<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_18_1428207</id>
	<title>Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261149360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The AAAS's ScienceInsider confidently reports that NASA is in line to receive $1 billion more next year. Reader coop0030 sends this quote: <i>"President Barack <a href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/exclusiveobama.html">Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher</a> to take humans to the Moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars... The president chose the new direction for the US human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency's fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AAAS 's ScienceInsider confidently reports that NASA is in line to receive $ 1 billion more next year .
Reader coop0030 sends this quote : " President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the Moon , asteroids , and the moons of Mars... The president chose the new direction for the US human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden , according to officials familiar with the discussion .
NASA would receive an additional $ 1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency 's fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AAAS's ScienceInsider confidently reports that NASA is in line to receive $1 billion more next year.
Reader coop0030 sends this quote: "President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the Moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars... The president chose the new direction for the US human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion.
NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency's fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487928</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't about science.</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1261154700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However IF the Jobs program does actually create a new Heavy Lift Vehicle, launch costs should go down.</p><p>This stretches your Science dollars further on all future space efforts, manned, unmanned, commercial sattellites, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However IF the Jobs program does actually create a new Heavy Lift Vehicle , launch costs should go down.This stretches your Science dollars further on all future space efforts , manned , unmanned , commercial sattellites , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However IF the Jobs program does actually create a new Heavy Lift Vehicle, launch costs should go down.This stretches your Science dollars further on all future space efforts, manned, unmanned, commercial sattellites, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30495938</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261149720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweet, we could finally get rid of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">Ron</a> [wsj.com] <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html" title="chron.com" rel="nofollow">Paul</a> [chron.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweet , we could finally get rid of Ron [ wsj.com ] Paul [ chron.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweet, we could finally get rid of Ron [wsj.com] Paul [chron.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488730</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1261158000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company. If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money. "<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
"Big news today was SpaceX winning the NASA CRS contract for an <i>initial</i> $1.6 billion, representing 12 flights to the International Space Station starting in 2010." - <a href="http://www.spacex.com/updates.php" title="spacex.com">http://www.spacex.com/updates.php</a> [spacex.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company .
If Musk wants to compete with the public sector , let him use his only money .
" .. . " Big news today was SpaceX winning the NASA CRS contract for an initial $ 1.6 billion , representing 12 flights to the International Space Station starting in 2010 .
" - http : //www.spacex.com/updates.php [ spacex.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company.
If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.
"  ...
"Big news today was SpaceX winning the NASA CRS contract for an initial $1.6 billion, representing 12 flights to the International Space Station starting in 2010.
" - http://www.spacex.com/updates.php [spacex.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30493174</id>
	<title>Why do we need a new design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261130880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did we lose the plans for the Saturn V?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did we lose the plans for the Saturn V ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did we lose the plans for the Saturn V?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489556</id>
	<title>Re:Simpler?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1261161120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep in mind that there are two rockets much further along than Ares I, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. And they're built by people who have experiment designing, building, and flying expendable launch vehicles. If we're going to do things that we "might as well do", then we might as well drop Ares I for these two vehicles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that there are two rockets much further along than Ares I , Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. And they 're built by people who have experiment designing , building , and flying expendable launch vehicles .
If we 're going to do things that we " might as well do " , then we might as well drop Ares I for these two vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that there are two rockets much further along than Ares I, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. And they're built by people who have experiment designing, building, and flying expendable launch vehicles.
If we're going to do things that we "might as well do", then we might as well drop Ares I for these two vehicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490652</id>
	<title>Re:Fiscal Responsibility</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1261164540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly right on.  In all acutality, we can't afford NASA at all, and should quit thinking of going into space for pure research.  Wx sattelites can be handled by private industry, or not.  GPS is the military's baliwick.  Communications - private industry.</p><p>The hard, cruel fact is that we DON'T have the money and are NOT GOING to have the money, ever again.  The country is in decline, as it has been for the last 50 years or so when textiles moved largely overseas, followed by consumer electronics, then big parts of our steel and auto industries, and now intellectual industries such as software.</p><p>Eventually it is \_all\_ going to be overseas save the (generally poor paying) service industry jobs, including the famously poor paying retail jobs with sucky hours to boot.  The country is going to be left with the only prosperity coming after 6 years or so in college and a masters degree.  Can't benefit from college, or can't afford it?  Tough - poverty-level salary for you.</p><p>And you can't tax someone with a poverty-level income, so the country isn't going to be able to afford these luxuries, such as NASA, either.  Face it, the US's time as the dominant economic and political force is over.   Barring a radical restructuring of, say, the tax system which has been the engine of our jobs offshoring all these years, an economic train wreck is virtually certain - unless we see it coming and voluntarily give up these obviously unaffordable things, such as space research.  We'll be lucky to have enough resources to defend ourselves successfully, actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly right on .
In all acutality , we ca n't afford NASA at all , and should quit thinking of going into space for pure research .
Wx sattelites can be handled by private industry , or not .
GPS is the military 's baliwick .
Communications - private industry.The hard , cruel fact is that we DO N'T have the money and are NOT GOING to have the money , ever again .
The country is in decline , as it has been for the last 50 years or so when textiles moved largely overseas , followed by consumer electronics , then big parts of our steel and auto industries , and now intellectual industries such as software.Eventually it is \ _all \ _ going to be overseas save the ( generally poor paying ) service industry jobs , including the famously poor paying retail jobs with sucky hours to boot .
The country is going to be left with the only prosperity coming after 6 years or so in college and a masters degree .
Ca n't benefit from college , or ca n't afford it ?
Tough - poverty-level salary for you.And you ca n't tax someone with a poverty-level income , so the country is n't going to be able to afford these luxuries , such as NASA , either .
Face it , the US 's time as the dominant economic and political force is over .
Barring a radical restructuring of , say , the tax system which has been the engine of our jobs offshoring all these years , an economic train wreck is virtually certain - unless we see it coming and voluntarily give up these obviously unaffordable things , such as space research .
We 'll be lucky to have enough resources to defend ourselves successfully , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly right on.
In all acutality, we can't afford NASA at all, and should quit thinking of going into space for pure research.
Wx sattelites can be handled by private industry, or not.
GPS is the military's baliwick.
Communications - private industry.The hard, cruel fact is that we DON'T have the money and are NOT GOING to have the money, ever again.
The country is in decline, as it has been for the last 50 years or so when textiles moved largely overseas, followed by consumer electronics, then big parts of our steel and auto industries, and now intellectual industries such as software.Eventually it is \_all\_ going to be overseas save the (generally poor paying) service industry jobs, including the famously poor paying retail jobs with sucky hours to boot.
The country is going to be left with the only prosperity coming after 6 years or so in college and a masters degree.
Can't benefit from college, or can't afford it?
Tough - poverty-level salary for you.And you can't tax someone with a poverty-level income, so the country isn't going to be able to afford these luxuries, such as NASA, either.
Face it, the US's time as the dominant economic and political force is over.
Barring a radical restructuring of, say, the tax system which has been the engine of our jobs offshoring all these years, an economic train wreck is virtually certain - unless we see it coming and voluntarily give up these obviously unaffordable things, such as space research.
We'll be lucky to have enough resources to defend ourselves successfully, actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488566</id>
	<title>Re:Is this not Bush's plan?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1261157340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends whether the Ares I sticks around or not. Given the administration's well known allergy to uttering the word "Ares" and given the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/24095929/Augustine-Scanned-Letter" title="scribd.com">recent outburst</a> [scribd.com] by a distraught senator from Alabama (his name rhymes with "Shelby") who happens to be a huge Ares booster, I'd say that Ares I is going out the door never to return. That's not part of the Bush plan.<br> <br>

Also keep in mind that while I don't think they've yet slid the schedule back for the Ares V, it's unlikely, with the delays to the Ares I, to fly in 2018.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends whether the Ares I sticks around or not .
Given the administration 's well known allergy to uttering the word " Ares " and given the recent outburst [ scribd.com ] by a distraught senator from Alabama ( his name rhymes with " Shelby " ) who happens to be a huge Ares booster , I 'd say that Ares I is going out the door never to return .
That 's not part of the Bush plan .
Also keep in mind that while I do n't think they 've yet slid the schedule back for the Ares V , it 's unlikely , with the delays to the Ares I , to fly in 2018 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends whether the Ares I sticks around or not.
Given the administration's well known allergy to uttering the word "Ares" and given the recent outburst [scribd.com] by a distraught senator from Alabama (his name rhymes with "Shelby") who happens to be a huge Ares booster, I'd say that Ares I is going out the door never to return.
That's not part of the Bush plan.
Also keep in mind that while I don't think they've yet slid the schedule back for the Ares V, it's unlikely, with the delays to the Ares I, to fly in 2018.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496734</id>
	<title>Re:DIRECT</title>
	<author>Burdell</author>
	<datestamp>1261160820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DIRECT proponents only seem to take into account development costs, not ongoing flight costs.  The SSME is one of (if not the most) expensive engine ever built, and DIRECT proposes to use four of them to launch and then let them burn up on re-entry (no re-use).  The J-2X is a much cheaper engine, and Ares I only uses one, so the per-flight hardware costs are much lower.</p><p>If you build an expensive vehicle, you aren't going to get to fly many of them before the budget is cut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DIRECT proponents only seem to take into account development costs , not ongoing flight costs .
The SSME is one of ( if not the most ) expensive engine ever built , and DIRECT proposes to use four of them to launch and then let them burn up on re-entry ( no re-use ) .
The J-2X is a much cheaper engine , and Ares I only uses one , so the per-flight hardware costs are much lower.If you build an expensive vehicle , you are n't going to get to fly many of them before the budget is cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DIRECT proponents only seem to take into account development costs, not ongoing flight costs.
The SSME is one of (if not the most) expensive engine ever built, and DIRECT proposes to use four of them to launch and then let them burn up on re-entry (no re-use).
The J-2X is a much cheaper engine, and Ares I only uses one, so the per-flight hardware costs are much lower.If you build an expensive vehicle, you aren't going to get to fly many of them before the budget is cut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487824</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throw in the POTUS and the SCOTUS (just 10 more people) and you've got a deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throw in the POTUS and the SCOTUS ( just 10 more people ) and you 've got a deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throw in the POTUS and the SCOTUS (just 10 more people) and you've got a deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489492</id>
	<title>Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261160880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The plan WAS for NASA to get out of the way.  They were supposed to use Orion to provide access to the ISS only until the commercial folks like Space-X were ready to take over.  Now it's looking like Space-X will be ready before Orion.<br> <br>
Oh, and we DO need a HLV if we ever want to get to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, even if it is just probes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plan WAS for NASA to get out of the way .
They were supposed to use Orion to provide access to the ISS only until the commercial folks like Space-X were ready to take over .
Now it 's looking like Space-X will be ready before Orion .
Oh , and we DO need a HLV if we ever want to get to the Moon , Mars , and beyond , even if it is just probes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plan WAS for NASA to get out of the way.
They were supposed to use Orion to provide access to the ISS only until the commercial folks like Space-X were ready to take over.
Now it's looking like Space-X will be ready before Orion.
Oh, and we DO need a HLV if we ever want to get to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, even if it is just probes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488168</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a minute! 1/15th of TRILLIONS of dollars is A LOT of money! Gotta start somewhere, right? Also, that 1/15th is currently a COMPLETE WASTE and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY and will result in even more money needed for the after affects such as PTSD and other medical necessities that our troops deserve for their sacrifices. (yes, run-on sentence but you get the point)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute !
1/15th of TRILLIONS of dollars is A LOT of money !
Got ta start somewhere , right ?
Also , that 1/15th is currently a COMPLETE WASTE and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY and will result in even more money needed for the after affects such as PTSD and other medical necessities that our troops deserve for their sacrifices .
( yes , run-on sentence but you get the point )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute!
1/15th of TRILLIONS of dollars is A LOT of money!
Gotta start somewhere, right?
Also, that 1/15th is currently a COMPLETE WASTE and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY and will result in even more money needed for the after affects such as PTSD and other medical necessities that our troops deserve for their sacrifices.
(yes, run-on sentence but you get the point)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489862</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1261162020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company. If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.</i></p><p>So... you doubt that the government would pay a contract for a private firm to develop an aerospace vehicle?</p><p>I gotta say that seems to be on pretty shaky ground.  Most of the time aerospace firms are given contracts to develop vehicles, as in the funds to develop the vehicle is coming from the contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company .
If Musk wants to compete with the public sector , let him use his only money.So... you doubt that the government would pay a contract for a private firm to develop an aerospace vehicle ? I got ta say that seems to be on pretty shaky ground .
Most of the time aerospace firms are given contracts to develop vehicles , as in the funds to develop the vehicle is coming from the contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company.
If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.So... you doubt that the government would pay a contract for a private firm to develop an aerospace vehicle?I gotta say that seems to be on pretty shaky ground.
Most of the time aerospace firms are given contracts to develop vehicles, as in the funds to develop the vehicle is coming from the contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194</id>
	<title>LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, in case you hadn't have noticed, more than 1/2 of the current national debt was from our President Bush and our Republican Party.  That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me, when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.</p><p>Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting.  Here's a hint.  If you want to jack up federal spending to support two wars and doubling the defense budget, then taxes have to go up to pay for it.  Choke on that with our 500B annual interest payment current administrations have to pay now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , in case you had n't have noticed , more than 1/2 of the current national debt was from our President Bush and our Republican Party .
That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me , when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting .
Here 's a hint .
If you want to jack up federal spending to support two wars and doubling the defense budget , then taxes have to go up to pay for it .
Choke on that with our 500B annual interest payment current administrations have to pay now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, in case you hadn't have noticed, more than 1/2 of the current national debt was from our President Bush and our Republican Party.
That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me, when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting.
Here's a hint.
If you want to jack up federal spending to support two wars and doubling the defense budget, then taxes have to go up to pay for it.
Choke on that with our 500B annual interest payment current administrations have to pay now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490338</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1261163460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Saturn was a fine vehicle, but bringing it back isn't the answer. Too many of the parts and materials are no longer available for one. For another, that would be throwing the things we learned (good and bad) from the Saturn and the Shuttle as well as many advances in materials away. In theory, we could start with a Saturn and make all of the changes suggested by new knowledge and new materials, but the result would really be so different that we might as well start from scratch anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Saturn was a fine vehicle , but bringing it back is n't the answer .
Too many of the parts and materials are no longer available for one .
For another , that would be throwing the things we learned ( good and bad ) from the Saturn and the Shuttle as well as many advances in materials away .
In theory , we could start with a Saturn and make all of the changes suggested by new knowledge and new materials , but the result would really be so different that we might as well start from scratch anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Saturn was a fine vehicle, but bringing it back isn't the answer.
Too many of the parts and materials are no longer available for one.
For another, that would be throwing the things we learned (good and bad) from the Saturn and the Shuttle as well as many advances in materials away.
In theory, we could start with a Saturn and make all of the changes suggested by new knowledge and new materials, but the result would really be so different that we might as well start from scratch anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489072</id>
	<title>Re:Simpler?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1261159320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incidentally, that sig article is hilarious. Was it written for SNL?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incidentally , that sig article is hilarious .
Was it written for SNL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incidentally, that sig article is hilarious.
Was it written for SNL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489244</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261159980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better yet, just fucking machine gun them; and all the other politicians in parliaments, Bundestags, and similarly identified houses of ill-repute; into marmalade.</p><p>Oh yeah; include the top thousand richest people in the world plus the top thousand "most scummy" as voted by the world population.</p><p>Not a lot of marmalade, but oh! what a blessing 'twould be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , just fucking machine gun them ; and all the other politicians in parliaments , Bundestags , and similarly identified houses of ill-repute ; into marmalade.Oh yeah ; include the top thousand richest people in the world plus the top thousand " most scummy " as voted by the world population.Not a lot of marmalade , but oh !
what a blessing 'twould be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, just fucking machine gun them; and all the other politicians in parliaments, Bundestags, and similarly identified houses of ill-repute; into marmalade.Oh yeah; include the top thousand richest people in the world plus the top thousand "most scummy" as voted by the world population.Not a lot of marmalade, but oh!
what a blessing 'twould be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488170</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1261155780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well SpaceX already has NASA contracts worth up to $1 Billion so your 'doubt' doesn't really matter. They also have contracts with the Air force for more governmnet money.</p><p>If Obama were shifting Constellation's focus from Area I to Ares V I don't think there weould be quite so much fighting in Congress, but again any HLV is a win.</p><p>As far as commercial companies taking over ISS resupply, that's old news from SpaceX wiki page;<br>"On Friday 18 August 2006, NASA announced that the company was one of two selected to provide crew and cargo resupply demonstration contracts to the International Space Station (ISS) under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program."</p><p>How that specifically equates to space tourism, well the Dragon module (from SpaceX) when complete and man-rated will carry 7 people to the ISS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well SpaceX already has NASA contracts worth up to $ 1 Billion so your 'doubt ' does n't really matter .
They also have contracts with the Air force for more governmnet money.If Obama were shifting Constellation 's focus from Area I to Ares V I do n't think there weould be quite so much fighting in Congress , but again any HLV is a win.As far as commercial companies taking over ISS resupply , that 's old news from SpaceX wiki page ; " On Friday 18 August 2006 , NASA announced that the company was one of two selected to provide crew and cargo resupply demonstration contracts to the International Space Station ( ISS ) under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services ( COTS ) program .
" How that specifically equates to space tourism , well the Dragon module ( from SpaceX ) when complete and man-rated will carry 7 people to the ISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well SpaceX already has NASA contracts worth up to $1 Billion so your 'doubt' doesn't really matter.
They also have contracts with the Air force for more governmnet money.If Obama were shifting Constellation's focus from Area I to Ares V I don't think there weould be quite so much fighting in Congress, but again any HLV is a win.As far as commercial companies taking over ISS resupply, that's old news from SpaceX wiki page;"On Friday 18 August 2006, NASA announced that the company was one of two selected to provide crew and cargo resupply demonstration contracts to the International Space Station (ISS) under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.
"How that specifically equates to space tourism, well the Dragon module (from SpaceX) when complete and man-rated will carry 7 people to the ISS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487566</id>
	<title>Politics</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1261153440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>President Obama asked Congress to fix our health care system, too.  Look how well that's working out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>President Obama asked Congress to fix our health care system , too .
Look how well that 's working out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>President Obama asked Congress to fix our health care system, too.
Look how well that's working out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487926</id>
	<title>NASA should consider Outsourcing and Offshoring</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1261154640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could probably get these items built much more inexpensively in China. In fact we should probably just outsource our science, engineering, and manufacturing of space exploration to China. We might use our own people for Astronauts though. It's all about making sure we're focused on the "true value add" that we have for Space Exploration as a marketplace. We can leverage the synergies of other nations to help us keep our energies focused on our "Core Business Objectives." Our core business in exploring space should be the <i>exploring</i> part. The whole "science" and "engineering" and all that useless "knowledge" stuff is best done by the people who are deeply specialized in those things... and they ain't us.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/suit-speak</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could probably get these items built much more inexpensively in China .
In fact we should probably just outsource our science , engineering , and manufacturing of space exploration to China .
We might use our own people for Astronauts though .
It 's all about making sure we 're focused on the " true value add " that we have for Space Exploration as a marketplace .
We can leverage the synergies of other nations to help us keep our energies focused on our " Core Business Objectives .
" Our core business in exploring space should be the exploring part .
The whole " science " and " engineering " and all that useless " knowledge " stuff is best done by the people who are deeply specialized in those things... and they ai n't us .
/suit-speak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could probably get these items built much more inexpensively in China.
In fact we should probably just outsource our science, engineering, and manufacturing of space exploration to China.
We might use our own people for Astronauts though.
It's all about making sure we're focused on the "true value add" that we have for Space Exploration as a marketplace.
We can leverage the synergies of other nations to help us keep our energies focused on our "Core Business Objectives.
" Our core business in exploring space should be the exploring part.
The whole "science" and "engineering" and all that useless "knowledge" stuff is best done by the people who are deeply specialized in those things... and they ain't us.
/suit-speak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30500810</id>
	<title>Re:STILL No replacement repair vehicle planned?</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261221300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DIRECT has a plan for a <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2383196619/" title="flickr.com">Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module</a> [flickr.com], a frame that fits inside the payload fairing of a Jupiter rocket, and provides all the mount points found inside the Shuttle's payload bay.  It can have airlock, the Canadarm, the whole nine.  About the only thing it can't do is provide a way to bring cargo back to the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DIRECT has a plan for a Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module [ flickr.com ] , a frame that fits inside the payload fairing of a Jupiter rocket , and provides all the mount points found inside the Shuttle 's payload bay .
It can have airlock , the Canadarm , the whole nine .
About the only thing it ca n't do is provide a way to bring cargo back to the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DIRECT has a plan for a Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module [flickr.com], a frame that fits inside the payload fairing of a Jupiter rocket, and provides all the mount points found inside the Shuttle's payload bay.
It can have airlock, the Canadarm, the whole nine.
About the only thing it can't do is provide a way to bring cargo back to the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660</id>
	<title>Saturn V</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261153740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dig out the blueprints, put them into a CAD/CAM program, and modernize it, and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle
soon.  NASA really screwed itself when they dropped the SATURN launch vehicle, in favor of the wasteful shuttle.
Now, most all of the smart guys that developed the SATURN V, are gone, but the plans remain somewhere.
They could tweak the F-1 rocket engine and have a heavy launch vehicle quickly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dig out the blueprints , put them into a CAD/CAM program , and modernize it , and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle soon .
NASA really screwed itself when they dropped the SATURN launch vehicle , in favor of the wasteful shuttle .
Now , most all of the smart guys that developed the SATURN V , are gone , but the plans remain somewhere .
They could tweak the F-1 rocket engine and have a heavy launch vehicle quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dig out the blueprints, put them into a CAD/CAM program, and modernize it, and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle
soon.
NASA really screwed itself when they dropped the SATURN launch vehicle, in favor of the wasteful shuttle.
Now, most all of the smart guys that developed the SATURN V, are gone, but the plans remain somewhere.
They could tweak the F-1 rocket engine and have a heavy launch vehicle quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488340</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261156440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After the first sentence, I thought you were agreeing with him. 1/15th is not at all insignificant, it's over 6\%. When you're talking about the entire federal budget, having any one thing take up a full 15th of the resources is pretty serious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After the first sentence , I thought you were agreeing with him .
1/15th is not at all insignificant , it 's over 6 \ % .
When you 're talking about the entire federal budget , having any one thing take up a full 15th of the resources is pretty serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the first sentence, I thought you were agreeing with him.
1/15th is not at all insignificant, it's over 6\%.
When you're talking about the entire federal budget, having any one thing take up a full 15th of the resources is pretty serious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489000</id>
	<title>Great news!</title>
	<author>modi123</author>
	<datestamp>1261159080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have always wanted to work for NASA and the space sector.  This gives me renewed hope to start looking into it again!  I just gotta keep my conversions between standard US measurements and the evil Metric system right!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always wanted to work for NASA and the space sector .
This gives me renewed hope to start looking into it again !
I just got ta keep my conversions between standard US measurements and the evil Metric system right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always wanted to work for NASA and the space sector.
This gives me renewed hope to start looking into it again!
I just gotta keep my conversions between standard US measurements and the evil Metric system right!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30495538</id>
	<title>Re:DIRECT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://www.directlauncher.com/" title="directlauncher.com">This</a> [directlauncher.com] makes a lot more sense. Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top. There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.</p></div></blockquote><p>Paper vehicles are always cheap, simple, and will be delivered on schedule and within budget.  Real world vehicles, especially those for which the tankage and structure are virtually entirely new (like the vehicle you link to) are a rather different kettle of fish.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease. In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Assuming it behaves like a fantasy vehicle, where it's own weight never increases and payload and performance never decreases...  sure.  But I rather suspect if it ever becomes real, it will be like any other real launcher, and it's performance will be rather less than the original specs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ directlauncher.com ] makes a lot more sense .
Take the basic shuttle launch system , remove the orbiter , stick the engines on the bottom , put the Orion module on the top .
There would be no costly engine development , as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.Paper vehicles are always cheap , simple , and will be delivered on schedule and within budget .
Real world vehicles , especially those for which the tankage and structure are virtually entirely new ( like the vehicle you link to ) are a rather different kettle of fish .
  The J-130 ( as its called ) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease .
In fact , it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions , but the full featured Orions.Assuming it behaves like a fantasy vehicle , where it 's own weight never increases and payload and performance never decreases... sure. But I rather suspect if it ever becomes real , it will be like any other real launcher , and it 's performance will be rather less than the original specs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This [directlauncher.com] makes a lot more sense.
Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top.
There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.Paper vehicles are always cheap, simple, and will be delivered on schedule and within budget.
Real world vehicles, especially those for which the tankage and structure are virtually entirely new (like the vehicle you link to) are a rather different kettle of fish.
  The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease.
In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions.Assuming it behaves like a fantasy vehicle, where it's own weight never increases and payload and performance never decreases...  sure.  But I rather suspect if it ever becomes real, it will be like any other real launcher, and it's performance will be rather less than the original specs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491054</id>
	<title>Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.</title>
	<author>Coren22</author>
	<datestamp>1261166040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean president Bush and the Democrat congress?  Put the blame where it belong, it wasn't the Repubs that passed the spending bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean president Bush and the Democrat congress ?
Put the blame where it belong , it was n't the Repubs that passed the spending bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean president Bush and the Democrat congress?
Put the blame where it belong, it wasn't the Repubs that passed the spending bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487618</id>
	<title>This isn't about science.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261153620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,&rdquo; said one source in the White House, which hopes to ease congressional concerns about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace jobs.</p></div><p>This is about jobs; not science. Which means, science will take a back seat - shit will be built for the sake of creating the most jobs regardless of the scientific merits and it means that if a scientifically justified project creates less jobs or no jobs, it will be placed behind a project that creates more jobs.</p><p>Folks, this is how Government distorts markets and science. Then when either doesn't live up to its promises, Government passes the buck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   The decision is not going to make anyone gasp ,    said one source in the White House , which hopes to ease congressional concerns about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace jobs.This is about jobs ; not science .
Which means , science will take a back seat - shit will be built for the sake of creating the most jobs regardless of the scientific merits and it means that if a scientifically justified project creates less jobs or no jobs , it will be placed behind a project that creates more jobs.Folks , this is how Government distorts markets and science .
Then when either does n't live up to its promises , Government passes the buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House, which hopes to ease congressional concerns about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace jobs.This is about jobs; not science.
Which means, science will take a back seat - shit will be built for the sake of creating the most jobs regardless of the scientific merits and it means that if a scientifically justified project creates less jobs or no jobs, it will be placed behind a project that creates more jobs.Folks, this is how Government distorts markets and science.
Then when either doesn't live up to its promises, Government passes the buck.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486</id>
	<title>Hopefully</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1261153080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress. One way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress .
One way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress.
One way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491184</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261166520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rofl</p><p>"War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says"</p><p>I say it costs four dollars a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rofl " War Costing $ 720 Million Each Day , Group Says " I say it costs four dollars a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rofl"War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says"I say it costs four dollars a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487542</id>
	<title>Cool.</title>
	<author>captaindomon</author>
	<datestamp>1261153320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491116</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261166220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not insightful. There is nothing practical or actionable here; Wondering where the money will come from is a valid concern and completely separate from anything to do with the wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not insightful .
There is nothing practical or actionable here ; Wondering where the money will come from is a valid concern and completely separate from anything to do with the wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not insightful.
There is nothing practical or actionable here; Wondering where the money will come from is a valid concern and completely separate from anything to do with the wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487948</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen too many web ads</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1261154820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the government by cult of personality. Like Kim Jung Ill, Stalin, Castro, and Mao you can't go anywhere in your country without your "benevolent dictator" looking down on his loving children.</p><p>Those "Teabaggers" have it right.</p><p><b>Obama Backs New Launcher</b><br>Get your bigger budget now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the government by cult of personality .
Like Kim Jung Ill , Stalin , Castro , and Mao you ca n't go anywhere in your country without your " benevolent dictator " looking down on his loving children.Those " Teabaggers " have it right.Obama Backs New LauncherGet your bigger budget now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the government by cult of personality.
Like Kim Jung Ill, Stalin, Castro, and Mao you can't go anywhere in your country without your "benevolent dictator" looking down on his loving children.Those "Teabaggers" have it right.Obama Backs New LauncherGet your bigger budget now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490336</id>
	<title>It's not even 0.5\% of the military budget...</title>
	<author>jr76</author>
	<datestamp>1261163460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, FINALLY spending more money on something that can contribute to humanity, not war.

Has anyone ever done the calculations if the US had spent even 1\% of their military budget on NASA?  We'd have bases on Titan by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , FINALLY spending more money on something that can contribute to humanity , not war .
Has anyone ever done the calculations if the US had spent even 1 \ % of their military budget on NASA ?
We 'd have bases on Titan by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, FINALLY spending more money on something that can contribute to humanity, not war.
Has anyone ever done the calculations if the US had spent even 1\% of their military budget on NASA?
We'd have bases on Titan by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564</id>
	<title>MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>spiffydudex</author>
	<datestamp>1261153380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this funding is going to come from where?! More and more printing of money is just going to create a massive hole that will utterly ruin and destroy the US Dollar. I for one did not vote for this President his "Change" was never specified in his campaign. Well, here it is. McCain may have not been my ideal choice, but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office. Hell, just 2 days ago Obama signed $1.1 trillion more in spending, on a whim. WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this funding is going to come from where ? !
More and more printing of money is just going to create a massive hole that will utterly ruin and destroy the US Dollar .
I for one did not vote for this President his " Change " was never specified in his campaign .
Well , here it is .
McCain may have not been my ideal choice , but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office .
Hell , just 2 days ago Obama signed $ 1.1 trillion more in spending , on a whim .
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this funding is going to come from where?!
More and more printing of money is just going to create a massive hole that will utterly ruin and destroy the US Dollar.
I for one did not vote for this President his "Change" was never specified in his campaign.
Well, here it is.
McCain may have not been my ideal choice, but at least I knew exactly what he was going to do before he got into office.
Hell, just 2 days ago Obama signed $1.1 trillion more in spending, on a whim.
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488878</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1261158600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah I was a bit intrigued by this myself. The entire article discusses a new heavy lift vehicle, but has absolutely no specifications or details. Is it liquid, solid, or hybrid? Will it be developed in-house by NASA or contracted out? What exactly do they mean by 'simpler?'
<br> <br>
I checked <a href="http://www.spaceflightnow.com/" title="spaceflightnow.com">Spaceflightnow,</a> [spaceflightnow.com] <a href="http://www.spacefellowship.com/" title="spacefellowship.com">SpaceFellowship, </a> [spacefellowship.com] and <a href="http://www.parabolicarc.com/" title="parabolicarc.com">ParabolicArc</a> [parabolicarc.com] and couldn't find anything but a parent of the original ScienceInsider article. Google doesn't reveal a whole lot at cursory glance either. Hell I don't even see anything on NASA's own website. If anyone digs up some particulars, please post some links, I would be very interested in seeing them.
<br> <br>
Also, offtopic, but for those who say Slashdot is behind the news release cycle and doesn't post breaking news, considering it just posted a story that 4 other space news websites haven't picked up yet, I'd say you've just been proven wrong =P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I was a bit intrigued by this myself .
The entire article discusses a new heavy lift vehicle , but has absolutely no specifications or details .
Is it liquid , solid , or hybrid ?
Will it be developed in-house by NASA or contracted out ?
What exactly do they mean by 'simpler ?
' I checked Spaceflightnow , [ spaceflightnow.com ] SpaceFellowship , [ spacefellowship.com ] and ParabolicArc [ parabolicarc.com ] and could n't find anything but a parent of the original ScienceInsider article .
Google does n't reveal a whole lot at cursory glance either .
Hell I do n't even see anything on NASA 's own website .
If anyone digs up some particulars , please post some links , I would be very interested in seeing them .
Also , offtopic , but for those who say Slashdot is behind the news release cycle and does n't post breaking news , considering it just posted a story that 4 other space news websites have n't picked up yet , I 'd say you 've just been proven wrong = P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I was a bit intrigued by this myself.
The entire article discusses a new heavy lift vehicle, but has absolutely no specifications or details.
Is it liquid, solid, or hybrid?
Will it be developed in-house by NASA or contracted out?
What exactly do they mean by 'simpler?
'
 
I checked Spaceflightnow, [spaceflightnow.com] SpaceFellowship,  [spacefellowship.com] and ParabolicArc [parabolicarc.com] and couldn't find anything but a parent of the original ScienceInsider article.
Google doesn't reveal a whole lot at cursory glance either.
Hell I don't even see anything on NASA's own website.
If anyone digs up some particulars, please post some links, I would be very interested in seeing them.
Also, offtopic, but for those who say Slashdot is behind the news release cycle and doesn't post breaking news, considering it just posted a story that 4 other space news websites haven't picked up yet, I'd say you've just been proven wrong =P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488272</id>
	<title>J2-X?</title>
	<author>aapold</author>
	<datestamp>1261156140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this new one going to use the same <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2\_(rocket\_engine)" title="wikipedia.org">J2-X engine?</a> [wikipedia.org]  Only two years ago NASA awarded a $1.2 billion contract to P&amp;W to develop this engine.  It performed fine in all tests so far, and was scheduled for another test in 2010...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this new one going to use the same J2-X engine ?
[ wikipedia.org ] Only two years ago NASA awarded a $ 1.2 billion contract to P&amp;W to develop this engine .
It performed fine in all tests so far , and was scheduled for another test in 2010.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this new one going to use the same J2-X engine?
[wikipedia.org]  Only two years ago NASA awarded a $1.2 billion contract to P&amp;W to develop this engine.
It performed fine in all tests so far, and was scheduled for another test in 2010...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489776</id>
	<title>Re:BOOOOO!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1261161720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>D*mn it. The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way.</i></p><p>Umm, out of the way of what, exactly?  Or are you aware of some as-yet-unannounced private sector effort to build a heavy lift rocket?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D * mn it .
The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way.Umm , out of the way of what , exactly ?
Or are you aware of some as-yet-unannounced private sector effort to build a heavy lift rocket ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D*mn it.
The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way.Umm, out of the way of what, exactly?
Or are you aware of some as-yet-unannounced private sector effort to build a heavy lift rocket?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487704</id>
	<title>Smaller budgets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261153920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has Obama supported anything with a smaller budget?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Obama supported anything with a smaller budget ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Obama supported anything with a smaller budget?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30492070</id>
	<title>Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261169880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not the President, its congress.  The President proposes a budget.  Congress writes a budget and the President can either sign, veto, or let pass by inaction said budget.  All the pork and other bs that makes its way into the budget is the fault of congress.  Thats why Presidents have asked for a line item veto, so they can axe some of the bs riders that make their way into spending bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not the President , its congress .
The President proposes a budget .
Congress writes a budget and the President can either sign , veto , or let pass by inaction said budget .
All the pork and other bs that makes its way into the budget is the fault of congress .
Thats why Presidents have asked for a line item veto , so they can axe some of the bs riders that make their way into spending bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not the President, its congress.
The President proposes a budget.
Congress writes a budget and the President can either sign, veto, or let pass by inaction said budget.
All the pork and other bs that makes its way into the budget is the fault of congress.
Thats why Presidents have asked for a line item veto, so they can axe some of the bs riders that make their way into spending bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489986</id>
	<title>The plan makes no sense</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1261162380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  But that's the plan.  They are pretending like this is a good idea.  It pretty much sucks all the way around.  It locks the US into an architecture where per-flight costs for people in orbit are much higher than Ares I.  It reduces per-flight lift capacity substantially, which will lead to much larger numbers of flights required to do anything interesting, such a a flight to Mars.  That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except for the high per-flight cost.  This plan is a desperate attempt to solve a short term budget problem, by locking us into long term budget constraints.  It's worse than doing nothing (e.g. worse than canceling manned spaceflight) because we won't be able to fix the architecture for another 25 years.  It's really, really bad news for manned spaceflight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
But that 's the plan .
They are pretending like this is a good idea .
It pretty much sucks all the way around .
It locks the US into an architecture where per-flight costs for people in orbit are much higher than Ares I. It reduces per-flight lift capacity substantially , which will lead to much larger numbers of flights required to do anything interesting , such a a flight to Mars .
That would n't necessarily be a problem , except for the high per-flight cost .
This plan is a desperate attempt to solve a short term budget problem , by locking us into long term budget constraints .
It 's worse than doing nothing ( e.g .
worse than canceling manned spaceflight ) because we wo n't be able to fix the architecture for another 25 years .
It 's really , really bad news for manned spaceflight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
But that's the plan.
They are pretending like this is a good idea.
It pretty much sucks all the way around.
It locks the US into an architecture where per-flight costs for people in orbit are much higher than Ares I.  It reduces per-flight lift capacity substantially, which will lead to much larger numbers of flights required to do anything interesting, such a a flight to Mars.
That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except for the high per-flight cost.
This plan is a desperate attempt to solve a short term budget problem, by locking us into long term budget constraints.
It's worse than doing nothing (e.g.
worse than canceling manned spaceflight) because we won't be able to fix the architecture for another 25 years.
It's really, really bad news for manned spaceflight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30500270</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261213440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares what mcgrew says?  He's a senile, shallow, self-involved old coot who thinks he's an expert on any topic you care to name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what mcgrew says ?
He 's a senile , shallow , self-involved old coot who thinks he 's an expert on any topic you care to name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what mcgrew says?
He's a senile, shallow, self-involved old coot who thinks he's an expert on any topic you care to name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261153860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All this funding is going to come from where?!</i></p><p>I don't know, they could stop the Iraq war for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow"> a day and a half.</a> [washingtonpost.com] Get your priorities straight. If you're worried about the Federal budget, don't get in the way of progress and science, just stop the senseless war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this funding is going to come from where ?
! I do n't know , they could stop the Iraq war for a day and a half .
[ washingtonpost.com ] Get your priorities straight .
If you 're worried about the Federal budget , do n't get in the way of progress and science , just stop the senseless war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this funding is going to come from where?
!I don't know, they could stop the Iraq war for  a day and a half.
[washingtonpost.com] Get your priorities straight.
If you're worried about the Federal budget, don't get in the way of progress and science, just stop the senseless war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489766</id>
	<title>lesser of 2 evils</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1261161660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>unfortunately it will require deficit spending, but Moon-shot programs <b>will create good, profitable jobs</b>, and promote higher education standards. And that's compared to healthcare [of people who did take care of themselves in the 1st place] which likely promotes education at the lowest common denominator due to the corporations/gov'ts thrist for easy money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>unfortunately it will require deficit spending , but Moon-shot programs will create good , profitable jobs , and promote higher education standards .
And that 's compared to healthcare [ of people who did take care of themselves in the 1st place ] which likely promotes education at the lowest common denominator due to the corporations/gov'ts thrist for easy money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unfortunately it will require deficit spending, but Moon-shot programs will create good, profitable jobs, and promote higher education standards.
And that's compared to healthcare [of people who did take care of themselves in the 1st place] which likely promotes education at the lowest common denominator due to the corporations/gov'ts thrist for easy money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488992</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1261159020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Double Response, Sorry, but some more digging revealed <a href="http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=602:obama-wants-new-heavy-lift-launcher-but-not-ares-i-or-v-says-scienceinsider&amp;catid=67:news&amp;Itemid=27" title="spacepolicyonline.com">this discussion of ScienceInsider's story</a> [spacepolicyonline.com] where it is asserted that:<p><div class="quote"><p>a new heavy lift launch vehicle would be built "to take astronauts to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars"  but it would not be Ares V:  "the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018";</p></div><p>
So I guess the Ares V is not the new HLV, in case anyone was speculating that was the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Double Response , Sorry , but some more digging revealed this discussion of ScienceInsider 's story [ spacepolicyonline.com ] where it is asserted that : a new heavy lift launch vehicle would be built " to take astronauts to the moon , asteroids , and the moons of Mars " but it would not be Ares V : " the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018 " ; So I guess the Ares V is not the new HLV , in case anyone was speculating that was the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Double Response, Sorry, but some more digging revealed this discussion of ScienceInsider's story [spacepolicyonline.com] where it is asserted that:a new heavy lift launch vehicle would be built "to take astronauts to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars"  but it would not be Ares V:  "the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018";
So I guess the Ares V is not the new HLV, in case anyone was speculating that was the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487760</id>
	<title>Is this not Bush's plan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe O is taking credit for Bush's plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe O is taking credit for Bush 's plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe O is taking credit for Bush's plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490942</id>
	<title>STILL No replacement repair vehicle planned?</title>
	<author>jr76</author>
	<datestamp>1261165620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello, I do know most people seem to forget about this, but one thing the ARES/Orion programs make no plans for is to have REPAIR abilities available for space.  While the Shuttle was far from perfect, it has been the best space repair vehicle created, and when it is retired, there will be nothing else out there to fix extraordinarily expensive satellites.  I know people talk about "saving money", but do you know how expensive it would be to have launched four replacement Hubble Telescopes?  Or, countless other devices they've spent days and months repairing in space?  Someone SERIOUSLY has to make this an issue for NASA...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , I do know most people seem to forget about this , but one thing the ARES/Orion programs make no plans for is to have REPAIR abilities available for space .
While the Shuttle was far from perfect , it has been the best space repair vehicle created , and when it is retired , there will be nothing else out there to fix extraordinarily expensive satellites .
I know people talk about " saving money " , but do you know how expensive it would be to have launched four replacement Hubble Telescopes ?
Or , countless other devices they 've spent days and months repairing in space ?
Someone SERIOUSLY has to make this an issue for NASA.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, I do know most people seem to forget about this, but one thing the ARES/Orion programs make no plans for is to have REPAIR abilities available for space.
While the Shuttle was far from perfect, it has been the best space repair vehicle created, and when it is retired, there will be nothing else out there to fix extraordinarily expensive satellites.
I know people talk about "saving money", but do you know how expensive it would be to have launched four replacement Hubble Telescopes?
Or, countless other devices they've spent days and months repairing in space?
Someone SERIOUSLY has to make this an issue for NASA...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488132</id>
	<title>Phobos and Deimos</title>
	<author>TimeElf1</author>
	<datestamp>1261155600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are we sure we want to go there? Last thing I need is some demons showing up on my doorstep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we sure we want to go there ?
Last thing I need is some demons showing up on my doorstep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we sure we want to go there?
Last thing I need is some demons showing up on my doorstep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489804</id>
	<title>TFA is wrong, it won't be Ares V</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1261161780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go look at the materials from the Augustine Commission.  It makes not sense, and it wasn't a presented option to the Obama administration, to build Ares V if the Ares I is getting cancelled (they both use the same 5-segment SRB).  What's gonna get built might be *called* the Ares V, to keep the taxpayers confused, but it will be much smaller, with much less lift capability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go look at the materials from the Augustine Commission .
It makes not sense , and it was n't a presented option to the Obama administration , to build Ares V if the Ares I is getting cancelled ( they both use the same 5-segment SRB ) .
What 's gon na get built might be * called * the Ares V , to keep the taxpayers confused , but it will be much smaller , with much less lift capability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go look at the materials from the Augustine Commission.
It makes not sense, and it wasn't a presented option to the Obama administration, to build Ares V if the Ares I is getting cancelled (they both use the same 5-segment SRB).
What's gonna get built might be *called* the Ares V, to keep the taxpayers confused, but it will be much smaller, with much less lift capability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488722</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261157940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certainly makes more sense than a light lift launcher.<br>But I don't understand where showing your arse and hemorrhoids to a warmonger comes in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly makes more sense than a light lift launcher.But I do n't understand where showing your arse and hemorrhoids to a warmonger comes in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly makes more sense than a light lift launcher.But I don't understand where showing your arse and hemorrhoids to a warmonger comes in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489100</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1261159440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at the US discretionary budget the military accounts for <b>over 60\%</b>, over 70\% in shitty years. As for total budget war makes up about 25\%, non-military defense programs an additional 14\%. Veteran's pay an amazing 1.6\%. Comparatively, NASA gets around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5\% of the total expenses. <a href="http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/" title="wallstats.com">http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/</a> [wallstats.com] (discretionary is in the middle, total in the bottom right).<br> <br> 1/15th is 6.6\%, parent is outright lying.<br> <br>And as mcgrew says, war is easier to not have than... Old people? Sick people....?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the US discretionary budget the military accounts for over 60 \ % , over 70 \ % in shitty years .
As for total budget war makes up about 25 \ % , non-military defense programs an additional 14 \ % .
Veteran 's pay an amazing 1.6 \ % .
Comparatively , NASA gets around .5 \ % of the total expenses .
http : //www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ [ wallstats.com ] ( discretionary is in the middle , total in the bottom right ) .
1/15th is 6.6 \ % , parent is outright lying .
And as mcgrew says , war is easier to not have than... Old people ?
Sick people.... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the US discretionary budget the military accounts for over 60\%, over 70\% in shitty years.
As for total budget war makes up about 25\%, non-military defense programs an additional 14\%.
Veteran's pay an amazing 1.6\%.
Comparatively, NASA gets around .5\% of the total expenses.
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ [wallstats.com] (discretionary is in the middle, total in the bottom right).
1/15th is 6.6\%, parent is outright lying.
And as mcgrew says, war is easier to not have than... Old people?
Sick people....?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1261154520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares\_V" title="wikipedia.org">Ares V</a> [wikipedia.org]

<p>I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company.  If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.

</p><p>The article did open the door wide open for ISS space tourism because  it says, and I quote, "And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ares V [ wikipedia.org ] I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company .
If Musk wants to compete with the public sector , let him use his only money .
The article did open the door wide open for ISS space tourism because it says , and I quote , " And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ares V [wikipedia.org]

I doubt the government would give a billion dollars to Elon Musk to fund his private space company.
If Musk wants to compete with the public sector, let him use his only money.
The article did open the door wide open for ISS space tourism because  it says, and I quote, "And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488646</id>
	<title>Simpler?</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1261157640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  NASA was adding unnecessary complexity to Ares?</p><p>This is pretty well hosed-up.  They (Congress, Obama, and the commision) think starting over is faster than rinishing Ares?</p><p>Mind you, I don't think Ares is so great, but if we aren't going to just build Saturn Vs, we might as well finish the Ares.</p><p>Unless you're looking to make more jobs and spend more money, in which this idea might be perfect.  But it isn't about getting heavy lift capacity online as soon as practical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
NASA was adding unnecessary complexity to Ares ? This is pretty well hosed-up .
They ( Congress , Obama , and the commision ) think starting over is faster than rinishing Ares ? Mind you , I do n't think Ares is so great , but if we are n't going to just build Saturn Vs , we might as well finish the Ares.Unless you 're looking to make more jobs and spend more money , in which this idea might be perfect .
But it is n't about getting heavy lift capacity online as soon as practical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
NASA was adding unnecessary complexity to Ares?This is pretty well hosed-up.
They (Congress, Obama, and the commision) think starting over is faster than rinishing Ares?Mind you, I don't think Ares is so great, but if we aren't going to just build Saturn Vs, we might as well finish the Ares.Unless you're looking to make more jobs and spend more money, in which this idea might be perfect.
But it isn't about getting heavy lift capacity online as soon as practical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487862</id>
	<title>Sure.</title>
	<author>FatSean</author>
	<datestamp>1261154520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The brain damaged failures known as 'federal funding for faith-based medicine' and 'abstinence only sex educaitons' my trollrific friend<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>He's also saving us money by telling the AG to not prosecute pot users in states that make such use legal.  I do wish he'd pull every US soldier and asset out of the ME immediately, but military people who know better than I say that would be a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The brain damaged failures known as 'federal funding for faith-based medicine ' and 'abstinence only sex educaitons ' my trollrific friend : ) He 's also saving us money by telling the AG to not prosecute pot users in states that make such use legal .
I do wish he 'd pull every US soldier and asset out of the ME immediately , but military people who know better than I say that would be a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The brain damaged failures known as 'federal funding for faith-based medicine' and 'abstinence only sex educaitons' my trollrific friend :)He's also saving us money by telling the AG to not prosecute pot users in states that make such use legal.
I do wish he'd pull every US soldier and asset out of the ME immediately, but military people who know better than I say that would be a bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487644</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1261153680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey man, how ya been? I haven't seen you since we were standing together at the rally protesting the huge deficit spending of the Bush administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey man , how ya been ?
I have n't seen you since we were standing together at the rally protesting the huge deficit spending of the Bush administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey man, how ya been?
I haven't seen you since we were standing together at the rally protesting the huge deficit spending of the Bush administration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488226</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>glop</author>
	<datestamp>1261155960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe he was on topic as he was explaining that it's a matter of priorities to find 1 billion dollars in the federal budget for NASA.<br>His priorities obviously differ from yours but he clearly identified a big source of spending (6\%) and noted that the amount considered was small compared to that big source of spending.</p><p>Really, it's like profiling code, if nobody has ever profiled some code you are going to see big misuses of resource (like 70\% of time spent recomputing the same value etc.). But after some people have looked at profiles, you get down to a point where a 6\% figure is a big target. I am pretty sure you are not the first one to look at the federal budget so it's likely that 6\% is a big juicy target when trying to optimize the federal budget.</p><p>So your rhetoric does not really help as the other 14/15ths are composed of hundreds of items that are probably just as hard to assess, prioritize and possibly remove from the budget. the Parent was really just putting the 1 billion in perspective.</p><p>Personally I think that spending a billion on NASA is a rather good use of the money as they spend the money on cool stuff (electronics, getting bright people to work together, Linux etc.) and produce cool images, discoveries, stories that really make my days brighter.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe he was on topic as he was explaining that it 's a matter of priorities to find 1 billion dollars in the federal budget for NASA.His priorities obviously differ from yours but he clearly identified a big source of spending ( 6 \ % ) and noted that the amount considered was small compared to that big source of spending.Really , it 's like profiling code , if nobody has ever profiled some code you are going to see big misuses of resource ( like 70 \ % of time spent recomputing the same value etc. ) .
But after some people have looked at profiles , you get down to a point where a 6 \ % figure is a big target .
I am pretty sure you are not the first one to look at the federal budget so it 's likely that 6 \ % is a big juicy target when trying to optimize the federal budget.So your rhetoric does not really help as the other 14/15ths are composed of hundreds of items that are probably just as hard to assess , prioritize and possibly remove from the budget .
the Parent was really just putting the 1 billion in perspective.Personally I think that spending a billion on NASA is a rather good use of the money as they spend the money on cool stuff ( electronics , getting bright people to work together , Linux etc .
) and produce cool images , discoveries , stories that really make my days brighter .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe he was on topic as he was explaining that it's a matter of priorities to find 1 billion dollars in the federal budget for NASA.His priorities obviously differ from yours but he clearly identified a big source of spending (6\%) and noted that the amount considered was small compared to that big source of spending.Really, it's like profiling code, if nobody has ever profiled some code you are going to see big misuses of resource (like 70\% of time spent recomputing the same value etc.).
But after some people have looked at profiles, you get down to a point where a 6\% figure is a big target.
I am pretty sure you are not the first one to look at the federal budget so it's likely that 6\% is a big juicy target when trying to optimize the federal budget.So your rhetoric does not really help as the other 14/15ths are composed of hundreds of items that are probably just as hard to assess, prioritize and possibly remove from the budget.
the Parent was really just putting the 1 billion in perspective.Personally I think that spending a billion on NASA is a rather good use of the money as they spend the money on cool stuff (electronics, getting bright people to work together, Linux etc.
) and produce cool images, discoveries, stories that really make my days brighter.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487680</id>
	<title>I've seen too many web ads</title>
	<author>RobertB-DC</author>
	<datestamp>1261153800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've clearly seen too many web ads.  When I saw the article title "Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget", I immediately conjured up other gems such as "Obama tells moms to go back to school", "Obama backs auto insurance reform, find cheaper rates", and "Obama will destroy us all".  (Oh, nvm, that last one was from my daughter's Teabagger boyfriend, sry.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've clearly seen too many web ads .
When I saw the article title " Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget " , I immediately conjured up other gems such as " Obama tells moms to go back to school " , " Obama backs auto insurance reform , find cheaper rates " , and " Obama will destroy us all " .
( Oh , nvm , that last one was from my daughter 's Teabagger boyfriend , sry .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've clearly seen too many web ads.
When I saw the article title "Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget", I immediately conjured up other gems such as "Obama tells moms to go back to school", "Obama backs auto insurance reform, find cheaper rates", and "Obama will destroy us all".
(Oh, nvm, that last one was from my daughter's Teabagger boyfriend, sry.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487726</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully</title>
	<author>m0s3m8n</author>
	<datestamp>1261153980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, how about giving them front row seats in the flame diverter trench instead.  At least they would have NO CHANCE of coming back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , how about giving them front row seats in the flame diverter trench instead .
At least they would have NO CHANCE of coming back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, how about giving them front row seats in the flame diverter trench instead.
At least they would have NO CHANCE of coming back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488398</id>
	<title>Re:Article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261156680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't discount the fact thsat the SRBs were Man Rated, you need a lot of sucessful launches to man-rate an engine or a rocket stack. By reusing the SRBs from the shuttle they were supposed to be able to rely on the safety record of the SRBs and get a new vehicle put into production far faster than a built from scratch new vehicle.</p><p>Now include the fact that all Constellation design, testing and building has to go on simultaneously with an operational shuttle program. There was hope to have some overlap, or at least a very small window of time when we didn't have a shuttle or a rocket that could reach the ISS.</p><p>Unfortunately over time that window grew larger and larger. People start talking about extending the life of the shuttle program, but that delays the rocket program further.</p><p>A lot of times on slashdot we see folks say why can't you do both, pay for science AND education, or any set of programs you wish. In this case two large programs one operational and one development are too much to hope for with the resources they've been given.</p><p>This is why I am hopeful for an outsider, an increase in funding can work, because there isn't any resource contention for people or their focus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't discount the fact thsat the SRBs were Man Rated , you need a lot of sucessful launches to man-rate an engine or a rocket stack .
By reusing the SRBs from the shuttle they were supposed to be able to rely on the safety record of the SRBs and get a new vehicle put into production far faster than a built from scratch new vehicle.Now include the fact that all Constellation design , testing and building has to go on simultaneously with an operational shuttle program .
There was hope to have some overlap , or at least a very small window of time when we did n't have a shuttle or a rocket that could reach the ISS.Unfortunately over time that window grew larger and larger .
People start talking about extending the life of the shuttle program , but that delays the rocket program further.A lot of times on slashdot we see folks say why ca n't you do both , pay for science AND education , or any set of programs you wish .
In this case two large programs one operational and one development are too much to hope for with the resources they 've been given.This is why I am hopeful for an outsider , an increase in funding can work , because there is n't any resource contention for people or their focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't discount the fact thsat the SRBs were Man Rated, you need a lot of sucessful launches to man-rate an engine or a rocket stack.
By reusing the SRBs from the shuttle they were supposed to be able to rely on the safety record of the SRBs and get a new vehicle put into production far faster than a built from scratch new vehicle.Now include the fact that all Constellation design, testing and building has to go on simultaneously with an operational shuttle program.
There was hope to have some overlap, or at least a very small window of time when we didn't have a shuttle or a rocket that could reach the ISS.Unfortunately over time that window grew larger and larger.
People start talking about extending the life of the shuttle program, but that delays the rocket program further.A lot of times on slashdot we see folks say why can't you do both, pay for science AND education, or any set of programs you wish.
In this case two large programs one operational and one development are too much to hope for with the resources they've been given.This is why I am hopeful for an outsider, an increase in funding can work, because there isn't any resource contention for people or their focus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496690</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>Burdell</author>
	<datestamp>1261160340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, my father worked on the Saturn V guidance system, and he's still working on Ares; they haven't all left yet!</p><p>Anyway, building a new Saturn V would be similar to Ford digging out the plans for a 1967 Mustang and building a new one.  We have 40 years of performance, safety, materials, and efficiency improvements that are not reflected in the old plans that would have to be taken into account.  The computers are completely different, so things like the guidance and control systems would have to be rewritten (and retested/recertified) from scratch.  At that point, you'd want to significantly update the engines for modern materials and construction engineering, which is what was done on a small scale with the J-2X engine for Ares I, but even that was based on post-Saturn work.  The Saturn V was in some ways a brute-force solution, and not really economical for the long term.  It was also never considered a "production" vehicle; every one that flew was different, with different software (development continued through the life of the vehicle).</p><p>Just look at the changes in the Space Shuttle Main Engines and other systems over the life of the shuttle.  Now apply that level of change to something that hasn't flown in over 36 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , my father worked on the Saturn V guidance system , and he 's still working on Ares ; they have n't all left yet ! Anyway , building a new Saturn V would be similar to Ford digging out the plans for a 1967 Mustang and building a new one .
We have 40 years of performance , safety , materials , and efficiency improvements that are not reflected in the old plans that would have to be taken into account .
The computers are completely different , so things like the guidance and control systems would have to be rewritten ( and retested/recertified ) from scratch .
At that point , you 'd want to significantly update the engines for modern materials and construction engineering , which is what was done on a small scale with the J-2X engine for Ares I , but even that was based on post-Saturn work .
The Saturn V was in some ways a brute-force solution , and not really economical for the long term .
It was also never considered a " production " vehicle ; every one that flew was different , with different software ( development continued through the life of the vehicle ) .Just look at the changes in the Space Shuttle Main Engines and other systems over the life of the shuttle .
Now apply that level of change to something that has n't flown in over 36 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, my father worked on the Saturn V guidance system, and he's still working on Ares; they haven't all left yet!Anyway, building a new Saturn V would be similar to Ford digging out the plans for a 1967 Mustang and building a new one.
We have 40 years of performance, safety, materials, and efficiency improvements that are not reflected in the old plans that would have to be taken into account.
The computers are completely different, so things like the guidance and control systems would have to be rewritten (and retested/recertified) from scratch.
At that point, you'd want to significantly update the engines for modern materials and construction engineering, which is what was done on a small scale with the J-2X engine for Ares I, but even that was based on post-Saturn work.
The Saturn V was in some ways a brute-force solution, and not really economical for the long term.
It was also never considered a "production" vehicle; every one that flew was different, with different software (development continued through the life of the vehicle).Just look at the changes in the Space Shuttle Main Engines and other systems over the life of the shuttle.
Now apply that level of change to something that hasn't flown in over 36 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</id>
	<title>New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261153680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018."</p><p>Nothing in the article says what that HLV would be, or who would build it. The article also talks about the fight in Congress over Constellation districts losing aerospace jobs.</p><p>The only thing I am aware of is Elon Musk saying NASA has an option for SpaceX to develop an HLV, and I'm not talking about Falcon 9 or Falcon 9 Heavy. Anything else would be the usual suspects dusting off old blueprints and submitting proposals, or something I'm not aware of, which would be fine too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to knowledgeable sources , the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018 .
" Nothing in the article says what that HLV would be , or who would build it .
The article also talks about the fight in Congress over Constellation districts losing aerospace jobs.The only thing I am aware of is Elon Musk saying NASA has an option for SpaceX to develop an HLV , and I 'm not talking about Falcon 9 or Falcon 9 Heavy .
Anything else would be the usual suspects dusting off old blueprints and submitting proposals , or something I 'm not aware of , which would be fine too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018.
"Nothing in the article says what that HLV would be, or who would build it.
The article also talks about the fight in Congress over Constellation districts losing aerospace jobs.The only thing I am aware of is Elon Musk saying NASA has an option for SpaceX to develop an HLV, and I'm not talking about Falcon 9 or Falcon 9 Heavy.
Anything else would be the usual suspects dusting off old blueprints and submitting proposals, or something I'm not aware of, which would be fine too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1261155600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Dig out the blueprints, put them into a CAD/CAM program, and modernize it, and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle soon. </i></p><p>It's not that simple.  Flying a Saturn rocket today would be much harder than building a new vehicle from scratch.  Imagine trying to build the Cutty Sark today: we just don't have the people with those skills anymore.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dig out the blueprints , put them into a CAD/CAM program , and modernize it , and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle soon .
It 's not that simple .
Flying a Saturn rocket today would be much harder than building a new vehicle from scratch .
Imagine trying to build the Cutty Sark today : we just do n't have the people with those skills anymore.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dig out the blueprints, put them into a CAD/CAM program, and modernize it, and they could have a RELIABLE heavy launch vehicle soon.
It's not that simple.
Flying a Saturn rocket today would be much harder than building a new vehicle from scratch.
Imagine trying to build the Cutty Sark today: we just don't have the people with those skills anymore.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487624</id>
	<title>if only</title>
	<author>Vorpix</author>
	<datestamp>1261153620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while i realize that there are some positives that can be garnered by war spending, can you imagine where we might be if the past 7-8 years of military budget were instead spent on scientific endeavors such as the space program?  if those billions were instead going into cancer and aids research?</p><p>regardless, i am glad that even in a time of belt tightening, we still have people aiming for the stars (and not just at other people).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while i realize that there are some positives that can be garnered by war spending , can you imagine where we might be if the past 7-8 years of military budget were instead spent on scientific endeavors such as the space program ?
if those billions were instead going into cancer and aids research ? regardless , i am glad that even in a time of belt tightening , we still have people aiming for the stars ( and not just at other people ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while i realize that there are some positives that can be garnered by war spending, can you imagine where we might be if the past 7-8 years of military budget were instead spent on scientific endeavors such as the space program?
if those billions were instead going into cancer and aids research?regardless, i am glad that even in a time of belt tightening, we still have people aiming for the stars (and not just at other people).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494368</id>
	<title>Re:Article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Graymalkin</author>
	<datestamp>1261136760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Ares I design is not simple, cheap, or even really effective. A good portion of the expense of launching the Shuttle, an Ares I, or anything else is manpower. You have a lot of people that get paid salaries no matter how many launches take place every year. The cost of a launch then becomes (vehicle cost) + (yearly operations and personnel cost/scheduled launches that year). If you launch one rocket a year it's fairly expensive, if you launch six then the price of each launch goes down. You might recognize this cost-production curve an economy of scale which is what it is.</p><p>The Ares I was meant to be able to carry a fully decked out Orion capsule capable of carrying four people, long solo flights with an extended service module, a toilet, and the ability to to land on the ground with parachutes and airbags. It turns out the Ares I can't do any of that so the Orion had to be scaled down to only carry three people, no toilet, no air bags for ground landings, and a service module just barely capable of getting astronauts to the ISS or some other vehicle.</p><p>The rub with the Ares I is that it is damn near useless without the Ares V follow-on. Because it can't carry much into orbit it is essentially an expensive bus to take three astronauts to the ISS. People bitch about the Shuttle being an expensive tow truck but it can carry seven astronauts in addition to twenty tons of cargo and can survive independently for weeks. Going back to the launch cost problem, the Ares V requires significant changes made to one of the two launch pads at KSC. This leaves only one available for Ares I launches. Only having a single pad available for the Ares I puts a limit on the number of Ares I flights that can be made every year. The low frequency of flights increases the cost of every kilo launched on an Ares I rocket.</p><p>The cost per unit of mass problem with the Ares I determines what sort of missions you can afford to use it for. There was an unmanned Orion capsule design that was intended to be used for cargo resupply to the ISS. The low launch frequency put the cost per unit of mass too high for that design to make any sense and the low number of flights even possible for the Ares I meant there were scheduling problems as well. Since the Ares I can't launch a well equipped Orion capsule the only use for it until the Ares V is ready is to ferry people (no meaningful cargo) back and forth to the ISS. Again the low launch frequency means this is really expensive, it would be cheaper to buy assembled Soyuz rockets from Russia and launch them ourselves than it would be to send crews up in Orions via the Ares I.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Ares I design is not simple , cheap , or even really effective .
A good portion of the expense of launching the Shuttle , an Ares I , or anything else is manpower .
You have a lot of people that get paid salaries no matter how many launches take place every year .
The cost of a launch then becomes ( vehicle cost ) + ( yearly operations and personnel cost/scheduled launches that year ) .
If you launch one rocket a year it 's fairly expensive , if you launch six then the price of each launch goes down .
You might recognize this cost-production curve an economy of scale which is what it is.The Ares I was meant to be able to carry a fully decked out Orion capsule capable of carrying four people , long solo flights with an extended service module , a toilet , and the ability to to land on the ground with parachutes and airbags .
It turns out the Ares I ca n't do any of that so the Orion had to be scaled down to only carry three people , no toilet , no air bags for ground landings , and a service module just barely capable of getting astronauts to the ISS or some other vehicle.The rub with the Ares I is that it is damn near useless without the Ares V follow-on .
Because it ca n't carry much into orbit it is essentially an expensive bus to take three astronauts to the ISS .
People bitch about the Shuttle being an expensive tow truck but it can carry seven astronauts in addition to twenty tons of cargo and can survive independently for weeks .
Going back to the launch cost problem , the Ares V requires significant changes made to one of the two launch pads at KSC .
This leaves only one available for Ares I launches .
Only having a single pad available for the Ares I puts a limit on the number of Ares I flights that can be made every year .
The low frequency of flights increases the cost of every kilo launched on an Ares I rocket.The cost per unit of mass problem with the Ares I determines what sort of missions you can afford to use it for .
There was an unmanned Orion capsule design that was intended to be used for cargo resupply to the ISS .
The low launch frequency put the cost per unit of mass too high for that design to make any sense and the low number of flights even possible for the Ares I meant there were scheduling problems as well .
Since the Ares I ca n't launch a well equipped Orion capsule the only use for it until the Ares V is ready is to ferry people ( no meaningful cargo ) back and forth to the ISS .
Again the low launch frequency means this is really expensive , it would be cheaper to buy assembled Soyuz rockets from Russia and launch them ourselves than it would be to send crews up in Orions via the Ares I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Ares I design is not simple, cheap, or even really effective.
A good portion of the expense of launching the Shuttle, an Ares I, or anything else is manpower.
You have a lot of people that get paid salaries no matter how many launches take place every year.
The cost of a launch then becomes (vehicle cost) + (yearly operations and personnel cost/scheduled launches that year).
If you launch one rocket a year it's fairly expensive, if you launch six then the price of each launch goes down.
You might recognize this cost-production curve an economy of scale which is what it is.The Ares I was meant to be able to carry a fully decked out Orion capsule capable of carrying four people, long solo flights with an extended service module, a toilet, and the ability to to land on the ground with parachutes and airbags.
It turns out the Ares I can't do any of that so the Orion had to be scaled down to only carry three people, no toilet, no air bags for ground landings, and a service module just barely capable of getting astronauts to the ISS or some other vehicle.The rub with the Ares I is that it is damn near useless without the Ares V follow-on.
Because it can't carry much into orbit it is essentially an expensive bus to take three astronauts to the ISS.
People bitch about the Shuttle being an expensive tow truck but it can carry seven astronauts in addition to twenty tons of cargo and can survive independently for weeks.
Going back to the launch cost problem, the Ares V requires significant changes made to one of the two launch pads at KSC.
This leaves only one available for Ares I launches.
Only having a single pad available for the Ares I puts a limit on the number of Ares I flights that can be made every year.
The low frequency of flights increases the cost of every kilo launched on an Ares I rocket.The cost per unit of mass problem with the Ares I determines what sort of missions you can afford to use it for.
There was an unmanned Orion capsule design that was intended to be used for cargo resupply to the ISS.
The low launch frequency put the cost per unit of mass too high for that design to make any sense and the low number of flights even possible for the Ares I meant there were scheduling problems as well.
Since the Ares I can't launch a well equipped Orion capsule the only use for it until the Ares V is ready is to ferry people (no meaningful cargo) back and forth to the ISS.
Again the low launch frequency means this is really expensive, it would be cheaper to buy assembled Soyuz rockets from Russia and launch them ourselves than it would be to send crews up in Orions via the Ares I.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488104</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual cost is significantly more than the "1/15th" of the Federal budget you mention. That amount only includes direct expenditure on the war in Iraq.</p><p>It doesn't include the healthcare needed for the tens of thousands of soldiers who are coming back injured, nor does it include the losses in taxes due to many of these people never being able to work again, or even just those uninjured citizens who no longer work at their regular jobs because they've being sent on their fifth or six deployment to Iraq.</p><p>Don't forget that there's another, soon to be bigger, war going on in Afghanistan. That alone will likely be another 1/15th, if it escalates, of the budget consumed.</p><p>As for the other 14/15ths, a significant amount of that budget goes towards programs that support America's warmaking. Think war technology research, the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc., and so forth.</p><p>Much of the rest of the budget has been similarly squandered. Instead of going towards socially-useful purposes like education and healthcare, it goes towards bailing out billionaires and corporations.</p><p>And really, he's not off-topic at all. America dedicates far too many of its resources towards destroying tents and mud brick huts in third-world countries. Even a small fraction of the money spent there each year could immensely help American society in a great many ways. Space research (which often has many spin-off technologies) is one of the best ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual cost is significantly more than the " 1/15th " of the Federal budget you mention .
That amount only includes direct expenditure on the war in Iraq.It does n't include the healthcare needed for the tens of thousands of soldiers who are coming back injured , nor does it include the losses in taxes due to many of these people never being able to work again , or even just those uninjured citizens who no longer work at their regular jobs because they 've being sent on their fifth or six deployment to Iraq.Do n't forget that there 's another , soon to be bigger , war going on in Afghanistan .
That alone will likely be another 1/15th , if it escalates , of the budget consumed.As for the other 14/15ths , a significant amount of that budget goes towards programs that support America 's warmaking .
Think war technology research , the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc. , and so forth.Much of the rest of the budget has been similarly squandered .
Instead of going towards socially-useful purposes like education and healthcare , it goes towards bailing out billionaires and corporations.And really , he 's not off-topic at all .
America dedicates far too many of its resources towards destroying tents and mud brick huts in third-world countries .
Even a small fraction of the money spent there each year could immensely help American society in a great many ways .
Space research ( which often has many spin-off technologies ) is one of the best ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual cost is significantly more than the "1/15th" of the Federal budget you mention.
That amount only includes direct expenditure on the war in Iraq.It doesn't include the healthcare needed for the tens of thousands of soldiers who are coming back injured, nor does it include the losses in taxes due to many of these people never being able to work again, or even just those uninjured citizens who no longer work at their regular jobs because they've being sent on their fifth or six deployment to Iraq.Don't forget that there's another, soon to be bigger, war going on in Afghanistan.
That alone will likely be another 1/15th, if it escalates, of the budget consumed.As for the other 14/15ths, a significant amount of that budget goes towards programs that support America's warmaking.
Think war technology research, the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc., and so forth.Much of the rest of the budget has been similarly squandered.
Instead of going towards socially-useful purposes like education and healthcare, it goes towards bailing out billionaires and corporations.And really, he's not off-topic at all.
America dedicates far too many of its resources towards destroying tents and mud brick huts in third-world countries.
Even a small fraction of the money spent there each year could immensely help American society in a great many ways.
Space research (which often has many spin-off technologies) is one of the best ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489740</id>
	<title>Fiscal Responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mr. President, with the United States and the world facing the largest "recession" since the Great Depression, the Dollar continuing to plummet, and an out of control national debt, what are you doing to tighten America's belt to get through this tough period?<br> <br>

POTUS: We're gonna send men to Mars and a couple of asteroids! Plus, we're gonna see if there's anything new on the Moon since we last went up there.<br> <br>

But, um, we already don't have enough money to bail out failing companies, conduct an unnecessary war in Iraq, and all the other projects that costing billions and are working to erode the value of the dollar. Why would you commit us to more non-vital spending?<br> <br>

POTUS: BLAAAAAHHH!!!! It's MARS, man! MAAAAAARRRRRRRSSSSS! Once we find little green men, all of our money problems will be OVER!<br> <br>

That's very... Nikita Khrushchev of you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. President , with the United States and the world facing the largest " recession " since the Great Depression , the Dollar continuing to plummet , and an out of control national debt , what are you doing to tighten America 's belt to get through this tough period ?
POTUS : We 're gon na send men to Mars and a couple of asteroids !
Plus , we 're gon na see if there 's anything new on the Moon since we last went up there .
But , um , we already do n't have enough money to bail out failing companies , conduct an unnecessary war in Iraq , and all the other projects that costing billions and are working to erode the value of the dollar .
Why would you commit us to more non-vital spending ?
POTUS : BLAAAAAHHH ! ! ! !
It 's MARS , man !
MAAAAAARRRRRRRSSSSS ! Once we find little green men , all of our money problems will be OVER !
That 's very... Nikita Khrushchev of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. President, with the United States and the world facing the largest "recession" since the Great Depression, the Dollar continuing to plummet, and an out of control national debt, what are you doing to tighten America's belt to get through this tough period?
POTUS: We're gonna send men to Mars and a couple of asteroids!
Plus, we're gonna see if there's anything new on the Moon since we last went up there.
But, um, we already don't have enough money to bail out failing companies, conduct an unnecessary war in Iraq, and all the other projects that costing billions and are working to erode the value of the dollar.
Why would you commit us to more non-vital spending?
POTUS: BLAAAAAHHH!!!!
It's MARS, man!
MAAAAAARRRRRRRSSSSS! Once we find little green men, all of our money problems will be OVER!
That's very... Nikita Khrushchev of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488162</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>Waste55</author>
	<datestamp>1261155720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is inline shuttle derived (Direct, Ares V classic, Ares IV\Ares V lite) or (hopefully not) shuttle side mount.
<br> <br>
FTA:<p><div class="quote"><p>The new program would jettison Ares 1. To appease congressional critics like Shelby, the Administration hopes to ensure that research and development work on the new rocket would proceed without significant job losses at NASA centers like Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama."</p></div><p>
Doesn't sound like SpaceX to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is inline shuttle derived ( Direct , Ares V classic , Ares IV \ Ares V lite ) or ( hopefully not ) shuttle side mount .
FTA : The new program would jettison Ares 1 .
To appease congressional critics like Shelby , the Administration hopes to ensure that research and development work on the new rocket would proceed without significant job losses at NASA centers like Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville , Alabama .
" Does n't sound like SpaceX to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is inline shuttle derived (Direct, Ares V classic, Ares IV\Ares V lite) or (hopefully not) shuttle side mount.
FTA:The new program would jettison Ares 1.
To appease congressional critics like Shelby, the Administration hopes to ensure that research and development work on the new rocket would proceed without significant job losses at NASA centers like Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
"
Doesn't sound like SpaceX to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491808</id>
	<title>Figures...</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1261168920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since the current Copenhagen climate negotiations aren't progressing well for us all, we might as well part this rock. Of course, as they say, when you immigrate your problems immigrate with you..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since the current Copenhagen climate negotiations are n't progressing well for us all , we might as well part this rock .
Of course , as they say , when you immigrate your problems immigrate with you. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since the current Copenhagen climate negotiations aren't progressing well for us all, we might as well part this rock.
Of course, as they say, when you immigrate your problems immigrate with you..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488234</id>
	<title>BOOOOO!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Necron69</author>
	<datestamp>1261156020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>D*mn it. The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way. We don't even NEED another HLV. This is nothing but a government jobs program for the big NASA districts.</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D * mn it .
The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way .
We do n't even NEED another HLV .
This is nothing but a government jobs program for the big NASA districts.Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D*mn it.
The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way.
We don't even NEED another HLV.
This is nothing but a government jobs program for the big NASA districts.Necron69</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494446</id>
	<title>Hideous Thread Jacking</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1261137120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not one to typically decry Slashdot antics in general, but I have to say that I am, frankly, appalled at what has come to pass in this thread. This news release, available on very few space news outlets currently, is in regards to the future of a government funded piece of space hardware that Slashdotters have been both decrying and joyously praising since I first started posting on this website more than a year ago. We have discussed every major development of the Ares line of launch vehicles since its inception. We have argued, passionately at times, about how stupid or how great NASA and Congress both are for deciding upon this launch system in the first place. We have followed almost every single news update regarding the Augustine Commission since it was first assigned its task. It seems, to me, that we had quite a bit of interest and excitement for news regarding this particular topic as an online community.
<br> <br>
Nonetheless, in the short time since this story has been posted, the number of comments modded up that were completely and 100\% offtopic is absolutely atrocious. This story was, by far, the most interesting headline I saw on slashdot today. Rather than getting an interesting look into a group of Nerd's thoughts and ideas regarding this new development, I have watched this thread turn into an absolutely childish monstrosity of political bullshitting regarding everything from healtcare to the fiscal habits of Republicrats and blah blah blah blah blah. If I wanted to know about all that crap I would have turned on CSPAN.
<br> <br>
For shame slashdotters. For. Fucking. Shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not one to typically decry Slashdot antics in general , but I have to say that I am , frankly , appalled at what has come to pass in this thread .
This news release , available on very few space news outlets currently , is in regards to the future of a government funded piece of space hardware that Slashdotters have been both decrying and joyously praising since I first started posting on this website more than a year ago .
We have discussed every major development of the Ares line of launch vehicles since its inception .
We have argued , passionately at times , about how stupid or how great NASA and Congress both are for deciding upon this launch system in the first place .
We have followed almost every single news update regarding the Augustine Commission since it was first assigned its task .
It seems , to me , that we had quite a bit of interest and excitement for news regarding this particular topic as an online community .
Nonetheless , in the short time since this story has been posted , the number of comments modded up that were completely and 100 \ % offtopic is absolutely atrocious .
This story was , by far , the most interesting headline I saw on slashdot today .
Rather than getting an interesting look into a group of Nerd 's thoughts and ideas regarding this new development , I have watched this thread turn into an absolutely childish monstrosity of political bullshitting regarding everything from healtcare to the fiscal habits of Republicrats and blah blah blah blah blah .
If I wanted to know about all that crap I would have turned on CSPAN .
For shame slashdotters .
For. Fucking .
Shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not one to typically decry Slashdot antics in general, but I have to say that I am, frankly, appalled at what has come to pass in this thread.
This news release, available on very few space news outlets currently, is in regards to the future of a government funded piece of space hardware that Slashdotters have been both decrying and joyously praising since I first started posting on this website more than a year ago.
We have discussed every major development of the Ares line of launch vehicles since its inception.
We have argued, passionately at times, about how stupid or how great NASA and Congress both are for deciding upon this launch system in the first place.
We have followed almost every single news update regarding the Augustine Commission since it was first assigned its task.
It seems, to me, that we had quite a bit of interest and excitement for news regarding this particular topic as an online community.
Nonetheless, in the short time since this story has been posted, the number of comments modded up that were completely and 100\% offtopic is absolutely atrocious.
This story was, by far, the most interesting headline I saw on slashdot today.
Rather than getting an interesting look into a group of Nerd's thoughts and ideas regarding this new development, I have watched this thread turn into an absolutely childish monstrosity of political bullshitting regarding everything from healtcare to the fiscal habits of Republicrats and blah blah blah blah blah.
If I wanted to know about all that crap I would have turned on CSPAN.
For shame slashdotters.
For. Fucking.
Shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494396</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261136820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already have a reliable launch system.  It's called the Shuttle Transport System.  It has flown far more missions than the Saturn, with far less troubles.  Its main flaw is that it is a sidemount rather than an inline system.  We all now know what a foam or ice strike against the shuttle can do.  The other major drawback that it has is a lack of an abort system.  The LAS that is part of the Orion module will take care of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a reliable launch system .
It 's called the Shuttle Transport System .
It has flown far more missions than the Saturn , with far less troubles .
Its main flaw is that it is a sidemount rather than an inline system .
We all now know what a foam or ice strike against the shuttle can do .
The other major drawback that it has is a lack of an abort system .
The LAS that is part of the Orion module will take care of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a reliable launch system.
It's called the Shuttle Transport System.
It has flown far more missions than the Saturn, with far less troubles.
Its main flaw is that it is a sidemount rather than an inline system.
We all now know what a foam or ice strike against the shuttle can do.
The other major drawback that it has is a lack of an abort system.
The LAS that is part of the Orion module will take care of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489894</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Threre's one very insightful comment by "Briareosdx" under TFA, it's almost the same as I was going to write here, but I'll just cut-and-paste instead:

<p>All this talk about space battles, and no one's linked to the Atomic Rockets page?</p><p> <a href="http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/" title="projectrho.com" rel="nofollow">Atomic Rocket</a> [projectrho.com] </p><p>Be warned, if you're the sort of person who found this article interesting, you could loose the rest of your day to that site.</p><p>As for the analysis itself, I'm surprised that the author didn't say anything about the importance of heat. Not only for how craft get rid of it, but also because the heat sources of energetic rockets and missiles make them very easy to see. If you can see your enemy coming from the other side of the solar system, it changes a lot of things about the upcoming fight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Threre 's one very insightful comment by " Briareosdx " under TFA , it 's almost the same as I was going to write here , but I 'll just cut-and-paste instead : All this talk about space battles , and no one 's linked to the Atomic Rockets page ?
Atomic Rocket [ projectrho.com ] Be warned , if you 're the sort of person who found this article interesting , you could loose the rest of your day to that site.As for the analysis itself , I 'm surprised that the author did n't say anything about the importance of heat .
Not only for how craft get rid of it , but also because the heat sources of energetic rockets and missiles make them very easy to see .
If you can see your enemy coming from the other side of the solar system , it changes a lot of things about the upcoming fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Threre's one very insightful comment by "Briareosdx" under TFA, it's almost the same as I was going to write here, but I'll just cut-and-paste instead:

All this talk about space battles, and no one's linked to the Atomic Rockets page?
Atomic Rocket [projectrho.com] Be warned, if you're the sort of person who found this article interesting, you could loose the rest of your day to that site.As for the analysis itself, I'm surprised that the author didn't say anything about the importance of heat.
Not only for how craft get rid of it, but also because the heat sources of energetic rockets and missiles make them very easy to see.
If you can see your enemy coming from the other side of the solar system, it changes a lot of things about the upcoming fight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487584</id>
	<title>Can't stop spending!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261153440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't these d-bags stop even for one year?  Jesus Christ, we're spending money we just don't have.  Apparently Mr. Obama is not interested in a 2nd term.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't these d-bags stop even for one year ?
Jesus Christ , we 're spending money we just do n't have .
Apparently Mr. Obama is not interested in a 2nd term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't these d-bags stop even for one year?
Jesus Christ, we're spending money we just don't have.
Apparently Mr. Obama is not interested in a 2nd term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491248</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261166760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the "blueprints" for the Saturn V rocket were on punchcards, many of which were lost or sold when NASA went magnetic.  Nope, we can't make them like we used to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the " blueprints " for the Saturn V rocket were on punchcards , many of which were lost or sold when NASA went magnetic .
Nope , we ca n't make them like we used to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the "blueprints" for the Saturn V rocket were on punchcards, many of which were lost or sold when NASA went magnetic.
Nope, we can't make them like we used to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489374</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>bozojoe</author>
	<datestamp>1261160520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or we could stop some of the nation charity money</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we could stop some of the nation charity money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or we could stop some of the nation charity money</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490800</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1261165080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't have people with those skills back then, either.  Kennedy gave his moonshot speech in 62, and America had almost zero spaceflight experience.  Eight years later the Eagle landed on the moon.
<br>
<br>
We could build something much better today with modern technology and the forty years of experience we now have -- if we bothered funding it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't have people with those skills back then , either .
Kennedy gave his moonshot speech in 62 , and America had almost zero spaceflight experience .
Eight years later the Eagle landed on the moon .
We could build something much better today with modern technology and the forty years of experience we now have -- if we bothered funding it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't have people with those skills back then, either.
Kennedy gave his moonshot speech in 62, and America had almost zero spaceflight experience.
Eight years later the Eagle landed on the moon.
We could build something much better today with modern technology and the forty years of experience we now have -- if we bothered funding it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487828</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't about science.</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1261154340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. And that is what the first space race tot he moon was about. Science was incidental otherwise WE'D STILL BE THERE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
And that is what the first space race tot he moon was about .
Science was incidental otherwise WE 'D STILL BE THERE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
And that is what the first space race tot he moon was about.
Science was incidental otherwise WE'D STILL BE THERE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496974</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261164600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Noes...</p><p>The past and current administration seems to fail at health care, economics, military/wars and over all worldly policies. I know, lets give NASA funds and start a new race on space..</p><p>Shifting publics focus in 3..2..1..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Noes...The past and current administration seems to fail at health care , economics , military/wars and over all worldly policies .
I know , lets give NASA funds and start a new race on space..Shifting publics focus in 3..2..1. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Noes...The past and current administration seems to fail at health care, economics, military/wars and over all worldly policies.
I know, lets give NASA funds and start a new race on space..Shifting publics focus in 3..2..1..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489350</id>
	<title>Re:New Heavy Lift Vehicle - From TFA</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1261160400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the Ares V.  It really would have been nice if the article was clearer about whether there was a specific rocket in mind, or if they are actually going to the drawing board for something totally new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the Ares V. It really would have been nice if the article was clearer about whether there was a specific rocket in mind , or if they are actually going to the drawing board for something totally new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the Ares V.  It really would have been nice if the article was clearer about whether there was a specific rocket in mind, or if they are actually going to the drawing board for something totally new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487850</id>
	<title>Public Option?</title>
	<author>neurogeneticist</author>
	<datestamp>1261154460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can only hope that this heavy-lift launch system will support a public option with early buy-in and that none of this NASA budget will be appropriated to state-supported abortions.  Otherwise, it will apparently have a hard time getting through the senate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only hope that this heavy-lift launch system will support a public option with early buy-in and that none of this NASA budget will be appropriated to state-supported abortions .
Otherwise , it will apparently have a hard time getting through the senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only hope that this heavy-lift launch system will support a public option with early buy-in and that none of this NASA budget will be appropriated to state-supported abortions.
Otherwise, it will apparently have a hard time getting through the senate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487632</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully</title>
	<author>magarity</author>
	<datestamp>1261153680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress. One way</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Let's make it a little more instructive: The congresscritters who submitted the top 50\% of earmark spending amendments.  Repeat annually until none are selected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress .
One way   Let 's make it a little more instructive : The congresscritters who submitted the top 50 \ % of earmark spending amendments .
Repeat annually until none are selected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress.
One way 
  Let's make it a little more instructive: The congresscritters who submitted the top 50\% of earmark spending amendments.
Repeat annually until none are selected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30492866</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1261129560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that we could do much better using modern materials, computers, and manufacturing. If you sifted through the blueprints, updating everything with modern techniques, you'd end up with an entirely new spacecraft that only superficially resembled the original.</p><p>Another reason we don't build another cutty sark today is that we can fill the Cutty Sark's intended role with much better replacements.</p><p>I don't see the problem with viewing lift vehicles as commodities. We can purchase a range of lift capacity vehicles from the russians, french, japanese, etc.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that we could do much better using modern materials , computers , and manufacturing .
If you sifted through the blueprints , updating everything with modern techniques , you 'd end up with an entirely new spacecraft that only superficially resembled the original.Another reason we do n't build another cutty sark today is that we can fill the Cutty Sark 's intended role with much better replacements.I do n't see the problem with viewing lift vehicles as commodities .
We can purchase a range of lift capacity vehicles from the russians , french , japanese , etc.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that we could do much better using modern materials, computers, and manufacturing.
If you sifted through the blueprints, updating everything with modern techniques, you'd end up with an entirely new spacecraft that only superficially resembled the original.Another reason we don't build another cutty sark today is that we can fill the Cutty Sark's intended role with much better replacements.I don't see the problem with viewing lift vehicles as commodities.
We can purchase a range of lift capacity vehicles from the russians, french, japanese, etc.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972</id>
	<title>Article makes no sense</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1261154940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So are they saying a new heavy lift vehicle is replacing the Ares I? My understanding is Ares I is the simple, cheap, manned crew vehicle stack and the Ares V is the bigger, heavier, not man-rated launcher meant for heavy lifting. They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better. So far it isn't. I have a feeling that shuttle reuse was a political decision to make this sound more economical rather than a proposal from the engineers guaranteeing it would be frugal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So are they saying a new heavy lift vehicle is replacing the Ares I ?
My understanding is Ares I is the simple , cheap , manned crew vehicle stack and the Ares V is the bigger , heavier , not man-rated launcher meant for heavy lifting .
They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better .
So far it is n't .
I have a feeling that shuttle reuse was a political decision to make this sound more economical rather than a proposal from the engineers guaranteeing it would be frugal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are they saying a new heavy lift vehicle is replacing the Ares I?
My understanding is Ares I is the simple, cheap, manned crew vehicle stack and the Ares V is the bigger, heavier, not man-rated launcher meant for heavy lifting.
They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better.
So far it isn't.
I have a feeling that shuttle reuse was a political decision to make this sound more economical rather than a proposal from the engineers guaranteeing it would be frugal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487818</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1261154340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was not 1.1 trillion more in spending. It was several annual spending bills. It increased spending by about 9-10\% over last year. An increase yes, a 1.1 trillion dollar increase, no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was not 1.1 trillion more in spending .
It was several annual spending bills .
It increased spending by about 9-10 \ % over last year .
An increase yes , a 1.1 trillion dollar increase , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was not 1.1 trillion more in spending.
It was several annual spending bills.
It increased spending by about 9-10\% over last year.
An increase yes, a 1.1 trillion dollar increase, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487758</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1261154100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? They have more change in the couch cushions over at the Pentagon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
They have more change in the couch cushions over at the Pentagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
They have more change in the couch cushions over at the Pentagon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496550</id>
	<title>More Tiny Steps</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1261158060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,&rdquo; said one source in the White House,....</p><p>Then we can rule out any significant breakthrough or giant step change, such as a million + pound payload, two stage/two motor with extremely simplified internals, with initial cost per pound to LEO about 25\% (at best, possibly as little as 10\% of this estimate; 2.5\% that of Ares-H) of that of the best optimistic estimate that the Ares heavy would approach after 12 launches. Some of the technical details that were far less complex and more reliable than any in use or planned were panned a 'not interesting' and used as cause to dismiss the design, although some of those same details made it into later designs that flew.</p><p>The design was done for Aerojet in 1962 by Robert Truax <a href="http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm" title="astronautix.com">http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm</a> [astronautix.com] The revolutionary sea launch aspect was the one portion actually tested in an earlier model. The simplicity of the design would make it possible to take from paper to LEO in 5 years. This is just one such design that could be retrieved from history where it was buried in favor of corporate welfare. This is one of the few actually done by a documented and well respected pioneer of rocketry <a href="http://neverworld.net/truax/" title="neverworld.net">http://neverworld.net/truax/</a> [neverworld.net] .</p><p>No gasps, no Salvage 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   The decision is not going to make anyone gasp ,    said one source in the White House,....Then we can rule out any significant breakthrough or giant step change , such as a million + pound payload , two stage/two motor with extremely simplified internals , with initial cost per pound to LEO about 25 \ % ( at best , possibly as little as 10 \ % of this estimate ; 2.5 \ % that of Ares-H ) of that of the best optimistic estimate that the Ares heavy would approach after 12 launches .
Some of the technical details that were far less complex and more reliable than any in use or planned were panned a 'not interesting ' and used as cause to dismiss the design , although some of those same details made it into later designs that flew.The design was done for Aerojet in 1962 by Robert Truax http : //www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm [ astronautix.com ] The revolutionary sea launch aspect was the one portion actually tested in an earlier model .
The simplicity of the design would make it possible to take from paper to LEO in 5 years .
This is just one such design that could be retrieved from history where it was buried in favor of corporate welfare .
This is one of the few actually done by a documented and well respected pioneer of rocketry http : //neverworld.net/truax/ [ neverworld.net ] .No gasps , no Salvage 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House,....Then we can rule out any significant breakthrough or giant step change, such as a million + pound payload, two stage/two motor with extremely simplified internals, with initial cost per pound to LEO about 25\% (at best, possibly as little as 10\% of this estimate; 2.5\% that of Ares-H) of that of the best optimistic estimate that the Ares heavy would approach after 12 launches.
Some of the technical details that were far less complex and more reliable than any in use or planned were panned a 'not interesting' and used as cause to dismiss the design, although some of those same details made it into later designs that flew.The design was done for Aerojet in 1962 by Robert Truax http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm [astronautix.com] The revolutionary sea launch aspect was the one portion actually tested in an earlier model.
The simplicity of the design would make it possible to take from paper to LEO in 5 years.
This is just one such design that could be retrieved from history where it was buried in favor of corporate welfare.
This is one of the few actually done by a documented and well respected pioneer of rocketry http://neverworld.net/truax/ [neverworld.net] .No gasps, no Salvage 1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488148</id>
	<title>Smart move</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1261155660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably the only smart decision this man has made.  I offer into evidence a line from "From the Earth to the Moon" series.  "Pumping that much cash into the private sector could be very popular"...of course, ironically, that's tempered by that douchebag Al Franken who is supposed to be the science adviser but who has less than zero ability to dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the only smart decision this man has made .
I offer into evidence a line from " From the Earth to the Moon " series .
" Pumping that much cash into the private sector could be very popular " ...of course , ironically , that 's tempered by that douchebag Al Franken who is supposed to be the science adviser but who has less than zero ability to dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the only smart decision this man has made.
I offer into evidence a line from "From the Earth to the Moon" series.
"Pumping that much cash into the private sector could be very popular"...of course, ironically, that's tempered by that douchebag Al Franken who is supposed to be the science adviser but who has less than zero ability to dream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491144</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261166340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, it was bad then and all the demonstrations haven't done anything!  Even electing another party has only made it worse.  It's time to start backing a smaller government 3rd party I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , it was bad then and all the demonstrations have n't done anything !
Even electing another party has only made it worse .
It 's time to start backing a smaller government 3rd party I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, it was bad then and all the demonstrations haven't done anything!
Even electing another party has only made it worse.
It's time to start backing a smaller government 3rd party I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494922</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261140060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress. One way.</p></div><p>That is biological warfare. I'm sure that we are civilized species, and wouldn't stoop that low.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress .
One way.That is biological warfare .
I 'm sure that we are civilized species , and would n't stoop that low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first payload to the moon in the new launcher will be the entire Congress.
One way.That is biological warfare.
I'm sure that we are civilized species, and wouldn't stoop that low.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487908</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller budgets</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1261154580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I think he can have this one, since the entire budget is 1 day's worth of combat in Iraq.</p><p>If he tells the US military to go on holiday for a week in Iraq he can fund this 7 times over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I think he can have this one , since the entire budget is 1 day 's worth of combat in Iraq.If he tells the US military to go on holiday for a week in Iraq he can fund this 7 times over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I think he can have this one, since the entire budget is 1 day's worth of combat in Iraq.If he tells the US military to go on holiday for a week in Iraq he can fund this 7 times over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489144</id>
	<title>Re:Article makes no sense</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261159620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better.</i> <br> <br>
They were supposed to, but they didn't.  They developed a new solid rocket motors for the ARES-I.  They're developing new engines, new solids, new tankage, new upper stage engines (as well as needing new crawlers, and nwe launch pads) for the ARES-V.  About the only thing that's reused from the shuttle (or so I've read) is the system that ignites the solids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better .
They were supposed to , but they did n't .
They developed a new solid rocket motors for the ARES-I .
They 're developing new engines , new solids , new tankage , new upper stage engines ( as well as needing new crawlers , and nwe launch pads ) for the ARES-V. About the only thing that 's reused from the shuttle ( or so I 've read ) is the system that ignites the solids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were supposed to reuse shuttle parts and know-how to make things work better.
They were supposed to, but they didn't.
They developed a new solid rocket motors for the ARES-I.
They're developing new engines, new solids, new tankage, new upper stage engines (as well as needing new crawlers, and nwe launch pads) for the ARES-V.  About the only thing that's reused from the shuttle (or so I've read) is the system that ignites the solids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487538</id>
	<title>NASA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261153320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Science !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Science !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Science !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30492646</id>
	<title>anyone interested in the actual program?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261128660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Sorry to interrupt the political sniping.  It's interesting to me that TFA says "The new program would jettison Ares 1".  Does this mean Jupiter could be considered, or is this a hard reset going back to square one?  TFA is unclear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to interrupt the political sniping .
It 's interesting to me that TFA says " The new program would jettison Ares 1 " .
Does this mean Jupiter could be considered , or is this a hard reset going back to square one ?
TFA is unclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sorry to interrupt the political sniping.
It's interesting to me that TFA says "The new program would jettison Ares 1".
Does this mean Jupiter could be considered, or is this a hard reset going back to square one?
TFA is unclear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489338</id>
	<title>Re:LIKE WE DID ANY BETTER.</title>
	<author>acoustix</author>
	<datestamp>1261160340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me, when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.</p><p>Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting.</p></div><p>You must be forgetting about the GOP Congress in the 90s that had some balanced budgets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me , when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting.You must be forgetting about the GOP Congress in the 90s that had some balanced budgets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That any Republican or so-called conservative can complain about a Democratic deficit with a straight face is beyond me, when our party has not produced a single balanced budget in 40 years and ushered in the mega-deficits under Reagan.Republicans fail when it comes to budget cutting.You must be forgetting about the GOP Congress in the 90s that had some balanced budgets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491292</id>
	<title>No problem.  We'll just put it on the credit card.</title>
	<author>section321a</author>
	<datestamp>1261166940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I love the idea of space exploration, sooner or later our stupid government will either:

a) Figure out we're broke, or

b) Have their credit card declined.

That day is coming.  I know people have heard for years and years that the national debt is a problem and we've been able to keep going, but unsustainable trends won't.  As a nation, we have incurred massive amounts of debts (public and private) with very little to show for it.  The debt did not go toward investment in future growth, it was consumed.  We can't afford to spend what we spend on space now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I love the idea of space exploration , sooner or later our stupid government will either : a ) Figure out we 're broke , or b ) Have their credit card declined .
That day is coming .
I know people have heard for years and years that the national debt is a problem and we 've been able to keep going , but unsustainable trends wo n't .
As a nation , we have incurred massive amounts of debts ( public and private ) with very little to show for it .
The debt did not go toward investment in future growth , it was consumed .
We ca n't afford to spend what we spend on space now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I love the idea of space exploration, sooner or later our stupid government will either:

a) Figure out we're broke, or

b) Have their credit card declined.
That day is coming.
I know people have heard for years and years that the national debt is a problem and we've been able to keep going, but unsustainable trends won't.
As a nation, we have incurred massive amounts of debts (public and private) with very little to show for it.
The debt did not go toward investment in future growth, it was consumed.
We can't afford to spend what we spend on space now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489090</id>
	<title>ARIES I is bedder then</title>
	<author>angelwolf71885</author>
	<datestamp>1261159440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA is on the right track with ARIES I rather then the retarded Jupiter ideas or the moronic delta lift crap

i hope congress vets this crap and DEMANDS the ARIES</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is on the right track with ARIES I rather then the retarded Jupiter ideas or the moronic delta lift crap i hope congress vets this crap and DEMANDS the ARIES</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is on the right track with ARIES I rather then the retarded Jupiter ideas or the moronic delta lift crap

i hope congress vets this crap and DEMANDS the ARIES</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491534</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social security, medicare and medicaid make up 40\% of the overall budget, with unemployment/welfare/interest payments making up another 20\% (they're considered mandatory spending as opposed to discretionary).</p><p>Although, you are right that Defense &amp; War spending does make up a majority of discretionary spending (and around 25\% of the overall budget including Iraq and Afghanistan).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social security , medicare and medicaid make up 40 \ % of the overall budget , with unemployment/welfare/interest payments making up another 20 \ % ( they 're considered mandatory spending as opposed to discretionary ) .Although , you are right that Defense &amp; War spending does make up a majority of discretionary spending ( and around 25 \ % of the overall budget including Iraq and Afghanistan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social security, medicare and medicaid make up 40\% of the overall budget, with unemployment/welfare/interest payments making up another 20\% (they're considered mandatory spending as opposed to discretionary).Although, you are right that Defense &amp; War spending does make up a majority of discretionary spending (and around 25\% of the overall budget including Iraq and Afghanistan).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488010</id>
	<title>Re:Saturn V</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1261155120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of the blue prints no longer exist. Most of the original engineers have died off. There were a lot of issues that arose during design and construction that were largely undocumented. My stepfathers father as one of the designers of the saturn V's first stage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the blue prints no longer exist .
Most of the original engineers have died off .
There were a lot of issues that arose during design and construction that were largely undocumented .
My stepfathers father as one of the designers of the saturn V 's first stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the blue prints no longer exist.
Most of the original engineers have died off.
There were a lot of issues that arose during design and construction that were largely undocumented.
My stepfathers father as one of the designers of the saturn V's first stage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489470</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1261160820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While war spending is inherently the worst kind of spending, (since you are borrowing money for something which is expended once such as ordinance, and unlike other spending has the PURPOSE of destroying wealth, instead of even the chance of creating it), actual war spending accounts for a small portion of our budget. It's just the largest item in the "discretionary" budget.<br> <br>

I'm of the opinion however that since Congress saw fit to steal from the non-discretionary budget to pay for the discretionary budget that it's foolish to act as if the budgets are very separate. Yes, to change FUNDING levels would require fundamentally altering programs in the non-discretionary budget, unlike Defense spending. But I take issue with people who point to ANY part of our budget as "the problem". It just displays their ignorance and/or naivety.<br> <br>

Defense spending should be slashed. And so should most other spending. The Federal government spends so much money on things they have no business spending money on.<br> <br>

Incidentally, funding NASA, which consistently brings new technology, advancement and understanding that can be appreciated not just by our citizens but by all humans, is perhaps one of the best places for the government to dump money.<br> <br>

But please, anyone who advocates cutting funding for a single part of the budget is either willfully ignorant, or completely self-serving in their own opinions. The budget is much more complex than that... please don't make yourself sound like a 16 year old rebel without a cause by pretending otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While war spending is inherently the worst kind of spending , ( since you are borrowing money for something which is expended once such as ordinance , and unlike other spending has the PURPOSE of destroying wealth , instead of even the chance of creating it ) , actual war spending accounts for a small portion of our budget .
It 's just the largest item in the " discretionary " budget .
I 'm of the opinion however that since Congress saw fit to steal from the non-discretionary budget to pay for the discretionary budget that it 's foolish to act as if the budgets are very separate .
Yes , to change FUNDING levels would require fundamentally altering programs in the non-discretionary budget , unlike Defense spending .
But I take issue with people who point to ANY part of our budget as " the problem " .
It just displays their ignorance and/or naivety .
Defense spending should be slashed .
And so should most other spending .
The Federal government spends so much money on things they have no business spending money on .
Incidentally , funding NASA , which consistently brings new technology , advancement and understanding that can be appreciated not just by our citizens but by all humans , is perhaps one of the best places for the government to dump money .
But please , anyone who advocates cutting funding for a single part of the budget is either willfully ignorant , or completely self-serving in their own opinions .
The budget is much more complex than that... please do n't make yourself sound like a 16 year old rebel without a cause by pretending otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While war spending is inherently the worst kind of spending, (since you are borrowing money for something which is expended once such as ordinance, and unlike other spending has the PURPOSE of destroying wealth, instead of even the chance of creating it), actual war spending accounts for a small portion of our budget.
It's just the largest item in the "discretionary" budget.
I'm of the opinion however that since Congress saw fit to steal from the non-discretionary budget to pay for the discretionary budget that it's foolish to act as if the budgets are very separate.
Yes, to change FUNDING levels would require fundamentally altering programs in the non-discretionary budget, unlike Defense spending.
But I take issue with people who point to ANY part of our budget as "the problem".
It just displays their ignorance and/or naivety.
Defense spending should be slashed.
And so should most other spending.
The Federal government spends so much money on things they have no business spending money on.
Incidentally, funding NASA, which consistently brings new technology, advancement and understanding that can be appreciated not just by our citizens but by all humans, is perhaps one of the best places for the government to dump money.
But please, anyone who advocates cutting funding for a single part of the budget is either willfully ignorant, or completely self-serving in their own opinions.
The budget is much more complex than that... please don't make yourself sound like a 16 year old rebel without a cause by pretending otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488114</id>
	<title>DIRECT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am glad they are ditching ARES-I.  The thing could barely lift the Orion module into orbit, and that's after lopping off all sorts of features (land landing, six person crew, toilet, etc).  Then there were the thrust oscillation issues. A solid rocket does not produce a steady thrust. As it burns, chunks of the fuel can come loose and alter the burn characteristics of the engine as a whole.  On the Shuttle, there was a flexible beam running through the external tank.  The solids were attached to both ends of the flexible beam, and the orbiter was attached to the middle.  They had to develop some sort of spring system for ARES-I, which didn't help its already weak lift capabilities.<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.directlauncher.com/" title="directlauncher.com">This</a> [directlauncher.com] makes a lot more sense.  Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top.  There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.  The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease.  In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions.  Imagine being able to park one permanently at the ISS, as a lifeboat.  The J-130, through the use of a module that mimics the mount points of the shuttle's cargo bay, could lift any payload that the shuttle could lift - including the Canadarm and an airlock for EVAs, something the ARES-I cannot do.<br> <br>
Because it shares so much of the shuttle heritage, the Jupiter system can keep the bulk of the current shuttle workers employed, especially if the current shuttle mission manifest is stretched out, or perhaps a flight or two added. The ARES system would leave a decade-long gap in some areas.  Far to long to keep people around "polishing tools".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad they are ditching ARES-I .
The thing could barely lift the Orion module into orbit , and that 's after lopping off all sorts of features ( land landing , six person crew , toilet , etc ) .
Then there were the thrust oscillation issues .
A solid rocket does not produce a steady thrust .
As it burns , chunks of the fuel can come loose and alter the burn characteristics of the engine as a whole .
On the Shuttle , there was a flexible beam running through the external tank .
The solids were attached to both ends of the flexible beam , and the orbiter was attached to the middle .
They had to develop some sort of spring system for ARES-I , which did n't help its already weak lift capabilities .
This [ directlauncher.com ] makes a lot more sense .
Take the basic shuttle launch system , remove the orbiter , stick the engines on the bottom , put the Orion module on the top .
There would be no costly engine development , as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years .
The J-130 ( as its called ) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease .
In fact , it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions , but the full featured Orions .
Imagine being able to park one permanently at the ISS , as a lifeboat .
The J-130 , through the use of a module that mimics the mount points of the shuttle 's cargo bay , could lift any payload that the shuttle could lift - including the Canadarm and an airlock for EVAs , something the ARES-I can not do .
Because it shares so much of the shuttle heritage , the Jupiter system can keep the bulk of the current shuttle workers employed , especially if the current shuttle mission manifest is stretched out , or perhaps a flight or two added .
The ARES system would leave a decade-long gap in some areas .
Far to long to keep people around " polishing tools " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad they are ditching ARES-I.
The thing could barely lift the Orion module into orbit, and that's after lopping off all sorts of features (land landing, six person crew, toilet, etc).
Then there were the thrust oscillation issues.
A solid rocket does not produce a steady thrust.
As it burns, chunks of the fuel can come loose and alter the burn characteristics of the engine as a whole.
On the Shuttle, there was a flexible beam running through the external tank.
The solids were attached to both ends of the flexible beam, and the orbiter was attached to the middle.
They had to develop some sort of spring system for ARES-I, which didn't help its already weak lift capabilities.
This [directlauncher.com] makes a lot more sense.
Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top.
There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.
The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease.
In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions.
Imagine being able to park one permanently at the ISS, as a lifeboat.
The J-130, through the use of a module that mimics the mount points of the shuttle's cargo bay, could lift any payload that the shuttle could lift - including the Canadarm and an airlock for EVAs, something the ARES-I cannot do.
Because it shares so much of the shuttle heritage, the Jupiter system can keep the bulk of the current shuttle workers employed, especially if the current shuttle mission manifest is stretched out, or perhaps a flight or two added.
The ARES system would leave a decade-long gap in some areas.
Far to long to keep people around "polishing tools".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906</id>
	<title>Re:MORE FUNDS?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Iraq war" has been about 1/15th of the Federal budget since the war began.  What about the other 14/15ths of the budget?</p><p>You obviously don't care about the budget at all and are just repeating anti-war talking-points.  You are also off topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Iraq war " has been about 1/15th of the Federal budget since the war began .
What about the other 14/15ths of the budget ? You obviously do n't care about the budget at all and are just repeating anti-war talking-points .
You are also off topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Iraq war" has been about 1/15th of the Federal budget since the war began.
What about the other 14/15ths of the budget?You obviously don't care about the budget at all and are just repeating anti-war talking-points.
You are also off topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490764</id>
	<title>Phobos Mission</title>
	<author>frank249</author>
	<datestamp>1261164960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA: <i>the White House is more intrigued by missions to asteroids and Phobos and Deimos as a precursor to a human landing on the Red Planet in the distant future.</i></p><p>This is great news.  A mission to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos\_(moon)#Future\_missions" title="wikipedia.org">Phobos</a> [wikipedia.org] would make a lot of sense.  It has a lower delta V than a moon or Mars landing.  It is <a href="http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Footsteps.pdf" title="geoffreylandis.com">estimated</a> [geoffreylandis.com] to require half the propellant and hardware weight compared to a mission to the surface, half the mission cost, and significantly lower risk due to the fact that no surface manned lander is required. More importantly, it has less than half the engineering and development cost (and time). The other big plus is that there is no rotation so the mission would be protected from radiation by Phobos on one side and Mars on the other.  The only question is whether the Russians will beat the US and get a manned mission there first.  They have been looking at going to Phobos for a while now.  They have an unmanned mission going there and returning with samples <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos-Grunt" title="wikipedia.org">scheduled for 2011.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : the White House is more intrigued by missions to asteroids and Phobos and Deimos as a precursor to a human landing on the Red Planet in the distant future.This is great news .
A mission to Phobos [ wikipedia.org ] would make a lot of sense .
It has a lower delta V than a moon or Mars landing .
It is estimated [ geoffreylandis.com ] to require half the propellant and hardware weight compared to a mission to the surface , half the mission cost , and significantly lower risk due to the fact that no surface manned lander is required .
More importantly , it has less than half the engineering and development cost ( and time ) .
The other big plus is that there is no rotation so the mission would be protected from radiation by Phobos on one side and Mars on the other .
The only question is whether the Russians will beat the US and get a manned mission there first .
They have been looking at going to Phobos for a while now .
They have an unmanned mission going there and returning with samples scheduled for 2011 .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: the White House is more intrigued by missions to asteroids and Phobos and Deimos as a precursor to a human landing on the Red Planet in the distant future.This is great news.
A mission to Phobos [wikipedia.org] would make a lot of sense.
It has a lower delta V than a moon or Mars landing.
It is estimated [geoffreylandis.com] to require half the propellant and hardware weight compared to a mission to the surface, half the mission cost, and significantly lower risk due to the fact that no surface manned lander is required.
More importantly, it has less than half the engineering and development cost (and time).
The other big plus is that there is no rotation so the mission would be protected from radiation by Phobos on one side and Mars on the other.
The only question is whether the Russians will beat the US and get a manned mission there first.
They have been looking at going to Phobos for a while now.
They have an unmanned mission going there and returning with samples scheduled for 2011.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30492866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30492070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30495538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30500810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30500270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30495938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1428207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30495538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30500810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30496690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30492866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30492070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489100
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30500270
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488226
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30491144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30490764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30494922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30487632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30495938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1428207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30488234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1428207.30489492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
