was sent by Mr. Clarke in the Long Term Projects department.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>psychics and alien space-gods , and messiahs coming back from the deadDid you miss the memo about sufficiently advanced technology ?
I believe it was sent by Mr. Clarke in the Long Term Projects department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>psychics and alien space-gods, and messiahs coming back from the deadDid you miss the memo about sufficiently advanced technology?
I believe it was sent by Mr. Clarke in the Long Term Projects department.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477582</id>
	<title>Like evolution of the navy, but much further?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261082160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More powerful weapons, with greater range. Any direct hit with intended kind of weapon knocks out of the action at the least. Mostly only active countermeasures are effective, unless you can exploit the environment somehow or are good at camouflage. Never stay put. One big cat &amp; mouse game. And so on.</p><p>The factors that shaped this will be even more pronounced in space, with the added fun of predicting position (speed of light limit). Which makes majority of SciFi depictions that more disappointing; limited in popular formats to somewhere between WW1 and WW2 state of affairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More powerful weapons , with greater range .
Any direct hit with intended kind of weapon knocks out of the action at the least .
Mostly only active countermeasures are effective , unless you can exploit the environment somehow or are good at camouflage .
Never stay put .
One big cat &amp; mouse game .
And so on.The factors that shaped this will be even more pronounced in space , with the added fun of predicting position ( speed of light limit ) .
Which makes majority of SciFi depictions that more disappointing ; limited in popular formats to somewhere between WW1 and WW2 state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More powerful weapons, with greater range.
Any direct hit with intended kind of weapon knocks out of the action at the least.
Mostly only active countermeasures are effective, unless you can exploit the environment somehow or are good at camouflage.
Never stay put.
One big cat &amp; mouse game.
And so on.The factors that shaped this will be even more pronounced in space, with the added fun of predicting position (speed of light limit).
Which makes majority of SciFi depictions that more disappointing; limited in popular formats to somewhere between WW1 and WW2 state of affairs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483792</id>
	<title>Re:C.J. Cherryh has the most realistic handling</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1261073220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Weber's "Honor Harrington" series does a good job with space battles, too.  In particular he addresses the issue of how difficult it is to engage an opponent who doesn't want to engage and has three degrees of freedom in which to escape -- basically you have to trick them somehow into building up a large enough velocity on a vector that brings them within your weapons envelope.  Either that or you have to have a HUGE advantage in delta-v.  He has to invent a lot of physics to address problems like the fact that navigation even around an area as small (hah!) as a solar system requires accelerations measured in hundreds of gravities in order to bring fleets into contact in mere days rather than months or years, and explores some interesting tactical and strategic implications of those technologies.

</p><p>He also writes great stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Weber 's " Honor Harrington " series does a good job with space battles , too .
In particular he addresses the issue of how difficult it is to engage an opponent who does n't want to engage and has three degrees of freedom in which to escape -- basically you have to trick them somehow into building up a large enough velocity on a vector that brings them within your weapons envelope .
Either that or you have to have a HUGE advantage in delta-v. He has to invent a lot of physics to address problems like the fact that navigation even around an area as small ( hah !
) as a solar system requires accelerations measured in hundreds of gravities in order to bring fleets into contact in mere days rather than months or years , and explores some interesting tactical and strategic implications of those technologies .
He also writes great stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Weber's "Honor Harrington" series does a good job with space battles, too.
In particular he addresses the issue of how difficult it is to engage an opponent who doesn't want to engage and has three degrees of freedom in which to escape -- basically you have to trick them somehow into building up a large enough velocity on a vector that brings them within your weapons envelope.
Either that or you have to have a HUGE advantage in delta-v.  He has to invent a lot of physics to address problems like the fact that navigation even around an area as small (hah!
) as a solar system requires accelerations measured in hundreds of gravities in order to bring fleets into contact in mere days rather than months or years, and explores some interesting tactical and strategic implications of those technologies.
He also writes great stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479152</id>
	<title>Re:Explosions in Space</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1261044600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Oh, you'd heavily disagree with it?  Because you're an expert somehow?  Or because you saw Swordfish?  The surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r^2.  If you blow shrapnel out around you, it will be at ten millionth its starting density by the time its traveled 1000 feet.  If you're aiming at a ship whose largest two dimensions are both 100 feet, its maximum cross section would be 10,000 square feet.  From an explosion 1000 feet away, the blast sphere has a surface area of 12 million square feet.  So only one shard in 1000 will hit the ship.  One is all you need?  The total kinetic energy of impacts on the ship would, at most, sum to one thousandth of the bombs blast.  Pretty inefficient, and missing by only 1000 feet is pretty close on an interplanetary scale.  Sure, in ultra close range encounters, where you can manage to land those missiles pretty close to the target, you might actually be able to inflict some real.  But at such close range, evasive maneuvers would be observed near instantly, so your lightspeed and near-lightspeed weapons would have near 100\% accuracy.
</p><p>
Anyways, if you still think shrapnel is more dangerous than the shockwave, watch Mythbusters when they're testing surviving an explosion, like a grenade, and compare how many of their plywood targets are "dead" by virtue of the shock sticker on their chest, vs. how many have visible shrapnel hits.  Unless you're quite near a grenade when it goes off, there usually isn't any shrapnel damage.  But the shockwave is potentially lethal from a lot farther away than that.  More so under water, where the shrapnel danger radius is tiny, but the shockwave kill zone is hundreds of feet out.  (Related to that, due to diffraction, it's somewhat challenging to shoot a fish in a barrel without practicing at it first, except that any shot that even hits the water will kill the fish from the shockwave).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you 'd heavily disagree with it ?
Because you 're an expert somehow ?
Or because you saw Swordfish ?
The surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r ^ 2 .
If you blow shrapnel out around you , it will be at ten millionth its starting density by the time its traveled 1000 feet .
If you 're aiming at a ship whose largest two dimensions are both 100 feet , its maximum cross section would be 10,000 square feet .
From an explosion 1000 feet away , the blast sphere has a surface area of 12 million square feet .
So only one shard in 1000 will hit the ship .
One is all you need ?
The total kinetic energy of impacts on the ship would , at most , sum to one thousandth of the bombs blast .
Pretty inefficient , and missing by only 1000 feet is pretty close on an interplanetary scale .
Sure , in ultra close range encounters , where you can manage to land those missiles pretty close to the target , you might actually be able to inflict some real .
But at such close range , evasive maneuvers would be observed near instantly , so your lightspeed and near-lightspeed weapons would have near 100 \ % accuracy .
Anyways , if you still think shrapnel is more dangerous than the shockwave , watch Mythbusters when they 're testing surviving an explosion , like a grenade , and compare how many of their plywood targets are " dead " by virtue of the shock sticker on their chest , vs. how many have visible shrapnel hits .
Unless you 're quite near a grenade when it goes off , there usually is n't any shrapnel damage .
But the shockwave is potentially lethal from a lot farther away than that .
More so under water , where the shrapnel danger radius is tiny , but the shockwave kill zone is hundreds of feet out .
( Related to that , due to diffraction , it 's somewhat challenging to shoot a fish in a barrel without practicing at it first , except that any shot that even hits the water will kill the fish from the shockwave ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Oh, you'd heavily disagree with it?
Because you're an expert somehow?
Or because you saw Swordfish?
The surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r^2.
If you blow shrapnel out around you, it will be at ten millionth its starting density by the time its traveled 1000 feet.
If you're aiming at a ship whose largest two dimensions are both 100 feet, its maximum cross section would be 10,000 square feet.
From an explosion 1000 feet away, the blast sphere has a surface area of 12 million square feet.
So only one shard in 1000 will hit the ship.
One is all you need?
The total kinetic energy of impacts on the ship would, at most, sum to one thousandth of the bombs blast.
Pretty inefficient, and missing by only 1000 feet is pretty close on an interplanetary scale.
Sure, in ultra close range encounters, where you can manage to land those missiles pretty close to the target, you might actually be able to inflict some real.
But at such close range, evasive maneuvers would be observed near instantly, so your lightspeed and near-lightspeed weapons would have near 100\% accuracy.
Anyways, if you still think shrapnel is more dangerous than the shockwave, watch Mythbusters when they're testing surviving an explosion, like a grenade, and compare how many of their plywood targets are "dead" by virtue of the shock sticker on their chest, vs. how many have visible shrapnel hits.
Unless you're quite near a grenade when it goes off, there usually isn't any shrapnel damage.
But the shockwave is potentially lethal from a lot farther away than that.
More so under water, where the shrapnel danger radius is tiny, but the shockwave kill zone is hundreds of feet out.
(Related to that, due to diffraction, it's somewhat challenging to shoot a fish in a barrel without practicing at it first, except that any shot that even hits the water will kill the fish from the shockwave).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480926</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1261052160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing should ever be anything like that movie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing should ever be anything like that movie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing should ever be anything like that movie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477614</id>
	<title>Babylon5</title>
	<author>B5\_geek</author>
	<datestamp>1261082280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always respected JMS for how 'realistic' he chose to portray space physics with the movement of his StarFury ships and the beam weapons.  (As a side note, I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always respected JMS for how 'realistic ' he chose to portray space physics with the movement of his StarFury ships and the beam weapons .
( As a side note , I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always respected JMS for how 'realistic' he chose to portray space physics with the movement of his StarFury ships and the beam weapons.
(As a side note, I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478148</id>
	<title>This is silly conjecture...</title>
	<author>Manhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1261040820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Therefore, I contend that the most effective kinetic space weapons would be either flak shells or actively thrusting, guided missiles."</p><p>Right...because flak shells which emit hundreds or thousands of tiny projectiles are a great idea in orbit.  Some will probably reach escape velocity, some will impact the orbited body, but a many will likely remain in orbit.  I don't think it's in the aggressor's interest to generate a load of space junk.</p><p>"If launched from the ground, armor must be minimized to reduce the launch weight of the spacecraft. But if built and launched in space, it would make sense to plate over vital systems of the vehicle"</p><p>Until we have active mines on asteroids or the moon, space-based construction doesn't buy anything.  If you still have to haul the raw materials out of Earth's gravity well, then you still have to pay the launch costs, sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Therefore , I contend that the most effective kinetic space weapons would be either flak shells or actively thrusting , guided missiles .
" Right...because flak shells which emit hundreds or thousands of tiny projectiles are a great idea in orbit .
Some will probably reach escape velocity , some will impact the orbited body , but a many will likely remain in orbit .
I do n't think it 's in the aggressor 's interest to generate a load of space junk .
" If launched from the ground , armor must be minimized to reduce the launch weight of the spacecraft .
But if built and launched in space , it would make sense to plate over vital systems of the vehicle " Until we have active mines on asteroids or the moon , space-based construction does n't buy anything .
If you still have to haul the raw materials out of Earth 's gravity well , then you still have to pay the launch costs , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Therefore, I contend that the most effective kinetic space weapons would be either flak shells or actively thrusting, guided missiles.
"Right...because flak shells which emit hundreds or thousands of tiny projectiles are a great idea in orbit.
Some will probably reach escape velocity, some will impact the orbited body, but a many will likely remain in orbit.
I don't think it's in the aggressor's interest to generate a load of space junk.
"If launched from the ground, armor must be minimized to reduce the launch weight of the spacecraft.
But if built and launched in space, it would make sense to plate over vital systems of the vehicle"Until we have active mines on asteroids or the moon, space-based construction doesn't buy anything.
If you still have to haul the raw materials out of Earth's gravity well, then you still have to pay the launch costs, sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479538</id>
	<title>"I say we take off</title>
	<author>Slutticus</author>
	<datestamp>1261045860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> and nuke the entire site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure"</htmltext>
<tokenext>and nuke the entire site from orbit .
It 's the only way to be sure "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and nuke the entire site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481190</id>
	<title>Re:Babylon5</title>
	<author>TiberiusMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261053600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me personally, the old races in B5 didn't feel like gods in the sense of the word god, more that to the younger races they could seem god like and they had manipulated our religious texts, rather than them actually being gods.  Although B5 did focus on religion in large amounts.

It's being repeated in the UK right now from start to finish and I've not seen in since it was first on, it really is a great story and is great to watch again when you know the story, you notice little references that you likely missed the first time around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me personally , the old races in B5 did n't feel like gods in the sense of the word god , more that to the younger races they could seem god like and they had manipulated our religious texts , rather than them actually being gods .
Although B5 did focus on religion in large amounts .
It 's being repeated in the UK right now from start to finish and I 've not seen in since it was first on , it really is a great story and is great to watch again when you know the story , you notice little references that you likely missed the first time around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me personally, the old races in B5 didn't feel like gods in the sense of the word god, more that to the younger races they could seem god like and they had manipulated our religious texts, rather than them actually being gods.
Although B5 did focus on religion in large amounts.
It's being repeated in the UK right now from start to finish and I've not seen in since it was first on, it really is a great story and is great to watch again when you know the story, you notice little references that you likely missed the first time around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477992</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1261083540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to have a video game where if you accelerate to c. you end up flying past the battle so that by the time you turn around and come back 1,000's of years have passed and there is no more battle and peace has been around for most of the time....</p><p>MISSION FAIL!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to have a video game where if you accelerate to c. you end up flying past the battle so that by the time you turn around and come back 1,000 's of years have passed and there is no more battle and peace has been around for most of the time....MISSION FAIL !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to have a video game where if you accelerate to c. you end up flying past the battle so that by the time you turn around and come back 1,000's of years have passed and there is no more battle and peace has been around for most of the time....MISSION FAIL!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480212</id>
	<title>Independence War 2 - Game with Newtonian physics</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1261048740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I know Independence War series (1 &amp; 2) are the only PC games that implemented 100\% true Newtonian physics.  They took care of movement, heat issues, detection by heat and visual, whole shebang.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know Independence War series ( 1 &amp; 2 ) are the only PC games that implemented 100 \ % true Newtonian physics .
They took care of movement , heat issues , detection by heat and visual , whole shebang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know Independence War series (1 &amp; 2) are the only PC games that implemented 100\% true Newtonian physics.
They took care of movement, heat issues, detection by heat and visual, whole shebang.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30486598</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That actually wasn't his point. Nukes WILL be useful - along the lines of how flares, jammers &amp; chaff are useful today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That actually was n't his point .
Nukes WILL be useful - along the lines of how flares , jammers &amp; chaff are useful today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That actually wasn't his point.
Nukes WILL be useful - along the lines of how flares, jammers &amp; chaff are useful today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1261044240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on what axis of maneuverability you're talking about.  A vehicle will have a low moment of inertia around its narrow axes but poor about its long axes.  Of course, that's why the flak concept is so important -- to make it harder to miss.  One concept that the US military threw around for a bit was launching what basically amounted to a missile full of sand/grit into orbit, esp. one counter to the Earth's rotation.  You want to ensure damage -- how about being nailed by hundreds of chunks of rock moving at a relative velocity of over 15,000 meters per second?  It'd render LEO inaccessible for years.</p><p>As for your comments about making yourself more exposed in one axis while decreasing it in others, I think the author actually addressed that point well.  Until we have tech that allows for virtually unlimited thrust at virtually no cost, there *will* be orientation implicit in space.  You don't just go whatever direction you want in a gravity well, you still need to factor in launch windows, etc.</p><p>On that front, I'm reminded of an old game I used to play, called VGA Planets.  A very fun multiplayer game, although everyone's empires tended to become too unwieldy to manage after many turns, and players would start to drop out until there was nobody left.  In the game, you built various starships (freighters, warships, crew transports, etc) and dispatched them to various star systems to colonize their planets.  Your planets and starbases had long-range radar and could detect incoming ships (some being stealthier than others) -- the closer it came, the more data you could get about it.  By paying attention to the ship's trajectory and velocity, you could forecast where it was likely to be in future turns, and dispatch warships for an intercept and capture.  A clever countermeasure, therefore, was to not always take the optimal route between planets, but to slightly offset your angle and velocity each turn so that if someone tries to set up an ambush, you sail past it.  As a counter to the countermeasure, some players would send multiple warships and spread them out along the route, since capturing an unescorted Large Deep-Space Freighter didn't exactly require a powerful fleet.  And I would have fun by setting the callsign for my most powerful warships, "Large Deep-Space Freighter", hoping that people who weren't paying enough attention to what they were seeing would mistake the callsign for the ship class (it actually worked several times).</p><p>Any way, the reality with space combat is much more boring.  There's no way a Mars colony could become truly independent from Earth for many, many centuries.  Try to trace back the resources needed to, say, run a CPU fab, or even a nuclear fuel cycle.  Modern technology is produced from an unfathomably large web of interconnected part and resource dependencies that we have spread across the entire Earth.  And future tech will be even more complicated to produce.  So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel, all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they'll slowly wither away as things break that they can't replace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what axis of maneuverability you 're talking about .
A vehicle will have a low moment of inertia around its narrow axes but poor about its long axes .
Of course , that 's why the flak concept is so important -- to make it harder to miss .
One concept that the US military threw around for a bit was launching what basically amounted to a missile full of sand/grit into orbit , esp .
one counter to the Earth 's rotation .
You want to ensure damage -- how about being nailed by hundreds of chunks of rock moving at a relative velocity of over 15,000 meters per second ?
It 'd render LEO inaccessible for years.As for your comments about making yourself more exposed in one axis while decreasing it in others , I think the author actually addressed that point well .
Until we have tech that allows for virtually unlimited thrust at virtually no cost , there * will * be orientation implicit in space .
You do n't just go whatever direction you want in a gravity well , you still need to factor in launch windows , etc.On that front , I 'm reminded of an old game I used to play , called VGA Planets .
A very fun multiplayer game , although everyone 's empires tended to become too unwieldy to manage after many turns , and players would start to drop out until there was nobody left .
In the game , you built various starships ( freighters , warships , crew transports , etc ) and dispatched them to various star systems to colonize their planets .
Your planets and starbases had long-range radar and could detect incoming ships ( some being stealthier than others ) -- the closer it came , the more data you could get about it .
By paying attention to the ship 's trajectory and velocity , you could forecast where it was likely to be in future turns , and dispatch warships for an intercept and capture .
A clever countermeasure , therefore , was to not always take the optimal route between planets , but to slightly offset your angle and velocity each turn so that if someone tries to set up an ambush , you sail past it .
As a counter to the countermeasure , some players would send multiple warships and spread them out along the route , since capturing an unescorted Large Deep-Space Freighter did n't exactly require a powerful fleet .
And I would have fun by setting the callsign for my most powerful warships , " Large Deep-Space Freighter " , hoping that people who were n't paying enough attention to what they were seeing would mistake the callsign for the ship class ( it actually worked several times ) .Any way , the reality with space combat is much more boring .
There 's no way a Mars colony could become truly independent from Earth for many , many centuries .
Try to trace back the resources needed to , say , run a CPU fab , or even a nuclear fuel cycle .
Modern technology is produced from an unfathomably large web of interconnected part and resource dependencies that we have spread across the entire Earth .
And future tech will be even more complicated to produce .
So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel , all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they 'll slowly wither away as things break that they ca n't replace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what axis of maneuverability you're talking about.
A vehicle will have a low moment of inertia around its narrow axes but poor about its long axes.
Of course, that's why the flak concept is so important -- to make it harder to miss.
One concept that the US military threw around for a bit was launching what basically amounted to a missile full of sand/grit into orbit, esp.
one counter to the Earth's rotation.
You want to ensure damage -- how about being nailed by hundreds of chunks of rock moving at a relative velocity of over 15,000 meters per second?
It'd render LEO inaccessible for years.As for your comments about making yourself more exposed in one axis while decreasing it in others, I think the author actually addressed that point well.
Until we have tech that allows for virtually unlimited thrust at virtually no cost, there *will* be orientation implicit in space.
You don't just go whatever direction you want in a gravity well, you still need to factor in launch windows, etc.On that front, I'm reminded of an old game I used to play, called VGA Planets.
A very fun multiplayer game, although everyone's empires tended to become too unwieldy to manage after many turns, and players would start to drop out until there was nobody left.
In the game, you built various starships (freighters, warships, crew transports, etc) and dispatched them to various star systems to colonize their planets.
Your planets and starbases had long-range radar and could detect incoming ships (some being stealthier than others) -- the closer it came, the more data you could get about it.
By paying attention to the ship's trajectory and velocity, you could forecast where it was likely to be in future turns, and dispatch warships for an intercept and capture.
A clever countermeasure, therefore, was to not always take the optimal route between planets, but to slightly offset your angle and velocity each turn so that if someone tries to set up an ambush, you sail past it.
As a counter to the countermeasure, some players would send multiple warships and spread them out along the route, since capturing an unescorted Large Deep-Space Freighter didn't exactly require a powerful fleet.
And I would have fun by setting the callsign for my most powerful warships, "Large Deep-Space Freighter", hoping that people who weren't paying enough attention to what they were seeing would mistake the callsign for the ship class (it actually worked several times).Any way, the reality with space combat is much more boring.
There's no way a Mars colony could become truly independent from Earth for many, many centuries.
Try to trace back the resources needed to, say, run a CPU fab, or even a nuclear fuel cycle.
Modern technology is produced from an unfathomably large web of interconnected part and resource dependencies that we have spread across the entire Earth.
And future tech will be even more complicated to produce.
So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel, all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they'll slowly wither away as things break that they can't replace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484648</id>
	<title>Re:Static mines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261129680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Could you not make your own cover with static mines or similar, pump out enough interference that its very hard to pinpoint the target?</p><p>Ha.  About as well as sending a soldier covered in flashbulbs so that the enemy is blinded.  It just signals other units to converge on the area.  Once you run out of jammers, you ship is dead meat.  Unlike the hypothetical soldier, there's nothing in space to hide behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Could you not make your own cover with static mines or similar , pump out enough interference that its very hard to pinpoint the target ? Ha .
About as well as sending a soldier covered in flashbulbs so that the enemy is blinded .
It just signals other units to converge on the area .
Once you run out of jammers , you ship is dead meat .
Unlike the hypothetical soldier , there 's nothing in space to hide behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Could you not make your own cover with static mines or similar, pump out enough interference that its very hard to pinpoint the target?Ha.
About as well as sending a soldier covered in flashbulbs so that the enemy is blinded.
It just signals other units to converge on the area.
Once you run out of jammers, you ship is dead meat.
Unlike the hypothetical soldier, there's nothing in space to hide behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480890</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with spherical ships</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1261051920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so we have to get dial up internet FPS players who are used to the lag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so we have to get dial up internet FPS players who are used to the lag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so we have to get dial up internet FPS players who are used to the lag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30485184</id>
	<title>Re:in the war of 1812</title>
	<author>RancidPeanutOil</author>
	<datestamp>1261136160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... sure the wide open vacuum of space changes everything, but so does the sheer vastness of it all. in future space battles, it wouldn't be surprising for a peace to be signed, the agreement beamed to combatants at light speed... and yet the battle still rages on for weeks, months, maybe even years. the battlefield might be lightyears away from the capitols</p></div><p>Jesus. That explanation is like a metaphor for my life. Sorry for the off-topic, but man - everything's so clear now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... sure the wide open vacuum of space changes everything , but so does the sheer vastness of it all .
in future space battles , it would n't be surprising for a peace to be signed , the agreement beamed to combatants at light speed... and yet the battle still rages on for weeks , months , maybe even years .
the battlefield might be lightyears away from the capitolsJesus .
That explanation is like a metaphor for my life .
Sorry for the off-topic , but man - everything 's so clear now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... sure the wide open vacuum of space changes everything, but so does the sheer vastness of it all.
in future space battles, it wouldn't be surprising for a peace to be signed, the agreement beamed to combatants at light speed... and yet the battle still rages on for weeks, months, maybe even years.
the battlefield might be lightyears away from the capitolsJesus.
That explanation is like a metaphor for my life.
Sorry for the off-topic, but man - everything's so clear now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479764</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261046760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think an interesting question is how much of the increased volume available in a spherical ship would be useable. There is a propensity for use to build things that are roughly rectangular. Presumably, economies of scale could make it difficult to mass produce a fighter with large amounts of internal components curved to fit flush along the outer hull, particularly when reusing existing designs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think an interesting question is how much of the increased volume available in a spherical ship would be useable .
There is a propensity for use to build things that are roughly rectangular .
Presumably , economies of scale could make it difficult to mass produce a fighter with large amounts of internal components curved to fit flush along the outer hull , particularly when reusing existing designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think an interesting question is how much of the increased volume available in a spherical ship would be useable.
There is a propensity for use to build things that are roughly rectangular.
Presumably, economies of scale could make it difficult to mass produce a fighter with large amounts of internal components curved to fit flush along the outer hull, particularly when reusing existing designs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442</id>
	<title>Round ships?</title>
	<author>Duhavid</author>
	<datestamp>1261081620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical, like the one in the Hitchhiker's Guide movie"</p><p>Or maybe like Doc Smith predicted in the Lensman Series?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical , like the one in the Hitchhiker 's Guide movie " Or maybe like Doc Smith predicted in the Lensman Series ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical, like the one in the Hitchhiker's Guide movie"Or maybe like Doc Smith predicted in the Lensman Series?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30490004</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1261162440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mantis, released somewhere around 1992 was an amazing combat simulator.  It was complex enough, my buddy and I used to play cooperatively, switching off combat and piloting duties.<br><br>It's too bad it never evolved into something updated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mantis , released somewhere around 1992 was an amazing combat simulator .
It was complex enough , my buddy and I used to play cooperatively , switching off combat and piloting duties.It 's too bad it never evolved into something updated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mantis, released somewhere around 1992 was an amazing combat simulator.
It was complex enough, my buddy and I used to play cooperatively, switching off combat and piloting duties.It's too bad it never evolved into something updated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478040</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261040520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a mathematician/physicist's dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a mathematician/physicist 's dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a mathematician/physicist's dream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477808</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261082880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even with very efficient means of propulsion, why fight against orbital mechanics when you can exploit it? Or to put it another way: which side do you think will win - the one exploiting it, or the one not doing it?</p><p>This of course assumes roughly equal technological level. A fair assumption IMHO, because in most of scenarios when that isn't the case (civilizations alien to each other), the difference might be such great that it would be no contest - alien civilizations are likely to be millions of years "out of synch", so even assuming hard limits of physics, one of those civs is bound to be much more finesse.</p><p>@kinetic impactors - slight deflection or even head on obstacle in their way might be an effective defense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with very efficient means of propulsion , why fight against orbital mechanics when you can exploit it ?
Or to put it another way : which side do you think will win - the one exploiting it , or the one not doing it ? This of course assumes roughly equal technological level .
A fair assumption IMHO , because in most of scenarios when that is n't the case ( civilizations alien to each other ) , the difference might be such great that it would be no contest - alien civilizations are likely to be millions of years " out of synch " , so even assuming hard limits of physics , one of those civs is bound to be much more finesse .
@ kinetic impactors - slight deflection or even head on obstacle in their way might be an effective defense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with very efficient means of propulsion, why fight against orbital mechanics when you can exploit it?
Or to put it another way: which side do you think will win - the one exploiting it, or the one not doing it?This of course assumes roughly equal technological level.
A fair assumption IMHO, because in most of scenarios when that isn't the case (civilizations alien to each other), the difference might be such great that it would be no contest - alien civilizations are likely to be millions of years "out of synch", so even assuming hard limits of physics, one of those civs is bound to be much more finesse.
@kinetic impactors - slight deflection or even head on obstacle in their way might be an effective defense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452</id>
	<title>C.J. Cherryh has the most realistic handling</title>
	<author>WillAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1261081680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that I've found thus far in her Merchanter / Alliance-Union books ---esp. Heavy Time / Hellburner --- though I'd be very interested in suggestions on other authors to read who've put forth a similar effort to have realistic physics and effects thereof.</p><p>William</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that I 've found thus far in her Merchanter / Alliance-Union books ---esp .
Heavy Time / Hellburner --- though I 'd be very interested in suggestions on other authors to read who 've put forth a similar effort to have realistic physics and effects thereof.William</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that I've found thus far in her Merchanter / Alliance-Union books ---esp.
Heavy Time / Hellburner --- though I'd be very interested in suggestions on other authors to read who've put forth a similar effort to have realistic physics and effects thereof.William</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479680</id>
	<title>Re:Nukes in Space. . .</title>
	<author>Alamais</author>
	<datestamp>1261046400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yamato Cannon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yamato Cannon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yamato Cannon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480660</id>
	<title>Re:C.J. Cherryh has the most realistic handling</title>
	<author>Etcetera</author>
	<datestamp>1261050540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear, hear to that... I've always found her novels to be some of the most plausibly realistic in the space opera genre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear , hear to that... I 've always found her novels to be some of the most plausibly realistic in the space opera genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear, hear to that... I've always found her novels to be some of the most plausibly realistic in the space opera genre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480628</id>
	<title>He forgot about heat</title>
	<author>noewun</author>
	<datestamp>1261050420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thermodynamics, specifically the need to dissipate the enormous amount of heat produced by a spacecraft into the thermodynamically-inefficient medium of space, changes things.</p><p>For one, there's no stealth in space. The heat from the shuttle's main engines can be seen from Pluto, ~5.4 light hours away. This means that any reasonably powerful ship will be seen days and even weeks before it comes into contact. Given that engagement ranges probably won't be much further than one light second, due to sensor lag, there's no sneaking up on anyone, so the shape of your spaceship vis a vis radar stealth doesn't matter.</p><p>This also impacts tactics. Since you will see your enemy coming from a long way and, as mentioned in the article, operating in planetary systems means predicable orbits and vectors, tactics becomes something akin to submarine warfare: lots of long distance shots with guided weapons, and lots of math to figure out firing solutions.</p><p>Third, because of the need to dissipate lots of heat into space, any sizable ship will need a large amount of highly vulnerable radiator area. Sufficiently damage a ship's radiators, and you effectively shut that ship down, as it will need to power down to avoid blowing up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thermodynamics , specifically the need to dissipate the enormous amount of heat produced by a spacecraft into the thermodynamically-inefficient medium of space , changes things.For one , there 's no stealth in space .
The heat from the shuttle 's main engines can be seen from Pluto , ~ 5.4 light hours away .
This means that any reasonably powerful ship will be seen days and even weeks before it comes into contact .
Given that engagement ranges probably wo n't be much further than one light second , due to sensor lag , there 's no sneaking up on anyone , so the shape of your spaceship vis a vis radar stealth does n't matter.This also impacts tactics .
Since you will see your enemy coming from a long way and , as mentioned in the article , operating in planetary systems means predicable orbits and vectors , tactics becomes something akin to submarine warfare : lots of long distance shots with guided weapons , and lots of math to figure out firing solutions.Third , because of the need to dissipate lots of heat into space , any sizable ship will need a large amount of highly vulnerable radiator area .
Sufficiently damage a ship 's radiators , and you effectively shut that ship down , as it will need to power down to avoid blowing up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thermodynamics, specifically the need to dissipate the enormous amount of heat produced by a spacecraft into the thermodynamically-inefficient medium of space, changes things.For one, there's no stealth in space.
The heat from the shuttle's main engines can be seen from Pluto, ~5.4 light hours away.
This means that any reasonably powerful ship will be seen days and even weeks before it comes into contact.
Given that engagement ranges probably won't be much further than one light second, due to sensor lag, there's no sneaking up on anyone, so the shape of your spaceship vis a vis radar stealth doesn't matter.This also impacts tactics.
Since you will see your enemy coming from a long way and, as mentioned in the article, operating in planetary systems means predicable orbits and vectors, tactics becomes something akin to submarine warfare: lots of long distance shots with guided weapons, and lots of math to figure out firing solutions.Third, because of the need to dissipate lots of heat into space, any sizable ship will need a large amount of highly vulnerable radiator area.
Sufficiently damage a ship's radiators, and you effectively shut that ship down, as it will need to power down to avoid blowing up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478098</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261040700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, at least it's consistent with the spherical cow the physicists are always asking us to consider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least it 's consistent with the spherical cow the physicists are always asking us to consider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least it's consistent with the spherical cow the physicists are always asking us to consider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483524</id>
	<title>Sounds like!?</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1261070580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical</p></div><p>Dammit, how many times to we have to explain that there's no sound in space!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be sphericalDammit , how many times to we have to explain that there 's no sound in space !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be sphericalDammit, how many times to we have to explain that there's no sound in space!
?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826</id>
	<title>not quite</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1261083000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we'll be able to tell exactly what trajectories our enemies could take between planets: the launch window.</p></div> </blockquote><p> That assumes that there aren't technological advances that allow spacecraft to brute force the problem.  Launch delays in terms of orbits mostly occur because of energy and fuel requirements.  If you've got propulsion licked, you can pretty well launch when you wish.</p><blockquote><div><p>to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space</p></div></blockquote><p> That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion.  Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.</p><blockquote><div><p>Second, there are only a few ways to maneuver the attitude of a spacecraft around &ndash; to point it in a new direction. The fast ways to do that are to fire an off-center thruster or to tilt a gyroscope around to generate a torque. Attitude maneuvers would be critical to point the main engine of a space fighter to set up for a burn, or to point the weapons systems at an enemy. Either way, concealing the attitude maneuvers of the space fighter would be important to gain a tactical advantage. So I think gyroscopes ("CMGs," in the spacecraft lingo) would be a better way to go</p></div></blockquote><p> Correct.  Burning fuel just to change the ships' direction is a waste.  Utilising conservation of angualar momentum with a gyroscope is efficient and technologically feasible.  Sapcecraft that are large and non-sperical are going to be very difficult to manoeuvre.  Concentrating most of the ships mass in tight near the center is the way to mitigate this problem.</p><blockquote><div><p>A kinetic impactor is basically just a slug that goes really fast and hits the enemy fighter, tearing through the hull, damaging delicate systems with vibrations, throwing gyroscopes out of alignment so that they spin into their enclosures and explode into shards</p></div></blockquote><p>  I don't think kinetic impactors are the way to go here.  A high energy neutral particle beam is demonstrated to work effectively and doesn't spread out too much over a vast difference.  (not more than a few cm over 1000 km)  There is no hope of stopping it either.  A few GEV beam of particles shows no mercy and can punch through several meters of shielding.</p><blockquote><div><p>lets just go with a tool that we already use to cut sheet metal on Earth: lasers. In space, laser light will travel almost forever without dissipating from diffraction</p></div></blockquote><p> Lasers ablate material off the hull which obscures the target.  Not quite the most effective weapon.</p><blockquote><div><p>Deflector shields like those in fiction are not possible at present, but it would still make sense to armor combat spacecraft to a limited extent.</p></div></blockquote><p> modified plasma window technology can function as a shield in a sense.  Thick armor on the hull impedes the ship's ability to rotate.</p><blockquote><div><p>What do we do to hit them on the ground? Well, strategic weapons from space are easy: kinetic impactors again.</p></div></blockquote><p> Ammo is a problem.  How many impactors can you have on an orbital defense platform?  Just use particle beam technology to wipe out the ground force.</p><blockquote><div><p>So, I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical, with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward.</p></div> </blockquote><p> Only if you don't plan on re-entry as a sphere is non-optimal for utilising the effect that shaceship one was supposed to use; that is using a flat surface to force a ubble of air to pool in front of the craft and buffer against the heat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 'll be able to tell exactly what trajectories our enemies could take between planets : the launch window .
That assumes that there are n't technological advances that allow spacecraft to brute force the problem .
Launch delays in terms of orbits mostly occur because of energy and fuel requirements .
If you 've got propulsion licked , you can pretty well launch when you wish.to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space That is n't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion .
Space is huge , you 're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.Second , there are only a few ways to maneuver the attitude of a spacecraft around    to point it in a new direction .
The fast ways to do that are to fire an off-center thruster or to tilt a gyroscope around to generate a torque .
Attitude maneuvers would be critical to point the main engine of a space fighter to set up for a burn , or to point the weapons systems at an enemy .
Either way , concealing the attitude maneuvers of the space fighter would be important to gain a tactical advantage .
So I think gyroscopes ( " CMGs , " in the spacecraft lingo ) would be a better way to go Correct .
Burning fuel just to change the ships ' direction is a waste .
Utilising conservation of angualar momentum with a gyroscope is efficient and technologically feasible .
Sapcecraft that are large and non-sperical are going to be very difficult to manoeuvre .
Concentrating most of the ships mass in tight near the center is the way to mitigate this problem.A kinetic impactor is basically just a slug that goes really fast and hits the enemy fighter , tearing through the hull , damaging delicate systems with vibrations , throwing gyroscopes out of alignment so that they spin into their enclosures and explode into shards I do n't think kinetic impactors are the way to go here .
A high energy neutral particle beam is demonstrated to work effectively and does n't spread out too much over a vast difference .
( not more than a few cm over 1000 km ) There is no hope of stopping it either .
A few GEV beam of particles shows no mercy and can punch through several meters of shielding.lets just go with a tool that we already use to cut sheet metal on Earth : lasers .
In space , laser light will travel almost forever without dissipating from diffraction Lasers ablate material off the hull which obscures the target .
Not quite the most effective weapon.Deflector shields like those in fiction are not possible at present , but it would still make sense to armor combat spacecraft to a limited extent .
modified plasma window technology can function as a shield in a sense .
Thick armor on the hull impedes the ship 's ability to rotate.What do we do to hit them on the ground ?
Well , strategic weapons from space are easy : kinetic impactors again .
Ammo is a problem .
How many impactors can you have on an orbital defense platform ?
Just use particle beam technology to wipe out the ground force.So , I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical , with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward .
Only if you do n't plan on re-entry as a sphere is non-optimal for utilising the effect that shaceship one was supposed to use ; that is using a flat surface to force a ubble of air to pool in front of the craft and buffer against the heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we'll be able to tell exactly what trajectories our enemies could take between planets: the launch window.
That assumes that there aren't technological advances that allow spacecraft to brute force the problem.
Launch delays in terms of orbits mostly occur because of energy and fuel requirements.
If you've got propulsion licked, you can pretty well launch when you wish.to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion.
Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.Second, there are only a few ways to maneuver the attitude of a spacecraft around – to point it in a new direction.
The fast ways to do that are to fire an off-center thruster or to tilt a gyroscope around to generate a torque.
Attitude maneuvers would be critical to point the main engine of a space fighter to set up for a burn, or to point the weapons systems at an enemy.
Either way, concealing the attitude maneuvers of the space fighter would be important to gain a tactical advantage.
So I think gyroscopes ("CMGs," in the spacecraft lingo) would be a better way to go Correct.
Burning fuel just to change the ships' direction is a waste.
Utilising conservation of angualar momentum with a gyroscope is efficient and technologically feasible.
Sapcecraft that are large and non-sperical are going to be very difficult to manoeuvre.
Concentrating most of the ships mass in tight near the center is the way to mitigate this problem.A kinetic impactor is basically just a slug that goes really fast and hits the enemy fighter, tearing through the hull, damaging delicate systems with vibrations, throwing gyroscopes out of alignment so that they spin into their enclosures and explode into shards  I don't think kinetic impactors are the way to go here.
A high energy neutral particle beam is demonstrated to work effectively and doesn't spread out too much over a vast difference.
(not more than a few cm over 1000 km)  There is no hope of stopping it either.
A few GEV beam of particles shows no mercy and can punch through several meters of shielding.lets just go with a tool that we already use to cut sheet metal on Earth: lasers.
In space, laser light will travel almost forever without dissipating from diffraction Lasers ablate material off the hull which obscures the target.
Not quite the most effective weapon.Deflector shields like those in fiction are not possible at present, but it would still make sense to armor combat spacecraft to a limited extent.
modified plasma window technology can function as a shield in a sense.
Thick armor on the hull impedes the ship's ability to rotate.What do we do to hit them on the ground?
Well, strategic weapons from space are easy: kinetic impactors again.
Ammo is a problem.
How many impactors can you have on an orbital defense platform?
Just use particle beam technology to wipe out the ground force.So, I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical, with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward.
Only if you don't plan on re-entry as a sphere is non-optimal for utilising the effect that shaceship one was supposed to use; that is using a flat surface to force a ubble of air to pool in front of the craft and buffer against the heat.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478024</id>
	<title>"Woman, fetch me my Large Hadron Collider . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1261040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> . . . i'ma gonnin' ona' space battle!"
</p><p>But the LHC thing seems to have the reliability of a blunderbuss.
</p><p>For my next space battle, I'm planning to pack something that ejects gamma ray bursts.
</p><p>Y'all behind the weapon might want to take cover . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
i'ma gonnin ' ona ' space battle !
" But the LHC thing seems to have the reliability of a blunderbuss .
For my next space battle , I 'm planning to pack something that ejects gamma ray bursts .
Y'all behind the weapon might want to take cover .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
i'ma gonnin' ona' space battle!
"
But the LHC thing seems to have the reliability of a blunderbuss.
For my next space battle, I'm planning to pack something that ejects gamma ray bursts.
Y'all behind the weapon might want to take cover .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480738</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1261050900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any way, the reality with space combat is much more boring. There's no way a Mars colony could become truly independent from Earth for many, many centuries. Try to trace back the resources needed to, say, run a CPU fab, or even a nuclear fuel cycle. Modern technology is produced from an unfathomably large web of interconnected part and resource dependencies that we have spread across the entire Earth. And future tech will be even more complicated to produce. So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel, all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they'll slowly wither away as things break that they can't replace.</i></p><p>Totally off-topic, but I thought of this line of reasoning during the final episode of Battlestar Galactica.  Bill Adama says "never underestimate people's desire to get a fresh start"...  but practically speaking, they would have had no choice in a short period of time anyway.  They had no factories in the fleet, and had been running out of high-tech supplies the whole time, making repairs by salvaging components that did work.  Eventually all their remaining tech would break, and they'd have no way to fix it.  So assume lots of the colonists didn't want to go back to nature.  They would have anyway.</p><p>Fortunately they weren't on Mars, and could exist without the help of high technology.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any way , the reality with space combat is much more boring .
There 's no way a Mars colony could become truly independent from Earth for many , many centuries .
Try to trace back the resources needed to , say , run a CPU fab , or even a nuclear fuel cycle .
Modern technology is produced from an unfathomably large web of interconnected part and resource dependencies that we have spread across the entire Earth .
And future tech will be even more complicated to produce .
So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel , all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they 'll slowly wither away as things break that they ca n't replace.Totally off-topic , but I thought of this line of reasoning during the final episode of Battlestar Galactica .
Bill Adama says " never underestimate people 's desire to get a fresh start " ... but practically speaking , they would have had no choice in a short period of time anyway .
They had no factories in the fleet , and had been running out of high-tech supplies the whole time , making repairs by salvaging components that did work .
Eventually all their remaining tech would break , and they 'd have no way to fix it .
So assume lots of the colonists did n't want to go back to nature .
They would have anyway.Fortunately they were n't on Mars , and could exist without the help of high technology .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any way, the reality with space combat is much more boring.
There's no way a Mars colony could become truly independent from Earth for many, many centuries.
Try to trace back the resources needed to, say, run a CPU fab, or even a nuclear fuel cycle.
Modern technology is produced from an unfathomably large web of interconnected part and resource dependencies that we have spread across the entire Earth.
And future tech will be even more complicated to produce.
So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel, all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they'll slowly wither away as things break that they can't replace.Totally off-topic, but I thought of this line of reasoning during the final episode of Battlestar Galactica.
Bill Adama says "never underestimate people's desire to get a fresh start"...  but practically speaking, they would have had no choice in a short period of time anyway.
They had no factories in the fleet, and had been running out of high-tech supplies the whole time, making repairs by salvaging components that did work.
Eventually all their remaining tech would break, and they'd have no way to fix it.
So assume lots of the colonists didn't want to go back to nature.
They would have anyway.Fortunately they weren't on Mars, and could exist without the help of high technology.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30489844</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1261161960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some research from the guys who actually know what the fuck they're doing:<br><br>http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.htm<br><br>Your so-called blast wave isn't eliminated simply because there's no atmosphere.  You STILL have to deal with all that radiation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some research from the guys who actually know what the fuck they 're doing : http : //www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.htmYour so-called blast wave is n't eliminated simply because there 's no atmosphere .
You STILL have to deal with all that radiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some research from the guys who actually know what the fuck they're doing:http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.htmYour so-called blast wave isn't eliminated simply because there's no atmosphere.
You STILL have to deal with all that radiation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478278</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried the Evochron series?</p><p>It's an indie game made by a one-man team, but it's very impressive. Evochron uses Newtonian physics primarily, but also has an optional thrust dampening system which utilizes your thrusters to make the ship control as if there were an atmosphere.</p><p>It's a real joy to fly the ship, but there is a bit of a learning curve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried the Evochron series ? It 's an indie game made by a one-man team , but it 's very impressive .
Evochron uses Newtonian physics primarily , but also has an optional thrust dampening system which utilizes your thrusters to make the ship control as if there were an atmosphere.It 's a real joy to fly the ship , but there is a bit of a learning curve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried the Evochron series?It's an indie game made by a one-man team, but it's very impressive.
Evochron uses Newtonian physics primarily, but also has an optional thrust dampening system which utilizes your thrusters to make the ship control as if there were an atmosphere.It's a real joy to fly the ship, but there is a bit of a learning curve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30507986</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Spugglefink</author>
	<datestamp>1261317780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel, all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they'll slowly wither away as things break that they can't replace.</p></div><p>Not if they take the professor from Gilligan's Island with them.  He can probably make a CPU fab out of a couple of rocks, some dust, and a pair of panties.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel , all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they 'll slowly wither away as things break that they ca n't replace.Not if they take the professor from Gilligan 's Island with them .
He can probably make a CPU fab out of a couple of rocks , some dust , and a pair of panties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the reality is that if Mars wants to rebel, all Earth needs to do is cut off shipments to them and they'll slowly wither away as things break that they can't replace.Not if they take the professor from Gilligan's Island with them.
He can probably make a CPU fab out of a couple of rocks, some dust, and a pair of panties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478898</id>
	<title>No Stephenson?</title>
	<author>ZaMoose</author>
	<datestamp>1261043760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>SPOILERS FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T READ STEPHENSON'S "ANATHEM"</b></p><p>I'm surprised no one has brought up Neal Stephenson's "Anathem" yet.  True, the Geometers vs. Arbreans is (initially) a space-based weapons platform vs. ground-based targets affair, but there's a ton of discussion of orbits, etc. that make for very interesting (and compelling) reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SPOILERS FOR THOSE THAT HAVE N'T READ STEPHENSON 'S " ANATHEM " I 'm surprised no one has brought up Neal Stephenson 's " Anathem " yet .
True , the Geometers vs. Arbreans is ( initially ) a space-based weapons platform vs. ground-based targets affair , but there 's a ton of discussion of orbits , etc .
that make for very interesting ( and compelling ) reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SPOILERS FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T READ STEPHENSON'S "ANATHEM"I'm surprised no one has brought up Neal Stephenson's "Anathem" yet.
True, the Geometers vs. Arbreans is (initially) a space-based weapons platform vs. ground-based targets affair, but there's a ton of discussion of orbits, etc.
that make for very interesting (and compelling) reading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481752</id>
	<title>pffff spacebattle my ass</title>
	<author>Ruede</author>
	<datestamp>1261056780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you have to get up there first.... and to get up there - a single slingshoot or  styrofoam will be enough to get the vessel blasted...</htmltext>
<tokenext>you have to get up there first.... and to get up there - a single slingshoot or styrofoam will be enough to get the vessel blasted.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you have to get up there first.... and to get up there - a single slingshoot or  styrofoam will be enough to get the vessel blasted...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478594</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1261042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also depends on the size and if it's going to be a new way of creating artificial gravity aside from spinning the ship.</p><p>Space battles wold be much like battles between submarines.</p><p>And then - there may be other reasons to not have spherical ships - like requirements for propulsion. It may be easier to keep the engine away from the habitation part than to have a lot of heavy shielding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also depends on the size and if it 's going to be a new way of creating artificial gravity aside from spinning the ship.Space battles wold be much like battles between submarines.And then - there may be other reasons to not have spherical ships - like requirements for propulsion .
It may be easier to keep the engine away from the habitation part than to have a lot of heavy shielding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also depends on the size and if it's going to be a new way of creating artificial gravity aside from spinning the ship.Space battles wold be much like battles between submarines.And then - there may be other reasons to not have spherical ships - like requirements for propulsion.
It may be easier to keep the engine away from the habitation part than to have a lot of heavy shielding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482600</id>
	<title>Re:I predict...</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1261062300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that technology and in the end we'd revert back a simple gun, but just with a much bigger, faster bullet than all those years ago.</p><p>Coincidentally enough you then move your example from a rifle over to a shotgun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that technology and in the end we 'd revert back a simple gun , but just with a much bigger , faster bullet than all those years ago.Coincidentally enough you then move your example from a rifle over to a shotgun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that technology and in the end we'd revert back a simple gun, but just with a much bigger, faster bullet than all those years ago.Coincidentally enough you then move your example from a rifle over to a shotgun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481074</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Independence War and Independence War 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence\_War\_2). The best space sim that no-one's ever heard of. No max speed, you can point the ship independently of the axis of motion, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Independence War and Independence War 2 ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence \ _War \ _2 ) .
The best space sim that no-one 's ever heard of .
No max speed , you can point the ship independently of the axis of motion , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Independence War and Independence War 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence\_War\_2).
The best space sim that no-one's ever heard of.
No max speed, you can point the ship independently of the axis of motion, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483030</id>
	<title>Gray goo makes a good weapon</title>
	<author>Lvdata</author>
	<datestamp>1261065660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone seems to be ASSUMING that PEOPLE are fighting something approximately PEOPLE size, mass, and speed. What good are ships, guns, missiles, lasers, etc,  against a post singularity quality enemy. With trillions of dust particles all waiting to start disassembling anything without the right security codes, gray goo is about the worst thing a spacecraft can encounter. Properly setup gray goo will use the lasers for power, missiles, bullets, small ships as a starter material to make more gray goo. How can you defend against that? You can get mutual assured destruction, but that is about it.  The cost in energy to send anything more then a starwhisp from one solar system to another quickly goes from bad to impractical. Canned humans in space are just NOT practical outside a solar system. A FTL jump drive makes it eaiser, but between gray goo, Stargate's replicators, the Borg, and things like a T1000, humans are just so much dead meat.</p><p>The battles do look good on video though....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone seems to be ASSUMING that PEOPLE are fighting something approximately PEOPLE size , mass , and speed .
What good are ships , guns , missiles , lasers , etc , against a post singularity quality enemy .
With trillions of dust particles all waiting to start disassembling anything without the right security codes , gray goo is about the worst thing a spacecraft can encounter .
Properly setup gray goo will use the lasers for power , missiles , bullets , small ships as a starter material to make more gray goo .
How can you defend against that ?
You can get mutual assured destruction , but that is about it .
The cost in energy to send anything more then a starwhisp from one solar system to another quickly goes from bad to impractical .
Canned humans in space are just NOT practical outside a solar system .
A FTL jump drive makes it eaiser , but between gray goo , Stargate 's replicators , the Borg , and things like a T1000 , humans are just so much dead meat.The battles do look good on video though... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone seems to be ASSUMING that PEOPLE are fighting something approximately PEOPLE size, mass, and speed.
What good are ships, guns, missiles, lasers, etc,  against a post singularity quality enemy.
With trillions of dust particles all waiting to start disassembling anything without the right security codes, gray goo is about the worst thing a spacecraft can encounter.
Properly setup gray goo will use the lasers for power, missiles, bullets, small ships as a starter material to make more gray goo.
How can you defend against that?
You can get mutual assured destruction, but that is about it.
The cost in energy to send anything more then a starwhisp from one solar system to another quickly goes from bad to impractical.
Canned humans in space are just NOT practical outside a solar system.
A FTL jump drive makes it eaiser, but between gray goo, Stargate's replicators, the Borg, and things like a T1000, humans are just so much dead meat.The battles do look good on video though....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481704</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>tkiesel</author>
	<datestamp>1261056600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for providing this analysis for people to read.</p><p>It's the same reason that water droplets form spheres... it minimizes the surface-area/volume ratio.</p><p>And for combat and presenting a low target profile, that's the ratio to minimize.</p><p>On the other hand, if radiation emissions energy is dependent only on volume, minimizing the SA/V ratio also makes you quite a hot (if small) radiator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for providing this analysis for people to read.It 's the same reason that water droplets form spheres... it minimizes the surface-area/volume ratio.And for combat and presenting a low target profile , that 's the ratio to minimize.On the other hand , if radiation emissions energy is dependent only on volume , minimizing the SA/V ratio also makes you quite a hot ( if small ) radiator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for providing this analysis for people to read.It's the same reason that water droplets form spheres... it minimizes the surface-area/volume ratio.And for combat and presenting a low target profile, that's the ratio to minimize.On the other hand, if radiation emissions energy is dependent only on volume, minimizing the SA/V ratio also makes you quite a hot (if small) radiator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480452</id>
	<title>Obligartory xkcd</title>
	<author>mathfeel</author>
	<datestamp>1261049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, we all know what goes down for physicist in a frictionless perfect vacuum.

<a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/experiment.png" title="xkcd.com">http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/experiment.png</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we all know what goes down for physicist in a frictionless perfect vacuum .
http : //imgs.xkcd.com/comics/experiment.png [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we all know what goes down for physicist in a frictionless perfect vacuum.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/experiment.png [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479434</id>
	<title>Michio Kaku covered this already I think</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1261045560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration-Teleportation/dp/0307278824/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261084951&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">And quite a bit more really.</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>Also, wouldn't all things in space, including battle, have to be 4D by definition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And quite a bit more really .
[ amazon.com ] Also , would n't all things in space , including battle , have to be 4D by definition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And quite a bit more really.
[amazon.com]Also, wouldn't all things in space, including battle, have to be 4D by definition?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</id>
	<title>round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261081380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be spherical</p></div></blockquote><p>That'll be boring: round ships, round planets, round explosions, and round movie goers.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be sphericalThat 'll be boring : round ships , round planets , round explosions , and round movie goers .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the ideal shape for spaceships will be sphericalThat'll be boring: round ships, round planets, round explosions, and round movie goers.
   
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</id>
	<title>Video games?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261082220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've long been looking for a space-fighting video game that actually uses real laws of physics.  The closest I've seen so far are things like 2D Gravity Wars (sort of like Scorched Earth except your shots are affected by gravity of small planets between you and your target.  Heck, even the classic Asteroids is more realistic than just about any other space shooter these days.</p><p>Most space games since Wing Commander and even Descent have strange limits like maximum speeds, and never let you go into uncontrolled spins... so it's kinda like there's an artificial atmosphere always present around your vehicle.  Of course, if you could just keep accelerating towards your opponent, the gameplay would become decidedly different, like jousting.  But even that seems more fun that what things like EVE have turned space combat into.</p><p>Anyone have good recommendations?  My favorite 6DOF games so far are Descent (though it's hard to find a modern version of this) and Vendetta.  VegaStrike and Beyond the Red Line shows some promise as an engine, but never really got into them much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long been looking for a space-fighting video game that actually uses real laws of physics .
The closest I 've seen so far are things like 2D Gravity Wars ( sort of like Scorched Earth except your shots are affected by gravity of small planets between you and your target .
Heck , even the classic Asteroids is more realistic than just about any other space shooter these days.Most space games since Wing Commander and even Descent have strange limits like maximum speeds , and never let you go into uncontrolled spins... so it 's kinda like there 's an artificial atmosphere always present around your vehicle .
Of course , if you could just keep accelerating towards your opponent , the gameplay would become decidedly different , like jousting .
But even that seems more fun that what things like EVE have turned space combat into.Anyone have good recommendations ?
My favorite 6DOF games so far are Descent ( though it 's hard to find a modern version of this ) and Vendetta .
VegaStrike and Beyond the Red Line shows some promise as an engine , but never really got into them much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long been looking for a space-fighting video game that actually uses real laws of physics.
The closest I've seen so far are things like 2D Gravity Wars (sort of like Scorched Earth except your shots are affected by gravity of small planets between you and your target.
Heck, even the classic Asteroids is more realistic than just about any other space shooter these days.Most space games since Wing Commander and even Descent have strange limits like maximum speeds, and never let you go into uncontrolled spins... so it's kinda like there's an artificial atmosphere always present around your vehicle.
Of course, if you could just keep accelerating towards your opponent, the gameplay would become decidedly different, like jousting.
But even that seems more fun that what things like EVE have turned space combat into.Anyone have good recommendations?
My favorite 6DOF games so far are Descent (though it's hard to find a modern version of this) and Vendetta.
VegaStrike and Beyond the Red Line shows some promise as an engine, but never really got into them much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30486442</id>
	<title>Re:Independence War 2 - Game with Newtonian physic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Frontier: Elite had pretty realistic physics too. Navigating (or worse, landing) without the autopilot was insanely hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Frontier : Elite had pretty realistic physics too .
Navigating ( or worse , landing ) without the autopilot was insanely hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Frontier: Elite had pretty realistic physics too.
Navigating (or worse, landing) without the autopilot was insanely hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478546</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261042440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read the hole series several times and I must agree! the depiction of space warfare if prety credible, the ending of the series....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read the hole series several times and I must agree !
the depiction of space warfare if prety credible , the ending of the series... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read the hole series several times and I must agree!
the depiction of space warfare if prety credible, the ending of the series....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477624</id>
	<title>Wow, TFA was really good.</title>
	<author>fred fleenblat</author>
	<datestamp>1261082280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only point I'd add is that differences in velocity between enemy ships in nearby (but not identical) orbits may be on the order of thousands of mph.</p><p>Targeting such a fast moving object is difficult, and launching any kind of projectile or missile to intercept it will require enormous energy and reaction mass to get to it, assuming even that you launch it at the most efficient instant.</p><p>High power lasers are easier to point and shoot, but you'll only have a few seconds with the target in range.  I don't think beam divergence will be a problem, but aiming at something hundreds of miles away, moving at thousands of mph, the slightest vibration in the ship will send the beam several feet off course by the time it gets there.  You won't be able to steadily drill a hole in the enemy ship, you'll just illuminate different parts of the hull w/o much heating or impacting any specific area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only point I 'd add is that differences in velocity between enemy ships in nearby ( but not identical ) orbits may be on the order of thousands of mph.Targeting such a fast moving object is difficult , and launching any kind of projectile or missile to intercept it will require enormous energy and reaction mass to get to it , assuming even that you launch it at the most efficient instant.High power lasers are easier to point and shoot , but you 'll only have a few seconds with the target in range .
I do n't think beam divergence will be a problem , but aiming at something hundreds of miles away , moving at thousands of mph , the slightest vibration in the ship will send the beam several feet off course by the time it gets there .
You wo n't be able to steadily drill a hole in the enemy ship , you 'll just illuminate different parts of the hull w/o much heating or impacting any specific area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only point I'd add is that differences in velocity between enemy ships in nearby (but not identical) orbits may be on the order of thousands of mph.Targeting such a fast moving object is difficult, and launching any kind of projectile or missile to intercept it will require enormous energy and reaction mass to get to it, assuming even that you launch it at the most efficient instant.High power lasers are easier to point and shoot, but you'll only have a few seconds with the target in range.
I don't think beam divergence will be a problem, but aiming at something hundreds of miles away, moving at thousands of mph, the slightest vibration in the ship will send the beam several feet off course by the time it gets there.
You won't be able to steadily drill a hole in the enemy ship, you'll just illuminate different parts of the hull w/o much heating or impacting any specific area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478144</id>
	<title>Mote in God's Eye</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261040820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Mote in God's Eye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Mote\_in\_God\%27s\_Eye by Niven and Pournelle had a combat scene which directly addressed the issues of large distances and the large G forces required to accelerate to get close enough to interact with other vessels (in this case a vessel heading straight into a sun).  They also talked about the issues of doing this in a universe with no 'inertial damping fields', so the humans on the vessel were completely subject to the large G forces (max about 3G sustained for a combat vessel).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mote in God 's Eye http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Mote \ _in \ _God \ % 27s \ _Eye by Niven and Pournelle had a combat scene which directly addressed the issues of large distances and the large G forces required to accelerate to get close enough to interact with other vessels ( in this case a vessel heading straight into a sun ) .
They also talked about the issues of doing this in a universe with no 'inertial damping fields ' , so the humans on the vessel were completely subject to the large G forces ( max about 3G sustained for a combat vessel ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mote in God's Eye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Mote\_in\_God\%27s\_Eye by Niven and Pournelle had a combat scene which directly addressed the issues of large distances and the large G forces required to accelerate to get close enough to interact with other vessels (in this case a vessel heading straight into a sun).
They also talked about the issues of doing this in a universe with no 'inertial damping fields', so the humans on the vessel were completely subject to the large G forces (max about 3G sustained for a combat vessel).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477956</id>
	<title>Lasers PEW PEW!</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1261083420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lasers lasers lasers!  I'd imagine long distance battles (10's, 100's, 1000's of km) so anything traveling less than the speed of light would be horribly ineffective against evasive maneuvers.
<br> <br>
And someone needs to invent something that makes laser pew pew sounds in the void of space!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lasers lasers lasers !
I 'd imagine long distance battles ( 10 's , 100 's , 1000 's of km ) so anything traveling less than the speed of light would be horribly ineffective against evasive maneuvers .
And someone needs to invent something that makes laser pew pew sounds in the void of space !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lasers lasers lasers!
I'd imagine long distance battles (10's, 100's, 1000's of km) so anything traveling less than the speed of light would be horribly ineffective against evasive maneuvers.
And someone needs to invent something that makes laser pew pew sounds in the void of space!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480106</id>
	<title>Re:Not much surprising</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1261048320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC, an Outer Limits episode from several years back had a similar plot point: we detect something approaching our solar system, then we see that it's coming for Earth, and then at the last moment it slams into the moon.  Hysteria erupts, but the space people were just using it to decelerate...</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , an Outer Limits episode from several years back had a similar plot point : we detect something approaching our solar system , then we see that it 's coming for Earth , and then at the last moment it slams into the moon .
Hysteria erupts , but the space people were just using it to decelerate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, an Outer Limits episode from several years back had a similar plot point: we detect something approaching our solar system, then we see that it's coming for Earth, and then at the last moment it slams into the moon.
Hysteria erupts, but the space people were just using it to decelerate...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478922</id>
	<title>Re:in the war of 1812</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1261043820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and yet the battle still rages on for weeks, months, maybe even years.</p></div></blockquote><p> At such distances, why would anyone bother to attack someone else?  The time and resources required to even bother would be immense.  Even in ancient times, information traveled to the battlefield in less than a month or two let alone years.  Then there's the problem that sending a space fleet on a several year voyage carries the risk that by the time it got there, the enemy would have made several years of advancements in terms of technology to defend aainst the attack.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and yet the battle still rages on for weeks , months , maybe even years .
At such distances , why would anyone bother to attack someone else ?
The time and resources required to even bother would be immense .
Even in ancient times , information traveled to the battlefield in less than a month or two let alone years .
Then there 's the problem that sending a space fleet on a several year voyage carries the risk that by the time it got there , the enemy would have made several years of advancements in terms of technology to defend aainst the attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and yet the battle still rages on for weeks, months, maybe even years.
At such distances, why would anyone bother to attack someone else?
The time and resources required to even bother would be immense.
Even in ancient times, information traveled to the battlefield in less than a month or two let alone years.
Then there's the problem that sending a space fleet on a several year voyage carries the risk that by the time it got there, the enemy would have made several years of advancements in terms of technology to defend aainst the attack.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477850</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1261083060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found Her (B5 flight sim). Like the show, they use inertia and *real* physics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found Her ( B5 flight sim ) .
Like the show , they use inertia and * real * physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found Her (B5 flight sim).
Like the show, they use inertia and *real* physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480762</id>
	<title>Battleships in Space. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261051020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now do the math where we put a thick steel plate under a battleship.  How thick does the plate have to be so it will last for 100 explosions?  We'll need a few blasts to get out of the atmosphere and on the way to Mars, and several more to irritate Mars when we get there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now do the math where we put a thick steel plate under a battleship .
How thick does the plate have to be so it will last for 100 explosions ?
We 'll need a few blasts to get out of the atmosphere and on the way to Mars , and several more to irritate Mars when we get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now do the math where we put a thick steel plate under a battleship.
How thick does the plate have to be so it will last for 100 explosions?
We'll need a few blasts to get out of the atmosphere and on the way to Mars, and several more to irritate Mars when we get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484300</id>
	<title>I get it I get it</title>
	<author>denmarkw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1261166940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all well and fascinating (and it really is, sarcasm aside but still there), but why the focus on war in space? I mean, sure colonization has been done, alot, but so has war in space.  What if, instead of worrying about how were going to shoot down other ships, we learned how to bargain, how to trade, how to you know, be space hippies?</p><p>Man?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all well and fascinating ( and it really is , sarcasm aside but still there ) , but why the focus on war in space ?
I mean , sure colonization has been done , alot , but so has war in space .
What if , instead of worrying about how were going to shoot down other ships , we learned how to bargain , how to trade , how to you know , be space hippies ? Man ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all well and fascinating (and it really is, sarcasm aside but still there), but why the focus on war in space?
I mean, sure colonization has been done, alot, but so has war in space.
What if, instead of worrying about how were going to shoot down other ships, we learned how to bargain, how to trade, how to you know, be space hippies?Man?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484018</id>
	<title>Re:Babylon5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261076460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, only the human ships really respected physics in that show</p></div><p>A convenient explanation for that was that, of major races, only humans (and Narns) didn't have anti-gravity. Minbari ships were supposedly all antigrav, and Centauri used it at least to some extent.</p><p>The really crazy part about B5 ship design (and virtually every other game/movie/etc) is color. The only two viable options are really fully reflective, or fully black. There's no point in going for anything else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , only the human ships really respected physics in that showA convenient explanation for that was that , of major races , only humans ( and Narns ) did n't have anti-gravity .
Minbari ships were supposedly all antigrav , and Centauri used it at least to some extent.The really crazy part about B5 ship design ( and virtually every other game/movie/etc ) is color .
The only two viable options are really fully reflective , or fully black .
There 's no point in going for anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, only the human ships really respected physics in that showA convenient explanation for that was that, of major races, only humans (and Narns) didn't have anti-gravity.
Minbari ships were supposedly all antigrav, and Centauri used it at least to some extent.The really crazy part about B5 ship design (and virtually every other game/movie/etc) is color.
The only two viable options are really fully reflective, or fully black.
There's no point in going for anything else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478760</id>
	<title>Space is huge</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1261043220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because of the distances, missiles won't work.  Too easy to stop them.  They need some kind of sensor to detect their target, a laser should be able to blind whatever sensor they are using, even if the laser can't destroy the missile.
<p>
Has to be some speed of light weapon, laser being the most obvious one.  The hard part will be predicting where the target is </p><ul><li>going to be, when the laser arrives</li></ul><p>.  Even if you are 3 light seconds away, that is more than enough time to zig zag your way to safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of the distances , missiles wo n't work .
Too easy to stop them .
They need some kind of sensor to detect their target , a laser should be able to blind whatever sensor they are using , even if the laser ca n't destroy the missile .
Has to be some speed of light weapon , laser being the most obvious one .
The hard part will be predicting where the target is going to be , when the laser arrives .
Even if you are 3 light seconds away , that is more than enough time to zig zag your way to safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of the distances, missiles won't work.
Too easy to stop them.
They need some kind of sensor to detect their target, a laser should be able to blind whatever sensor they are using, even if the laser can't destroy the missile.
Has to be some speed of light weapon, laser being the most obvious one.
The hard part will be predicting where the target is going to be, when the laser arrives.
Even if you are 3 light seconds away, that is more than enough time to zig zag your way to safety.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477736</id>
	<title>Peace</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1261082700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His last option, Peace, is the most likely.  Space is so dangerous that most battles would end with both sides dead or dying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His last option , Peace , is the most likely .
Space is so dangerous that most battles would end with both sides dead or dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His last option, Peace, is the most likely.
Space is so dangerous that most battles would end with both sides dead or dying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478106</id>
	<title>E. E. Doc Smith..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261040700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..predicted spherical battle cruisers decades ago in the Lensman books. The only exception to the rule were "needle" ships designed for covert operations that required entering and exiting planetary atmospheres at high speed.</p><p>Of course, before we can fully emulate the staggeringly majestic deepspace battles of the Lensman series, we'll have to discover/develop/be given the inertialess drive which enabled "planet smashing", where two planets with directly opposing radial velocities would be made inertialess, stuffed into hyperspace tubes that terminated on either side of the target planet, and once they imerged, the inertialess drive would be switched off, causing the planets to resume their previous motion smashing together with the target in the middle.</p><p>Bitchin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..predicted spherical battle cruisers decades ago in the Lensman books .
The only exception to the rule were " needle " ships designed for covert operations that required entering and exiting planetary atmospheres at high speed.Of course , before we can fully emulate the staggeringly majestic deepspace battles of the Lensman series , we 'll have to discover/develop/be given the inertialess drive which enabled " planet smashing " , where two planets with directly opposing radial velocities would be made inertialess , stuffed into hyperspace tubes that terminated on either side of the target planet , and once they imerged , the inertialess drive would be switched off , causing the planets to resume their previous motion smashing together with the target in the middle.Bitchin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..predicted spherical battle cruisers decades ago in the Lensman books.
The only exception to the rule were "needle" ships designed for covert operations that required entering and exiting planetary atmospheres at high speed.Of course, before we can fully emulate the staggeringly majestic deepspace battles of the Lensman series, we'll have to discover/develop/be given the inertialess drive which enabled "planet smashing", where two planets with directly opposing radial velocities would be made inertialess, stuffed into hyperspace tubes that terminated on either side of the target planet, and once they imerged, the inertialess drive would be switched off, causing the planets to resume their previous motion smashing together with the target in the middle.Bitchin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480110</id>
	<title>Re:Babylon5</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261048320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(As a side note, I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive.)</i></p><p>You're just thinking of it backwards. The support struts were kept in place *despite* the rotation of the station. The rotation of the station was normal; the rotation of the support struts was artificial. (Or in other words, it's not like some invisible hand was holding the struts in place; left to its own devices, it would eventually have begun to spin with the rest of the station.)</p><p>Anyway, only the human ships really respected physics in that show, and even then it was only to a limited degree. For some reason, alien ships seemed immune. (And of course, all races had ships that could enter hyperdrive.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( As a side note , I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive .
) You 're just thinking of it backwards .
The support struts were kept in place * despite * the rotation of the station .
The rotation of the station was normal ; the rotation of the support struts was artificial .
( Or in other words , it 's not like some invisible hand was holding the struts in place ; left to its own devices , it would eventually have begun to spin with the rest of the station .
) Anyway , only the human ships really respected physics in that show , and even then it was only to a limited degree .
For some reason , alien ships seemed immune .
( And of course , all races had ships that could enter hyperdrive .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(As a side note, I could never understand how the station was able to rotate under the support struts when the station was obviously move massive.
)You're just thinking of it backwards.
The support struts were kept in place *despite* the rotation of the station.
The rotation of the station was normal; the rotation of the support struts was artificial.
(Or in other words, it's not like some invisible hand was holding the struts in place; left to its own devices, it would eventually have begun to spin with the rest of the station.
)Anyway, only the human ships really respected physics in that show, and even then it was only to a limited degree.
For some reason, alien ships seemed immune.
(And of course, all races had ships that could enter hyperdrive.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480044</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it just be...</title>
	<author>eatblueshell</author>
	<datestamp>1261048020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bunch of coke canned sized projectiles packed full with self replicating nano-machines that eat carbon? Pointed of course at enemy's origin planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bunch of coke canned sized projectiles packed full with self replicating nano-machines that eat carbon ?
Pointed of course at enemy 's origin planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bunch of coke canned sized projectiles packed full with self replicating nano-machines that eat carbon?
Pointed of course at enemy's origin planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478034</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1261040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry, 'ideal' is identical to 'theoretical' in my mind.

<br> <br>Pretty much everything <i>should</i> perform better and/or look good.   But in my experience, it always falls short.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , 'ideal ' is identical to 'theoretical ' in my mind .
Pretty much everything should perform better and/or look good .
But in my experience , it always falls short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, 'ideal' is identical to 'theoretical' in my mind.
Pretty much everything should perform better and/or look good.
But in my experience, it always falls short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478092</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1261040700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrt maximum speeds, I've always figured that was an allowance for the reality that computer frame rates are limited, so it's probably difficult to render over a particular speed with good results, and particularly with PC titles, different computers have different limits, but you are trying to provide a consistent experience on any computer which meets at least the minimum requirement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrt maximum speeds , I 've always figured that was an allowance for the reality that computer frame rates are limited , so it 's probably difficult to render over a particular speed with good results , and particularly with PC titles , different computers have different limits , but you are trying to provide a consistent experience on any computer which meets at least the minimum requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrt maximum speeds, I've always figured that was an allowance for the reality that computer frame rates are limited, so it's probably difficult to render over a particular speed with good results, and particularly with PC titles, different computers have different limits, but you are trying to provide a consistent experience on any computer which meets at least the minimum requirement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020</id>
	<title>in the war of 1812</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the peace treaty was signed in december 1814. but a major battle in the war, the one that made andrew jackson's name, took place in new orleans AFTER the peace treaty. the combatants didn't hear about the peace until february 1815</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_New\_Orleans" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_New\_Orleans</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>i think we'll see a return of that in space warfare. sure the wide open vacuum of space changes everything, but so does the sheer vastness of it all. in future space battles, it wouldn't be surprising for a peace to be signed, the agreement beamed to combatants at light speed... and yet the battle still rages on for weeks, months, maybe even years. the battlefield might be lightyears away from the capitols</p><p>i don't even know if the idea of central command will work. we're used to modern tom clancy style special operations nowadays where forces engage the enemy while analysts watch them in realtime in pentagon/ cia warrooms as infrared images on massive screens, caught from spy satellites high above</p><p>but you can't do that in space</p><p>so warfare in space will deevolve from this sort of highly vertically integrated command and control aspect. you can't, for example, have a commander on earth relaying instructions to his troops on mars in real time, simply because the radio signal takes 10-20 minutes, one way (depending upon orbital locations)<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the peace treaty was signed in december 1814. but a major battle in the war , the one that made andrew jackson 's name , took place in new orleans AFTER the peace treaty .
the combatants did n't hear about the peace until february 1815http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle \ _of \ _New \ _Orleans [ wikipedia.org ] i think we 'll see a return of that in space warfare .
sure the wide open vacuum of space changes everything , but so does the sheer vastness of it all .
in future space battles , it would n't be surprising for a peace to be signed , the agreement beamed to combatants at light speed... and yet the battle still rages on for weeks , months , maybe even years .
the battlefield might be lightyears away from the capitolsi do n't even know if the idea of central command will work .
we 're used to modern tom clancy style special operations nowadays where forces engage the enemy while analysts watch them in realtime in pentagon/ cia warrooms as infrared images on massive screens , caught from spy satellites high abovebut you ca n't do that in spaceso warfare in space will deevolve from this sort of highly vertically integrated command and control aspect .
you ca n't , for example , have a commander on earth relaying instructions to his troops on mars in real time , simply because the radio signal takes 10-20 minutes , one way ( depending upon orbital locations )  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>the peace treaty was signed in december 1814. but a major battle in the war, the one that made andrew jackson's name, took place in new orleans AFTER the peace treaty.
the combatants didn't hear about the peace until february 1815http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_New\_Orleans [wikipedia.org]i think we'll see a return of that in space warfare.
sure the wide open vacuum of space changes everything, but so does the sheer vastness of it all.
in future space battles, it wouldn't be surprising for a peace to be signed, the agreement beamed to combatants at light speed... and yet the battle still rages on for weeks, months, maybe even years.
the battlefield might be lightyears away from the capitolsi don't even know if the idea of central command will work.
we're used to modern tom clancy style special operations nowadays where forces engage the enemy while analysts watch them in realtime in pentagon/ cia warrooms as infrared images on massive screens, caught from spy satellites high abovebut you can't do that in spaceso warfare in space will deevolve from this sort of highly vertically integrated command and control aspect.
you can't, for example, have a commander on earth relaying instructions to his troops on mars in real time, simply because the radio signal takes 10-20 minutes, one way (depending upon orbital locations)
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480270</id>
	<title>Styrofoam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261048980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An atmosphere is not absolutely necessary. Just have a look at the design of an fusion bomb. The nuclear warhead evaporates the styrofoam and you have your shockwave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An atmosphere is not absolutely necessary .
Just have a look at the design of an fusion bomb .
The nuclear warhead evaporates the styrofoam and you have your shockwave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An atmosphere is not absolutely necessary.
Just have a look at the design of an fusion bomb.
The nuclear warhead evaporates the styrofoam and you have your shockwave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482786</id>
	<title>Re:in the war of 1812</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the places are light years apart, and we have no FTL drive so the message lag is also years... then we won't *have* multi-system governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the places are light years apart , and we have no FTL drive so the message lag is also years... then we wo n't * have * multi-system governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the places are light years apart, and we have no FTL drive so the message lag is also years... then we won't *have* multi-system governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477846</id>
	<title>Re:Video games?</title>
	<author>zeropointburn</author>
	<datestamp>1261083060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VegaStrike has indirect speed limits. Your shields can only handle a certain amount/speed of debris before it starts depleting. You can go as fast as you want, but if you go too far over your rated speed for too long, space junk blows you up.<br>(comment based on VS from some years ago, so may be different in more recent builds)<br>Admittedly, EVE doesn't explain why there should be speed limits. Other physics elements such as thrust, mass, and rotational velocity/acceleration are taken into account in fairly realistic ways. The main reason is that speed is a combat advantage and the designers carefully control it as they do all combat advantages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VegaStrike has indirect speed limits .
Your shields can only handle a certain amount/speed of debris before it starts depleting .
You can go as fast as you want , but if you go too far over your rated speed for too long , space junk blows you up .
( comment based on VS from some years ago , so may be different in more recent builds ) Admittedly , EVE does n't explain why there should be speed limits .
Other physics elements such as thrust , mass , and rotational velocity/acceleration are taken into account in fairly realistic ways .
The main reason is that speed is a combat advantage and the designers carefully control it as they do all combat advantages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VegaStrike has indirect speed limits.
Your shields can only handle a certain amount/speed of debris before it starts depleting.
You can go as fast as you want, but if you go too far over your rated speed for too long, space junk blows you up.
(comment based on VS from some years ago, so may be different in more recent builds)Admittedly, EVE doesn't explain why there should be speed limits.
Other physics elements such as thrust, mass, and rotational velocity/acceleration are taken into account in fairly realistic ways.
The main reason is that speed is a combat advantage and the designers carefully control it as they do all combat advantages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480882</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1261051860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Until we have tech that allows for virtually unlimited thrust at virtually no cost</i></p><p>But doesn't that just mean that there won't be any Space War (or much of any space travel at all) until a radically new and powerful reaction engine is developed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until we have tech that allows for virtually unlimited thrust at virtually no costBut does n't that just mean that there wo n't be any Space War ( or much of any space travel at all ) until a radically new and powerful reaction engine is developed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until we have tech that allows for virtually unlimited thrust at virtually no costBut doesn't that just mean that there won't be any Space War (or much of any space travel at all) until a radically new and powerful reaction engine is developed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481762</id>
	<title>UFO vs UFO of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261056840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figured that space battles would be more like submarine warfare, where most of the time would be spent trying to either find the enemy or attempt to to stay hidden. Of course, once found you can't simply "dive" to get out of the way. Since once found, things would be over pretty quickly. That's why the perfect shape for a spaceship would be a UFO.</p><p>Probably the most effective weapon in space would be accelerating a large number of very small particles at very high speed, in a shot gun effect. The shear speed of each particle would compassionate for its small size. Their numbers would make up for problems with precision. The other way around this would be to simply to irradiate the other crew to death, but that would take time. Lasers could be defeated with a reflective surface, so they're out.</p><p>I don't think nuclear weapons would be as effective, tactically, unless the delivery device for them can made to be made to be fast, and I mean fast. I'd imagine the other ship would be very interested in blowing up your nukes before they reach them, and since nukes don't detonate if damaged, they'd be pretty safe in doing so. A nuclear weapon power in space would be less than it would be on earth given the lack of atmosphere or anything else to push against. All that energy will travel further given a lack of friction, but to what effect? To make an analogy. A nuke is like the gun powder inside a pipe bomb, while the atmosphere are the nails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figured that space battles would be more like submarine warfare , where most of the time would be spent trying to either find the enemy or attempt to to stay hidden .
Of course , once found you ca n't simply " dive " to get out of the way .
Since once found , things would be over pretty quickly .
That 's why the perfect shape for a spaceship would be a UFO.Probably the most effective weapon in space would be accelerating a large number of very small particles at very high speed , in a shot gun effect .
The shear speed of each particle would compassionate for its small size .
Their numbers would make up for problems with precision .
The other way around this would be to simply to irradiate the other crew to death , but that would take time .
Lasers could be defeated with a reflective surface , so they 're out.I do n't think nuclear weapons would be as effective , tactically , unless the delivery device for them can made to be made to be fast , and I mean fast .
I 'd imagine the other ship would be very interested in blowing up your nukes before they reach them , and since nukes do n't detonate if damaged , they 'd be pretty safe in doing so .
A nuclear weapon power in space would be less than it would be on earth given the lack of atmosphere or anything else to push against .
All that energy will travel further given a lack of friction , but to what effect ?
To make an analogy .
A nuke is like the gun powder inside a pipe bomb , while the atmosphere are the nails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figured that space battles would be more like submarine warfare, where most of the time would be spent trying to either find the enemy or attempt to to stay hidden.
Of course, once found you can't simply "dive" to get out of the way.
Since once found, things would be over pretty quickly.
That's why the perfect shape for a spaceship would be a UFO.Probably the most effective weapon in space would be accelerating a large number of very small particles at very high speed, in a shot gun effect.
The shear speed of each particle would compassionate for its small size.
Their numbers would make up for problems with precision.
The other way around this would be to simply to irradiate the other crew to death, but that would take time.
Lasers could be defeated with a reflective surface, so they're out.I don't think nuclear weapons would be as effective, tactically, unless the delivery device for them can made to be made to be fast, and I mean fast.
I'd imagine the other ship would be very interested in blowing up your nukes before they reach them, and since nukes don't detonate if damaged, they'd be pretty safe in doing so.
A nuclear weapon power in space would be less than it would be on earth given the lack of atmosphere or anything else to push against.
All that energy will travel further given a lack of friction, but to what effect?
To make an analogy.
A nuke is like the gun powder inside a pipe bomb, while the atmosphere are the nails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483348</id>
	<title>Re:Peace</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1261068720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>His last option, Peace, is the most likely. Space is so dangerous that most battles would end with both sides dead or dying.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is true of battles here on Earth, it's never stopped us before, why would it stop us in the stars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His last option , Peace , is the most likely .
Space is so dangerous that most battles would end with both sides dead or dying .
This is true of battles here on Earth , it 's never stopped us before , why would it stop us in the stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His last option, Peace, is the most likely.
Space is so dangerous that most battles would end with both sides dead or dying.
This is true of battles here on Earth, it's never stopped us before, why would it stop us in the stars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483998</id>
	<title>Re:not quite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261076160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion. Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.</p></div><p>The best comment I've ever heard about stealth spaceships was in the faq for the board game <a href="http://www.groundzerogames.net/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;task=section&amp;id=7&amp;Itemid=40" title="groundzerogames.net" rel="nofollow">Full Thrust</a> [groundzerogames.net].  I wish I could find the link, but there was a big write up that calculated how much heat would be radiated away from a manned space craft simply to keep it heated, and thus the crew alive.  Then given a telescope sweeping through space you could easily detect the ship against the background of the cold deep black.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion .
Space is huge , you 're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.The best comment I 've ever heard about stealth spaceships was in the faq for the board game Full Thrust [ groundzerogames.net ] .
I wish I could find the link , but there was a big write up that calculated how much heat would be radiated away from a manned space craft simply to keep it heated , and thus the crew alive .
Then given a telescope sweeping through space you could easily detect the ship against the background of the cold deep black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't going to work for stealth spacecraft which are a trivial engineering problem next to propulsion.
Space is huge, you're going to need very very powerful sensors to find anything the size of a ship.The best comment I've ever heard about stealth spaceships was in the faq for the board game Full Thrust [groundzerogames.net].
I wish I could find the link, but there was a big write up that calculated how much heat would be radiated away from a manned space craft simply to keep it heated, and thus the crew alive.
Then given a telescope sweeping through space you could easily detect the ship against the background of the cold deep black.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934</id>
	<title>Nukes in Space. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1261083360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a question about the Nukes in space thing. I know that, without an atmosphere, you don't get the massive shockwave which causes much of the damage that you see in atmospheric detonations. . . but, wouldn't the Nuke still generate several million degrees of thermal energy? Wouldn't it tend to vaporize anything nearby, and melt things that are a little farther away, but still within like a mile or two? Wouldn't it also release a massive amount of Neutron radiation? (I'm not sure - could you effectively shield against that much neutron radiation? I know that space craft have to have a certain level of shielding just to remain safe from 'normal' Solar radiation, but could you effectively shield against the radiation released from an H-Bomb?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a question about the Nukes in space thing .
I know that , without an atmosphere , you do n't get the massive shockwave which causes much of the damage that you see in atmospheric detonations .
. .
but , would n't the Nuke still generate several million degrees of thermal energy ?
Would n't it tend to vaporize anything nearby , and melt things that are a little farther away , but still within like a mile or two ?
Would n't it also release a massive amount of Neutron radiation ?
( I 'm not sure - could you effectively shield against that much neutron radiation ?
I know that space craft have to have a certain level of shielding just to remain safe from 'normal ' Solar radiation , but could you effectively shield against the radiation released from an H-Bomb ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a question about the Nukes in space thing.
I know that, without an atmosphere, you don't get the massive shockwave which causes much of the damage that you see in atmospheric detonations.
. .
but, wouldn't the Nuke still generate several million degrees of thermal energy?
Wouldn't it tend to vaporize anything nearby, and melt things that are a little farther away, but still within like a mile or two?
Wouldn't it also release a massive amount of Neutron radiation?
(I'm not sure - could you effectively shield against that much neutron radiation?
I know that space craft have to have a certain level of shielding just to remain safe from 'normal' Solar radiation, but could you effectively shield against the radiation released from an H-Bomb?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481316</id>
	<title>Re:round round, I git around</title>
	<author>socz</author>
	<datestamp>1261054560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yah, like the "alien" U.F.O's (flying saucers)!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah , like the " alien " U.F.O 's ( flying saucers ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah, like the "alien" U.F.O's (flying saucers)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478664</id>
	<title>Re:Nukes in Space. . .</title>
	<author>bluecoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1261042920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>wrap the thing in polystyrene and depleted uranium rods

boom hypersonic kinetic energy penetrators, fuck yo armour</htmltext>
<tokenext>wrap the thing in polystyrene and depleted uranium rods boom hypersonic kinetic energy penetrators , fuck yo armour</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrap the thing in polystyrene and depleted uranium rods

boom hypersonic kinetic energy penetrators, fuck yo armour</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483150</id>
	<title>Re:Like evolution of the navy, but much further?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paint it black and chill it to 4K, yes. Also ban all maneuvering techniques emitting a plume of &gt;&gt; 4K gas/plasma/whatever.</p><p>Or, to put it more simply, forget about genuine stealth in space. The best you can do is hide behind planets, suns, and asteroid belts (if they are poorly mapped, such that unusual signatures aren't automatically be tracked and identified), and come out from behind them fast enough to have a devastating first-strike launched so it hits them \_before\_ they can react with a counterstrike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paint it black and chill it to 4K , yes .
Also ban all maneuvering techniques emitting a plume of &gt; &gt; 4K gas/plasma/whatever.Or , to put it more simply , forget about genuine stealth in space .
The best you can do is hide behind planets , suns , and asteroid belts ( if they are poorly mapped , such that unusual signatures are n't automatically be tracked and identified ) , and come out from behind them fast enough to have a devastating first-strike launched so it hits them \ _before \ _ they can react with a counterstrike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paint it black and chill it to 4K, yes.
Also ban all maneuvering techniques emitting a plume of &gt;&gt; 4K gas/plasma/whatever.Or, to put it more simply, forget about genuine stealth in space.
The best you can do is hide behind planets, suns, and asteroid belts (if they are poorly mapped, such that unusual signatures aren't automatically be tracked and identified), and come out from behind them fast enough to have a devastating first-strike launched so it hits them \_before\_ they can react with a counterstrike.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479364</id>
	<title>Absolutely devoid of tactical or strategic thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261045380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article - despite many correctly spelled words, it is absolutely devoid of strategic or tactical thought and shows evidence that the author has no combat planning experience - and I'll go out on a limb and say that there are so many artificial constraints that I very sincerely he ever read - or understood if he did - the Art of War.</p><p>You're a Mars Colonist.  You revolt.  OK - you're \_expecting\_ an attack.  You won't wait for anything orbital from Earth - you'll pre-position killer drones - a mine field if you will - beginning at the LaGrange point between Earth and Mars and in layers anticipating the attacking fleet.  Somewhere within the field - or to its edges - you'll arrange tracker-transmitters that will generate fake attack messages seemingly from Earth friendlies in an effort to steer the attackers into the mine field.</p><p>You're an Earth administrator and you're not idiot - your agents on Mars tells you that not only is the violent revolt coming, deep space assets are being prepared to thwart your approach.</p><p>You're a Mars propagandist - you shape public messages in order to inflame Earth, but one of your messages is seeming fuck-up, and you accidentally give away a secret regarding your strategic forces - but it's a plant to entrap Earth forces at a point besides the (kinda) mid-flight-point minefield - you're actually planning to outflank Earth.</p><p>You're a Mars agent - you seize an Earth civilian spaceliner and announce terrorist demands.  You're not Earth, so you're not evil, it's a complete distraction, so your partner agents already on Earth can try to mess up launch logistics for Earth forces while paying attention to the wrong crisis.</p><p>And after a mile of more text like this - you can have all the space opera that the author wanted.</p><p>Space is simply not Earth.</p><p>TFA reads to me like Mars is supposed be some kind of Fort Apache - and I don't buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article - despite many correctly spelled words , it is absolutely devoid of strategic or tactical thought and shows evidence that the author has no combat planning experience - and I 'll go out on a limb and say that there are so many artificial constraints that I very sincerely he ever read - or understood if he did - the Art of War.You 're a Mars Colonist .
You revolt .
OK - you 're \ _expecting \ _ an attack .
You wo n't wait for anything orbital from Earth - you 'll pre-position killer drones - a mine field if you will - beginning at the LaGrange point between Earth and Mars and in layers anticipating the attacking fleet .
Somewhere within the field - or to its edges - you 'll arrange tracker-transmitters that will generate fake attack messages seemingly from Earth friendlies in an effort to steer the attackers into the mine field.You 're an Earth administrator and you 're not idiot - your agents on Mars tells you that not only is the violent revolt coming , deep space assets are being prepared to thwart your approach.You 're a Mars propagandist - you shape public messages in order to inflame Earth , but one of your messages is seeming fuck-up , and you accidentally give away a secret regarding your strategic forces - but it 's a plant to entrap Earth forces at a point besides the ( kinda ) mid-flight-point minefield - you 're actually planning to outflank Earth.You 're a Mars agent - you seize an Earth civilian spaceliner and announce terrorist demands .
You 're not Earth , so you 're not evil , it 's a complete distraction , so your partner agents already on Earth can try to mess up launch logistics for Earth forces while paying attention to the wrong crisis.And after a mile of more text like this - you can have all the space opera that the author wanted.Space is simply not Earth.TFA reads to me like Mars is supposed be some kind of Fort Apache - and I do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article - despite many correctly spelled words, it is absolutely devoid of strategic or tactical thought and shows evidence that the author has no combat planning experience - and I'll go out on a limb and say that there are so many artificial constraints that I very sincerely he ever read - or understood if he did - the Art of War.You're a Mars Colonist.
You revolt.
OK - you're \_expecting\_ an attack.
You won't wait for anything orbital from Earth - you'll pre-position killer drones - a mine field if you will - beginning at the LaGrange point between Earth and Mars and in layers anticipating the attacking fleet.
Somewhere within the field - or to its edges - you'll arrange tracker-transmitters that will generate fake attack messages seemingly from Earth friendlies in an effort to steer the attackers into the mine field.You're an Earth administrator and you're not idiot - your agents on Mars tells you that not only is the violent revolt coming, deep space assets are being prepared to thwart your approach.You're a Mars propagandist - you shape public messages in order to inflame Earth, but one of your messages is seeming fuck-up, and you accidentally give away a secret regarding your strategic forces - but it's a plant to entrap Earth forces at a point besides the (kinda) mid-flight-point minefield - you're actually planning to outflank Earth.You're a Mars agent - you seize an Earth civilian spaceliner and announce terrorist demands.
You're not Earth, so you're not evil, it's a complete distraction, so your partner agents already on Earth can try to mess up launch logistics for Earth forces while paying attention to the wrong crisis.And after a mile of more text like this - you can have all the space opera that the author wanted.Space is simply not Earth.TFA reads to me like Mars is supposed be some kind of Fort Apache - and I don't buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30490004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30489844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30486442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30507986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30486598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30488852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30499584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30485184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30490212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1632207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30499584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480704
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30486598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30489844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30485184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30484648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30486442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479296
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481992
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481704
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479026
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480738
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30507986
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30488852
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30490212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30482600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30483792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30490004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30481074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30477850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30480646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30479194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1632207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1632207.30478404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
