<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_22_1319234</id>
	<title>Panel Warns NASA On Commercial Astronaut Transport</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264168860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://desscorpatgmail.com/" rel="nofollow">DesScorp</a> writes <i>"In a blow against the commercial space industry, a federal panel <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748704541004575012112718455380.html">warned NASA not to use private companies</a> to ferry astronauts into space. While the Obama Administration wants to outsource some NASA activities, insiders at the space agency are resisting any moves to use commercial alternatives. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 'cautioned that the private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit. The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures, and said that switching to private alternatives now would be "unwise and probably not cost-effective." The findings are likely to provide a boost to NASA officials who want to keep nearly all manned space programs in house.' Private companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing argue that they're capable of human transport in space safely and at competitive costs."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DesScorp writes " In a blow against the commercial space industry , a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies to ferry astronauts into space .
While the Obama Administration wants to outsource some NASA activities , insiders at the space agency are resisting any moves to use commercial alternatives .
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 'cautioned that the private space companies rely on " unsubstantiated claims " and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit .
The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures , and said that switching to private alternatives now would be " unwise and probably not cost-effective .
" The findings are likely to provide a boost to NASA officials who want to keep nearly all manned space programs in house .
' Private companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing argue that they 're capable of human transport in space safely and at competitive costs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DesScorp writes "In a blow against the commercial space industry, a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies to ferry astronauts into space.
While the Obama Administration wants to outsource some NASA activities, insiders at the space agency are resisting any moves to use commercial alternatives.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 'cautioned that the private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.
The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures, and said that switching to private alternatives now would be "unwise and probably not cost-effective.
" The findings are likely to provide a boost to NASA officials who want to keep nearly all manned space programs in house.
' Private companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing argue that they're capable of human transport in space safely and at competitive costs.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859884</id>
	<title>Outsource all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264178160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet China can outsource that. The some way as the Satelite launches, and high tech electronics.</p><p>Outsource the gov also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet China can outsource that .
The some way as the Satelite launches , and high tech electronics.Outsource the gov also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet China can outsource that.
The some way as the Satelite launches, and high tech electronics.Outsource the gov also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859016</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1264173600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are talking about companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, then yes I think this is a bad idea. but if they are talking about new unknown companies, then I can't blame them for being cautious.  Going to space is no small endeavor, its not like just putting a sign on your car and creating a cab company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are talking about companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing , then yes I think this is a bad idea .
but if they are talking about new unknown companies , then I ca n't blame them for being cautious .
Going to space is no small endeavor , its not like just putting a sign on your car and creating a cab company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are talking about companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, then yes I think this is a bad idea.
but if they are talking about new unknown companies, then I can't blame them for being cautious.
Going to space is no small endeavor, its not like just putting a sign on your car and creating a cab company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859166</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Known Nutter</author>
	<datestamp>1264174500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When considering survival in a limited-edition experimental craft, the first step may be to avoid riding a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.</p><p>Just sayin'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When considering survival in a limited-edition experimental craft , the first step may be to avoid riding a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.Just sayin'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When considering survival in a limited-edition experimental craft, the first step may be to avoid riding a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.Just sayin'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860584</id>
	<title>Mod parent down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264181460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...).  The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue.</p></div></blockquote> </div><p>You are incorrect.  You're parroting Rush Limbaugh's line, which is not true.  The foam that struck Columbia's reinforced carbon carbon tiles (NOT the ceramic tiles) was the CFC based formulation.  Read the CAIB report volume 1, page 51 for information based on facts.  Also, NASA was aware that foam was shedding and damaging heating tiles.  They knew this from STS-2 which had entire tiles missing.  The problem was this was condiered a safe deviation precisely because no issue had previously occured.  That's a dangerous mindset.  Please don't get any more information from entertainers without first fact checking it for yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the second , they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs ( good thing... ) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle ( bad thing... ) .
The testing applied to the new insulation foam was n't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was , which led to the eventual issue .
You are incorrect .
You 're parroting Rush Limbaugh 's line , which is not true .
The foam that struck Columbia 's reinforced carbon carbon tiles ( NOT the ceramic tiles ) was the CFC based formulation .
Read the CAIB report volume 1 , page 51 for information based on facts .
Also , NASA was aware that foam was shedding and damaging heating tiles .
They knew this from STS-2 which had entire tiles missing .
The problem was this was condiered a safe deviation precisely because no issue had previously occured .
That 's a dangerous mindset .
Please do n't get any more information from entertainers without first fact checking it for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...).
The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue.
You are incorrect.
You're parroting Rush Limbaugh's line, which is not true.
The foam that struck Columbia's reinforced carbon carbon tiles (NOT the ceramic tiles) was the CFC based formulation.
Read the CAIB report volume 1, page 51 for information based on facts.
Also, NASA was aware that foam was shedding and damaging heating tiles.
They knew this from STS-2 which had entire tiles missing.
The problem was this was condiered a safe deviation precisely because no issue had previously occured.
That's a dangerous mindset.
Please don't get any more information from entertainers without first fact checking it for yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859650</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If their failure rate is high, they won't get very many launches before NASA says enough and stops buying from them.  The best way to maximize profit is with more launches, launches that will only take place if certain safety requirements are met.  In the meantime, you do realize that NASA gets paid to put commercial satellites into orbit right?  And that they have a limited budget, tight time-tables, and various government offices breathing down their necks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If their failure rate is high , they wo n't get very many launches before NASA says enough and stops buying from them .
The best way to maximize profit is with more launches , launches that will only take place if certain safety requirements are met .
In the meantime , you do realize that NASA gets paid to put commercial satellites into orbit right ?
And that they have a limited budget , tight time-tables , and various government offices breathing down their necks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If their failure rate is high, they won't get very many launches before NASA says enough and stops buying from them.
The best way to maximize profit is with more launches, launches that will only take place if certain safety requirements are met.
In the meantime, you do realize that NASA gets paid to put commercial satellites into orbit right?
And that they have a limited budget, tight time-tables, and various government offices breathing down their necks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859696</id>
	<title>Re:"Probably not cost effective"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.<br></i><br>My power company, <a href="http://www.cwlp.com/" title="cwlp.com">CWLP</a> [cwlp.com], is a government run monopoly, owned by the city of Springfield. We have the cheapest electricity in the state, and and the most reliable power.</p><p>In March, 2006 two F-2 tornados (almost F-3s) <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/225401" title="slashdot.org">tore through Springfield</a> [slashdot.org] and completely destroyed the electrical infrastructure in my neighborhood and a lot of other neighborhoods. There wasn't a single unbroken utility pole, nor a single wire that didn't touch the ground. The transformers were all on the ground, on roofs, and in trees. They had to completely rebuild, and my power was back on in a week.</p><p>Later that spring a single weak F-1 went through the St Louis area. I visited a friend in Cahokia on the Illinois side of the river, served by the private power company Amerin three weeks later, and the only evidence that there had been a tornado at all was that my friend's power was still out.</p><p>Amerin is my natural gas company, and their customer service is abysmal. CWLP's customer service is for the most part excellent. The reason is, if I'm unhappy with my electrical service I'm liable to vote against the Mayor next election, but if I'm unhappy with my gas service there's absolutely nothing I can do; it's not like I can get another gas company.</p><p>If you have choices, the free market works well. With a monopoly there is no free market, and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.My power company , CWLP [ cwlp.com ] , is a government run monopoly , owned by the city of Springfield .
We have the cheapest electricity in the state , and and the most reliable power.In March , 2006 two F-2 tornados ( almost F-3s ) tore through Springfield [ slashdot.org ] and completely destroyed the electrical infrastructure in my neighborhood and a lot of other neighborhoods .
There was n't a single unbroken utility pole , nor a single wire that did n't touch the ground .
The transformers were all on the ground , on roofs , and in trees .
They had to completely rebuild , and my power was back on in a week.Later that spring a single weak F-1 went through the St Louis area .
I visited a friend in Cahokia on the Illinois side of the river , served by the private power company Amerin three weeks later , and the only evidence that there had been a tornado at all was that my friend 's power was still out.Amerin is my natural gas company , and their customer service is abysmal .
CWLP 's customer service is for the most part excellent .
The reason is , if I 'm unhappy with my electrical service I 'm liable to vote against the Mayor next election , but if I 'm unhappy with my gas service there 's absolutely nothing I can do ; it 's not like I can get another gas company.If you have choices , the free market works well .
With a monopoly there is no free market , and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.My power company, CWLP [cwlp.com], is a government run monopoly, owned by the city of Springfield.
We have the cheapest electricity in the state, and and the most reliable power.In March, 2006 two F-2 tornados (almost F-3s) tore through Springfield [slashdot.org] and completely destroyed the electrical infrastructure in my neighborhood and a lot of other neighborhoods.
There wasn't a single unbroken utility pole, nor a single wire that didn't touch the ground.
The transformers were all on the ground, on roofs, and in trees.
They had to completely rebuild, and my power was back on in a week.Later that spring a single weak F-1 went through the St Louis area.
I visited a friend in Cahokia on the Illinois side of the river, served by the private power company Amerin three weeks later, and the only evidence that there had been a tornado at all was that my friend's power was still out.Amerin is my natural gas company, and their customer service is abysmal.
CWLP's customer service is for the most part excellent.
The reason is, if I'm unhappy with my electrical service I'm liable to vote against the Mayor next election, but if I'm unhappy with my gas service there's absolutely nothing I can do; it's not like I can get another gas company.If you have choices, the free market works well.
With a monopoly there is no free market, and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861536</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264186200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.</p></div><p>Key word here is "crazy". The NASA bureaucracy has a long history of poor risk management. They've gone psycho over controlling the risk of certain failures in launch (the Ares I, for example, is rationalized on the basis of a guess that they halve risk by roughly 1 part in 400, also the blame finding that occurs after major accidents) while ignoring or discounting greater risks (the Ares I currently requires a sacrifice of reliability in lunar missions with the reduction of risk in launching the mission being lower than the increase of risk elsewhere in the mission due to reduced redundancy of the Orion spacecraft). Some old time examples are the concentration of infrastructure in Florida (one well-placed big hurricane can take it all out), the dependence on a single launch vehicle (a huge single point of failure), and the complete absence of a successor vehicle to the Shuttle prior to 2005.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really is rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.</p></div><p>I don't buy it. If the US really wanted a "safe as possible" space program, then they wouldn't launch people into space. By launching people into space, you implicitly accept that there's something more important to you than the lives of your astronauts, namely doing that mission. And to be honest, that is usually correct. The mission usually is far more valuable and important than the astronauts.<br> <br>

By increasing safety requirements to absurd levels (which are always for <b>known</b> safety issues not unknown ones), you're making the launch far more expensive at the expense of a minute increase in astronaut safety. And often this will be counterproductive. Namely, launching more and spending less on safety can actually be safer simply because you gain more operational experience and find more risks in real missions than in tests and simulations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things , and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner , yes it 'll save a bundle , and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.Key word here is " crazy " .
The NASA bureaucracy has a long history of poor risk management .
They 've gone psycho over controlling the risk of certain failures in launch ( the Ares I , for example , is rationalized on the basis of a guess that they halve risk by roughly 1 part in 400 , also the blame finding that occurs after major accidents ) while ignoring or discounting greater risks ( the Ares I currently requires a sacrifice of reliability in lunar missions with the reduction of risk in launching the mission being lower than the increase of risk elsewhere in the mission due to reduced redundancy of the Orion spacecraft ) .
Some old time examples are the concentration of infrastructure in Florida ( one well-placed big hurricane can take it all out ) , the dependence on a single launch vehicle ( a huge single point of failure ) , and the complete absence of a successor vehicle to the Shuttle prior to 2005.All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible .
Rocket science really is rocket science .
If you 're not spending that money , you have to expect your safety to go to hell.I do n't buy it .
If the US really wanted a " safe as possible " space program , then they would n't launch people into space .
By launching people into space , you implicitly accept that there 's something more important to you than the lives of your astronauts , namely doing that mission .
And to be honest , that is usually correct .
The mission usually is far more valuable and important than the astronauts .
By increasing safety requirements to absurd levels ( which are always for known safety issues not unknown ones ) , you 're making the launch far more expensive at the expense of a minute increase in astronaut safety .
And often this will be counterproductive .
Namely , launching more and spending less on safety can actually be safer simply because you gain more operational experience and find more risks in real missions than in tests and simulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.Key word here is "crazy".
The NASA bureaucracy has a long history of poor risk management.
They've gone psycho over controlling the risk of certain failures in launch (the Ares I, for example, is rationalized on the basis of a guess that they halve risk by roughly 1 part in 400, also the blame finding that occurs after major accidents) while ignoring or discounting greater risks (the Ares I currently requires a sacrifice of reliability in lunar missions with the reduction of risk in launching the mission being lower than the increase of risk elsewhere in the mission due to reduced redundancy of the Orion spacecraft).
Some old time examples are the concentration of infrastructure in Florida (one well-placed big hurricane can take it all out), the dependence on a single launch vehicle (a huge single point of failure), and the complete absence of a successor vehicle to the Shuttle prior to 2005.All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible.
Rocket science really is rocket science.
If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.I don't buy it.
If the US really wanted a "safe as possible" space program, then they wouldn't launch people into space.
By launching people into space, you implicitly accept that there's something more important to you than the lives of your astronauts, namely doing that mission.
And to be honest, that is usually correct.
The mission usually is far more valuable and important than the astronauts.
By increasing safety requirements to absurd levels (which are always for known safety issues not unknown ones), you're making the launch far more expensive at the expense of a minute increase in astronaut safety.
And often this will be counterproductive.
Namely, launching more and spending less on safety can actually be safer simply because you gain more operational experience and find more risks in real missions than in tests and simulations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859704</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>Ipeunipig</author>
	<datestamp>1264177260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> &ldquo;Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?&rdquo;</htmltext>
<tokenext>   Well-well look .
I already told you : I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers do n't have to .
I have people skills ; I am good at dealing with people .
Ca n't you understand that ?
What the hell is wrong with you people ?   </tokentext>
<sentencetext> “Well-well look.
I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to.
I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people.
Can't you understand that?
What the hell is wrong with you people?”</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862176</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264190340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GREAT post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Just to clarify<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The portion of the foam that broke loose was the OLD CFC-based formulation, not the new stuff</p><p>http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1520772&amp;cid=30859296</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GREAT post ... Just to clarify ...The portion of the foam that broke loose was the OLD CFC-based formulation , not the new stuffhttp : //science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1520772&amp;cid = 30859296</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GREAT post ... Just to clarify ...The portion of the foam that broke loose was the OLD CFC-based formulation, not the new stuffhttp://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1520772&amp;cid=30859296</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859550</id>
	<title>Re:Two words to the federal panel...</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1264176540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we need to start thinning out the heard and I nominate you as the prime candidate.
<br> <br>
Oh and can we start storing nuclear waste in your backyard. Why should the government have a monopoly on storing nuclear waste.
<br> <br>
Jackass!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we need to start thinning out the heard and I nominate you as the prime candidate .
Oh and can we start storing nuclear waste in your backyard .
Why should the government have a monopoly on storing nuclear waste .
Jackass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we need to start thinning out the heard and I nominate you as the prime candidate.
Oh and can we start storing nuclear waste in your backyard.
Why should the government have a monopoly on storing nuclear waste.
Jackass!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862486</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264192200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For all of its vaunted simplicity, the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space (and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground).</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, it had multiple incidents and close calls...<br>
&nbsp; <br>Consider the flight of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_6" title="wikipedia.org">Apollo 6</a> [wikipedia.org].  The pogo problems discovered on the flight weren't fully cured until Apollo 14.  (And in fact those problems nearly caused the loss of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_13#Mission\_highlights" title="wikipedia.org">Apollo 13</a> [wikipedia.org] during ascent.)  Then consider such incidents as the low fuel problems on Apollo 11, the docking problems on Apollo 14, the SPS issues on Apollo 15 and 16, the RCS problems on Skylab 3, the near poisoning of the crew on ASTP during reentry and landing...<br>
&nbsp; <br>There's more to safety than just not killing someone or coming close.  Apollo had multiple incidents that threatened the life of the crew.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it, you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards.</p></div></blockquote><p>The USN Submarine Force has operated that way, and without independent evaluators, for decades - and has an outstanding safety record.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all of its vaunted simplicity , the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space ( and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground ) .Actually , it had multiple incidents and close calls.. .   Consider the flight of Apollo 6 [ wikipedia.org ] .
The pogo problems discovered on the flight were n't fully cured until Apollo 14 .
( And in fact those problems nearly caused the loss of Apollo 13 [ wikipedia.org ] during ascent .
) Then consider such incidents as the low fuel problems on Apollo 11 , the docking problems on Apollo 14 , the SPS issues on Apollo 15 and 16 , the RCS problems on Skylab 3 , the near poisoning of the crew on ASTP during reentry and landing.. .   There 's more to safety than just not killing someone or coming close .
Apollo had multiple incidents that threatened the life of the crew .
    When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it , you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards.The USN Submarine Force has operated that way , and without independent evaluators , for decades - and has an outstanding safety record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all of its vaunted simplicity, the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space (and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground).Actually, it had multiple incidents and close calls...
  Consider the flight of Apollo 6 [wikipedia.org].
The pogo problems discovered on the flight weren't fully cured until Apollo 14.
(And in fact those problems nearly caused the loss of Apollo 13 [wikipedia.org] during ascent.
)  Then consider such incidents as the low fuel problems on Apollo 11, the docking problems on Apollo 14, the SPS issues on Apollo 15 and 16, the RCS problems on Skylab 3, the near poisoning of the crew on ASTP during reentry and landing...
  There's more to safety than just not killing someone or coming close.
Apollo had multiple incidents that threatened the life of the crew.
  
  When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it, you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards.The USN Submarine Force has operated that way, and without independent evaluators, for decades - and has an outstanding safety record.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861746</id>
	<title>"A key U.S. aerospace panel"</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1264187640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, who is this, "Clown Posy"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , who is this , " Clown Posy " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, who is this, "Clown Posy"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859192</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1264174680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is. I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.</p></div><p>Right, because it is so profitable to be known as a company that kills your passengers. On another note, who are you recommending to do it then, because it seems that the people at NASA are thinking about covering thier ass, not about keeping the astronauts alive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is .
I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.Right , because it is so profitable to be known as a company that kills your passengers .
On another note , who are you recommending to do it then , because it seems that the people at NASA are thinking about covering thier ass , not about keeping the astronauts alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.
I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.Right, because it is so profitable to be known as a company that kills your passengers.
On another note, who are you recommending to do it then, because it seems that the people at NASA are thinking about covering thier ass, not about keeping the astronauts alive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30872054</id>
	<title>Re:Reasonable</title>
	<author>Luminair</author>
	<datestamp>1264237800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you don't get it.  No one at NASA or Lockheed Martin or Boeing or ATK have demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't get it .
No one at NASA or Lockheed Martin or Boeing or ATK have demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't get it.
No one at NASA or Lockheed Martin or Boeing or ATK have demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859462</id>
	<title>NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264176120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...</p><p>IMO it's time to offload manned missions and stick to actually \_exploring\_ space with probes and rovers and other remote-manned tech. Manned missions have created a burden that sucked other programs dry, but the lust of those who want to play in space can make commercial outfits viable.</p><p>We don't \_need\_ people in space before we perfect exploring it with the remote-controlled systems we absolutely require anyway to interact with an utterly hostile environment. Development cycles for remotely-manned vehicles can be much shorter (avoids the decades-long burden of old Shuttle tech) allowing "launch early, launch often".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...IMO it 's time to offload manned missions and stick to actually \ _exploring \ _ space with probes and rovers and other remote-manned tech .
Manned missions have created a burden that sucked other programs dry , but the lust of those who want to play in space can make commercial outfits viable.We do n't \ _need \ _ people in space before we perfect exploring it with the remote-controlled systems we absolutely require anyway to interact with an utterly hostile environment .
Development cycles for remotely-manned vehicles can be much shorter ( avoids the decades-long burden of old Shuttle tech ) allowing " launch early , launch often " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...IMO it's time to offload manned missions and stick to actually \_exploring\_ space with probes and rovers and other remote-manned tech.
Manned missions have created a burden that sucked other programs dry, but the lust of those who want to play in space can make commercial outfits viable.We don't \_need\_ people in space before we perfect exploring it with the remote-controlled systems we absolutely require anyway to interact with an utterly hostile environment.
Development cycles for remotely-manned vehicles can be much shorter (avoids the decades-long burden of old Shuttle tech) allowing "launch early, launch often".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860958</id>
	<title>Kind of curious</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264183380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is United Launch actually NASA? You do KNOW that they are the ones that fit the Shuttle and make it work, yes?<br> <br>
Likewise, by your opinion, it must be NASA that has the delta and Saturn's.<br>
Personally, I always thought that it was private industry that ran these, not NASA.<br> <br>
Look, NASA has done a lot of positive things. BUT, we NEED to bring private enterprise into this. If nothing else, we need private money to get us to the moon and mars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is United Launch actually NASA ?
You do KNOW that they are the ones that fit the Shuttle and make it work , yes ?
Likewise , by your opinion , it must be NASA that has the delta and Saturn 's .
Personally , I always thought that it was private industry that ran these , not NASA .
Look , NASA has done a lot of positive things .
BUT , we NEED to bring private enterprise into this .
If nothing else , we need private money to get us to the moon and mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is United Launch actually NASA?
You do KNOW that they are the ones that fit the Shuttle and make it work, yes?
Likewise, by your opinion, it must be NASA that has the delta and Saturn's.
Personally, I always thought that it was private industry that ran these, not NASA.
Look, NASA has done a lot of positive things.
BUT, we NEED to bring private enterprise into this.
If nothing else, we need private money to get us to the moon and mars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859384</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>Amorymeltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1264175760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors</p></div><p>Sarcasm and cynicism aside, I DO prefer the companies that have worked closely with NASA for decades successfully over national programs far younger and comparatively untested.  And that isn't to even mention it's a lot easier to talk when there isn't an ocean or two between you and your outsourcee.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...other than we can not truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavorsSarcasm and cynicism aside , I DO prefer the companies that have worked closely with NASA for decades successfully over national programs far younger and comparatively untested .
And that is n't to even mention it 's a lot easier to talk when there is n't an ocean or two between you and your outsourcee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavorsSarcasm and cynicism aside, I DO prefer the companies that have worked closely with NASA for decades successfully over national programs far younger and comparatively untested.
And that isn't to even mention it's a lot easier to talk when there isn't an ocean or two between you and your outsourcee.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</id>
	<title>The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is. I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is .
I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.
I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830</id>
	<title>Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264172700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Private companies with little experience vs all of NASA's experience??<br><br>They really need to rethink retiring the shuttles untill ares/constellation or whatever its called is running. </tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Private companies with little experience vs all of NASA 's experience ?
? They really need to rethink retiring the shuttles untill ares/constellation or whatever its called is running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private companies with little experience vs all of NASA's experience?
?They really need to rethink retiring the shuttles untill ares/constellation or whatever its called is running. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859990</id>
	<title>well if they would fund them...</title>
	<author>Xenious</author>
	<datestamp>1264178700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If NASA had more money and would actually do something maybe private companies would not be outpacing them.  Oh I forgot space exploration isn't funded unless there is a political race against a foreign power.  God forbid we do something just because we should...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If NASA had more money and would actually do something maybe private companies would not be outpacing them .
Oh I forgot space exploration is n't funded unless there is a political race against a foreign power .
God forbid we do something just because we should.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If NASA had more money and would actually do something maybe private companies would not be outpacing them.
Oh I forgot space exploration isn't funded unless there is a political race against a foreign power.
God forbid we do something just because we should...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859466</id>
	<title>Re:Two words to the federal panel...</title>
	<author>Amorymeltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1264176120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because there ARE risks doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lower them.  From an institutional point of view, deaths put any operation on hold longer than almost anything else.  If you want to get there, make it safe; ain't nobody gonna go to space if dying has to actually be considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because there ARE risks does n't mean we should n't try to lower them .
From an institutional point of view , deaths put any operation on hold longer than almost anything else .
If you want to get there , make it safe ; ai n't nobody gon na go to space if dying has to actually be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because there ARE risks doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lower them.
From an institutional point of view, deaths put any operation on hold longer than almost anything else.
If you want to get there, make it safe; ain't nobody gonna go to space if dying has to actually be considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860770</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1264182480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you not realize that deaths are very bad for business, there will be lawsuits and loss of business because well people died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you not realize that deaths are very bad for business , there will be lawsuits and loss of business because well people died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you not realize that deaths are very bad for business, there will be lawsuits and loss of business because well people died.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</id>
	<title>How is it different</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1264172880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>than paying another country to take our astronauts into space?</p><p>I see no difference, other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>than paying another country to take our astronauts into space ? I see no difference , other than we can not truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>than paying another country to take our astronauts into space?I see no difference, other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859794</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine. Don't fly it then. It's not like astronauts are forcefully conscripted into their profession. We'll find someone who doesn't mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine .
Do n't fly it then .
It 's not like astronauts are forcefully conscripted into their profession .
We 'll find someone who does n't mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine.
Don't fly it then.
It's not like astronauts are forcefully conscripted into their profession.
We'll find someone who doesn't mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861098</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264183920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just in...Private-Public partnerships are the worst of both worlds, not only do they not bread competition, while tax payers still foot the bill, but now their main objective is to make profit out of your taxes. Private industry is good in some places, but when they are just fighting over who gets to rip of the government, they will not be competition (manned space flight is not a consumer industry and the government will be setting up a private monopoly).</p><p>private competition &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; public monopoly (at least there is still accountability) &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; private monopoly (especially one that lives of public money)</p><p>Put yeah stick to the handbook government doing anything = bad and throw away Americas only non-military strength.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in...Private-Public partnerships are the worst of both worlds , not only do they not bread competition , while tax payers still foot the bill , but now their main objective is to make profit out of your taxes .
Private industry is good in some places , but when they are just fighting over who gets to rip of the government , they will not be competition ( manned space flight is not a consumer industry and the government will be setting up a private monopoly ) .private competition &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; public monopoly ( at least there is still accountability ) &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; private monopoly ( especially one that lives of public money ) Put yeah stick to the handbook government doing anything = bad and throw away Americas only non-military strength .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in...Private-Public partnerships are the worst of both worlds, not only do they not bread competition, while tax payers still foot the bill, but now their main objective is to make profit out of your taxes.
Private industry is good in some places, but when they are just fighting over who gets to rip of the government, they will not be competition (manned space flight is not a consumer industry and the government will be setting up a private monopoly).private competition &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; public monopoly (at least there is still accountability) &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; private monopoly (especially one that lives of public money)Put yeah stick to the handbook government doing anything = bad and throw away Americas only non-military strength.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859048</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>DaemonKnightVS</author>
	<datestamp>1264173780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>But all designed by NASA yeah?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>But all designed by NASA yeah ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But all designed by NASA yeah?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859690</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>iprefermuffins</author>
	<datestamp>1264177200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't they be thinking about both? How about they don't get paid till you're safely back on the ground?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't they be thinking about both ?
How about they do n't get paid till you 're safely back on the ground ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't they be thinking about both?
How about they don't get paid till you're safely back on the ground?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859326</id>
	<title>Space Privateers</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1264175400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privatizing the other aerospace operations of the government, mainly war, has become so economical and reliable that we now have $billions extra for space exploration. Aerospace contractor corporations like <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=\%22lockheed+martin\%22+overcharge" title="google.com">Lockheed Martin</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+overcharge" title="google.com">Boeing</a> [google.com] never overcharge the government. Their aircraft are more reliable than the NASA vehicles that crash once or twice every several thousand launches at the cutting edge of engineering.</p><p>What could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privatizing the other aerospace operations of the government , mainly war , has become so economical and reliable that we now have $ billions extra for space exploration .
Aerospace contractor corporations like Lockheed Martin [ google.com ] and Boeing [ google.com ] never overcharge the government .
Their aircraft are more reliable than the NASA vehicles that crash once or twice every several thousand launches at the cutting edge of engineering.What could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privatizing the other aerospace operations of the government, mainly war, has become so economical and reliable that we now have $billions extra for space exploration.
Aerospace contractor corporations like Lockheed Martin [google.com] and Boeing [google.com] never overcharge the government.
Their aircraft are more reliable than the NASA vehicles that crash once or twice every several thousand launches at the cutting edge of engineering.What could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861066</id>
	<title>Re:NASA isn't good at listening</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264183800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.</i></p><p>It's really funny that you mention Feynman, because the problem he opens with in his dissenting opinion as a member of the panel which studied the Challenger accident is the exact same problem NASA management (especially Alabama's MSFC) has been having in their push of the Ares I as the "safest launch vehicle ever":</p><p><a href="http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt" title="nasa.gov">http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt</a> [nasa.gov] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the<br>probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The<br>estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher<br>figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from<br>management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of<br>agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a<br>Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could<br>properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the<br>machinery?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering<br>often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of<br>originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a<br>very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with<br>apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights<br>may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively<br>unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent<br>(it is difficult to be more accurate).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the<br>probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this<br>may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and<br>success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that<br>they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost<br>incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working<br>engineers.</p></div><p>(It's also interesting to note that Feynman essentially had to fight the rest of the panel to include his dissent, as they wanted to just trust NASA to fix its problems on its own. Also worth noting that the management-to-engineer ratio at NASA is far higher than it was in Feynman's day)</p><p>Even though the Ares I exists only on paper and it hasn't even passed a reasonable design review, NASA management (or at least the pre-Bolden management) claimed it would have a failure rate of 1-in-3000. Also, this failure rate ignores a number of potential problems which have come up with the design, but the ASAP panel mentioned in the summary just takes it on good faith that NASA will still make a perfectly safe vehicle with the Ares I. Fortunately, a number of the top Ares managers have already been canned, and the new administrator, Charles Bolden, seems to be much less problematic than his predecessor, Michael Griffin (i.e. he doesn't believe himself to be the world's greatest aerospace engineer, and so actually listens to what his engineers tell him).</p><p>It's also worth noting that NASA (and the DOD, and NRO) already uses commercial launchers for all of their unmanned probes, as they've been doing for several years now. We all like to say human life is priceless, etc. etc., but there frankly isn't much more you'd do to safeguard a volunteering person than you'd do for a billion-dollar unmanned probe representing years of work by huge teams.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just trying readying Feynman 's experience with them.It 's really funny that you mention Feynman , because the problem he opens with in his dissenting opinion as a member of the panel which studied the Challenger accident is the exact same problem NASA management ( especially Alabama 's MSFC ) has been having in their push of the Ares I as the " safest launch vehicle ever " : http : //science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt [ nasa.gov ] It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to theprobability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life .
Theestimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000 .
The higherfigures come from the working engineers , and the very low figures frommanagement .
What are the causes and consequences of this lack ofagreement ?
Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put aShuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one , we couldproperly ask " What is the cause of management 's fantastic faith in themachinery ?
" ...If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained , engineeringoften can not be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations oforiginally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee avery safe vehicle .
In these situations , subtly , and often withapparently logical arguments , the criteria are altered so that flightsmay still be certified in time .
They therefore fly in a relativelyunsafe condition , with a chance of failure of the order of a percent ( it is difficult to be more accurate ) .
      Official management , on the other hand , claims to believe theprobability of failure is a thousand times less .
One reason for thismay be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection andsuccess in order to ensure the supply of funds .
The other may be thatthey sincerely believed it to be true , demonstrating an almostincredible lack of communication between themselves and their workingengineers .
( It 's also interesting to note that Feynman essentially had to fight the rest of the panel to include his dissent , as they wanted to just trust NASA to fix its problems on its own .
Also worth noting that the management-to-engineer ratio at NASA is far higher than it was in Feynman 's day ) Even though the Ares I exists only on paper and it has n't even passed a reasonable design review , NASA management ( or at least the pre-Bolden management ) claimed it would have a failure rate of 1-in-3000 .
Also , this failure rate ignores a number of potential problems which have come up with the design , but the ASAP panel mentioned in the summary just takes it on good faith that NASA will still make a perfectly safe vehicle with the Ares I. Fortunately , a number of the top Ares managers have already been canned , and the new administrator , Charles Bolden , seems to be much less problematic than his predecessor , Michael Griffin ( i.e .
he does n't believe himself to be the world 's greatest aerospace engineer , and so actually listens to what his engineers tell him ) .It 's also worth noting that NASA ( and the DOD , and NRO ) already uses commercial launchers for all of their unmanned probes , as they 've been doing for several years now .
We all like to say human life is priceless , etc .
etc. , but there frankly is n't much more you 'd do to safeguard a volunteering person than you 'd do for a billion-dollar unmanned probe representing years of work by huge teams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.It's really funny that you mention Feynman, because the problem he opens with in his dissenting opinion as a member of the panel which studied the Challenger accident is the exact same problem NASA management (especially Alabama's MSFC) has been having in their push of the Ares I as the "safest launch vehicle ever":http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt [nasa.gov] It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to theprobability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life.
Theestimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000.
The higherfigures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures frommanagement.
What are the causes and consequences of this lack ofagreement?
Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put aShuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we couldproperly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in themachinery?
" ...If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineeringoften cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations oforiginally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee avery safe vehicle.
In these situations, subtly, and often withapparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flightsmay still be certified in time.
They therefore fly in a relativelyunsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent(it is difficult to be more accurate).
      Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe theprobability of failure is a thousand times less.
One reason for thismay be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection andsuccess in order to ensure the supply of funds.
The other may be thatthey sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almostincredible lack of communication between themselves and their workingengineers.
(It's also interesting to note that Feynman essentially had to fight the rest of the panel to include his dissent, as they wanted to just trust NASA to fix its problems on its own.
Also worth noting that the management-to-engineer ratio at NASA is far higher than it was in Feynman's day)Even though the Ares I exists only on paper and it hasn't even passed a reasonable design review, NASA management (or at least the pre-Bolden management) claimed it would have a failure rate of 1-in-3000.
Also, this failure rate ignores a number of potential problems which have come up with the design, but the ASAP panel mentioned in the summary just takes it on good faith that NASA will still make a perfectly safe vehicle with the Ares I. Fortunately, a number of the top Ares managers have already been canned, and the new administrator, Charles Bolden, seems to be much less problematic than his predecessor, Michael Griffin (i.e.
he doesn't believe himself to be the world's greatest aerospace engineer, and so actually listens to what his engineers tell him).It's also worth noting that NASA (and the DOD, and NRO) already uses commercial launchers for all of their unmanned probes, as they've been doing for several years now.
We all like to say human life is priceless, etc.
etc., but there frankly isn't much more you'd do to safeguard a volunteering person than you'd do for a billion-dollar unmanned probe representing years of work by huge teams.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859190</id>
	<title>Hooray for stating the obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264174680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean capitalists lie and cut safety features to make a profit? Marx had that figured out over a hundred and fifty years ago. It sounds as if the authors of this report have some experience living in a capitalist society and the working brains to observe it instead of believing what ads tell them to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean capitalists lie and cut safety features to make a profit ?
Marx had that figured out over a hundred and fifty years ago .
It sounds as if the authors of this report have some experience living in a capitalist society and the working brains to observe it instead of believing what ads tell them to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean capitalists lie and cut safety features to make a profit?
Marx had that figured out over a hundred and fifty years ago.
It sounds as if the authors of this report have some experience living in a capitalist society and the working brains to observe it instead of believing what ads tell them to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859252</id>
	<title>easy : Allow it for the private citizens</title>
	<author>funkman</author>
	<datestamp>1264174980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allow licenses for trips into space for private citizens via private corporations. Those who can afford it would fund the cost to get it done. In the quest to standardize and get more travelers, the cost would go down. Possibly low enough to be cost effective that NASA would then transition to the best provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow licenses for trips into space for private citizens via private corporations .
Those who can afford it would fund the cost to get it done .
In the quest to standardize and get more travelers , the cost would go down .
Possibly low enough to be cost effective that NASA would then transition to the best provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow licenses for trips into space for private citizens via private corporations.
Those who can afford it would fund the cost to get it done.
In the quest to standardize and get more travelers, the cost would go down.
Possibly low enough to be cost effective that NASA would then transition to the best provider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861682</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264187100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually most of the rocket science was settled over a century ago.  Most of what we've seen from NASA is rocket engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually most of the rocket science was settled over a century ago .
Most of what we 've seen from NASA is rocket engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually most of the rocket science was settled over a century ago.
Most of what we've seen from NASA is rocket engineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</id>
	<title>probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1264172940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.</p><p>All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible.  Rocket science really <b>is</b> rocket science.  If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things , and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner , yes it 'll save a bundle , and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible .
Rocket science really is rocket science .
If you 're not spending that money , you have to expect your safety to go to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible.
Rocket science really is rocket science.
If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859266</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264175040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really is rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.</i></p><p>Except the rocket scientists and engineers mostly work for Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other private corporations, who actually build the vehicles and subsystems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible .
Rocket science really is rocket science .
If you 're not spending that money , you have to expect your safety to go to hell.Except the rocket scientists and engineers mostly work for Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other private corporations , who actually build the vehicles and subsystems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible.
Rocket science really is rocket science.
If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.Except the rocket scientists and engineers mostly work for Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other private corporations, who actually build the vehicles and subsystems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859382</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1264175760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is the profit motive? Human space travel, while it does involve engineering, is really pure science of the highest order. All we're doing is asking the question "What will happen if we send a person into space?" and doing it. It's simply too expensive to be a worthwhile commercial endeavor. As such, free enterprise doesn't make sense. It's something that a purely business attitude simply cannot understand.</p><p>Now, of course what we're talking about is separating those parts that business can understand and using business for that, but it still just seems wrong. You've got two different people talking totally different languages, one of "How can we do this?" and one of "What if we do this?"</p><p>Yeah, I'm a bit of an idealist, but I think the what if people should be holding the keys at the management levels. Someone needs to bring them down to Earth occasionally, but you need people who aren't afraid to waste money if you want to do anything interesting. Are such people in charge at NASA? I don't know, they're probably the same managerial types at the aerospace firms. But I don't see why shifting the managerial focus to commercial enterprise will do anything to advance pure science.</p><p>Unless of course your goal is to kill pure science in the aerospace field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the profit motive ?
Human space travel , while it does involve engineering , is really pure science of the highest order .
All we 're doing is asking the question " What will happen if we send a person into space ?
" and doing it .
It 's simply too expensive to be a worthwhile commercial endeavor .
As such , free enterprise does n't make sense .
It 's something that a purely business attitude simply can not understand.Now , of course what we 're talking about is separating those parts that business can understand and using business for that , but it still just seems wrong .
You 've got two different people talking totally different languages , one of " How can we do this ?
" and one of " What if we do this ?
" Yeah , I 'm a bit of an idealist , but I think the what if people should be holding the keys at the management levels .
Someone needs to bring them down to Earth occasionally , but you need people who are n't afraid to waste money if you want to do anything interesting .
Are such people in charge at NASA ?
I do n't know , they 're probably the same managerial types at the aerospace firms .
But I do n't see why shifting the managerial focus to commercial enterprise will do anything to advance pure science.Unless of course your goal is to kill pure science in the aerospace field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the profit motive?
Human space travel, while it does involve engineering, is really pure science of the highest order.
All we're doing is asking the question "What will happen if we send a person into space?
" and doing it.
It's simply too expensive to be a worthwhile commercial endeavor.
As such, free enterprise doesn't make sense.
It's something that a purely business attitude simply cannot understand.Now, of course what we're talking about is separating those parts that business can understand and using business for that, but it still just seems wrong.
You've got two different people talking totally different languages, one of "How can we do this?
" and one of "What if we do this?
"Yeah, I'm a bit of an idealist, but I think the what if people should be holding the keys at the management levels.
Someone needs to bring them down to Earth occasionally, but you need people who aren't afraid to waste money if you want to do anything interesting.
Are such people in charge at NASA?
I don't know, they're probably the same managerial types at the aerospace firms.
But I don't see why shifting the managerial focus to commercial enterprise will do anything to advance pure science.Unless of course your goal is to kill pure science in the aerospace field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860474</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264180980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was rocket science 40 years ago.  By now, it <em>should</em> be do-able by anyone who's seen Mythbusters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was rocket science 40 years ago .
By now , it should be do-able by anyone who 's seen Mythbusters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was rocket science 40 years ago.
By now, it should be do-able by anyone who's seen Mythbusters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859464</id>
	<title>Repeat after me for the Nth Time:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264176120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>N.A.S.A. should continue with a professional <a href="http://www.energia.ru/" title="energia.ru" rel="nofollow">launch company</a> [energia.ru].</p><p>Yours In Minsk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>N.A.S.A .
should continue with a professional launch company [ energia.ru ] .Yours In Minsk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N.A.S.A.
should continue with a professional launch company [energia.ru].Yours In Minsk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30883292</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1264334880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where is the profit motive?</p></div><p>7 people have paid between $25M and $35M to fly to the ISS in the last 9 years.  That rate has been held back by the availability of seats.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the profit motive ? 7 people have paid between $ 25M and $ 35M to fly to the ISS in the last 9 years .
That rate has been held back by the availability of seats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the profit motive?7 people have paid between $25M and $35M to fly to the ISS in the last 9 years.
That rate has been held back by the availability of seats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859046</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know enough about space flight to form a rational opinion for or against commercial ferrying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know enough about space flight to form a rational opinion for or against commercial ferrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know enough about space flight to form a rational opinion for or against commercial ferrying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859022</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>joeyblades</author>
	<datestamp>1264173660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're kidding, right? Challenger, the worst space program disaster of all time, occured because NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch. NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding , right ?
Challenger , the worst space program disaster of all time , occured because NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch .
NASA 's reasons for pressing on , in spite of these warnings , was entirely commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding, right?
Challenger, the worst space program disaster of all time, occured because NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch.
NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30867384</id>
	<title>Ares I safer then an EELV or F9?</title>
	<author>Criton</author>
	<datestamp>1264186800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it amusing they think Ares I which is nearly all untested hardware and has several design flaws would be safer then an EELV such as Delta IV or Falcon 9 which has proven reliable engines.

I'd trust Dragon on it's first flights more then I would Orion on Ares I.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it amusing they think Ares I which is nearly all untested hardware and has several design flaws would be safer then an EELV such as Delta IV or Falcon 9 which has proven reliable engines .
I 'd trust Dragon on it 's first flights more then I would Orion on Ares I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it amusing they think Ares I which is nearly all untested hardware and has several design flaws would be safer then an EELV such as Delta IV or Falcon 9 which has proven reliable engines.
I'd trust Dragon on it's first flights more then I would Orion on Ares I.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859610</id>
	<title>most readers don't know this but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264176780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this report is political trash.  lies.</p><p>you'll have to spend many hours getting up to speed on this topic, but suffice it to say NASA employs 10,000 people just to screw in a light bulb, and the political clout acting to keep them happy and working is significant.</p><p>NASA is no better than private companies or other countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this report is political trash .
lies.you 'll have to spend many hours getting up to speed on this topic , but suffice it to say NASA employs 10,000 people just to screw in a light bulb , and the political clout acting to keep them happy and working is significant.NASA is no better than private companies or other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this report is political trash.
lies.you'll have to spend many hours getting up to speed on this topic, but suffice it to say NASA employs 10,000 people just to screw in a light bulb, and the political clout acting to keep them happy and working is significant.NASA is no better than private companies or other countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861866</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264188540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If SpaceX or Orbital Sciences kills an astronaut they're going out of business just as quickly as if they don't deliver a product at all. There will probably be less tolerance for failure from a private company than there is for NASA failures.  On top of this, the people working at a private company aren't especially less or more moral than civil servants.</p><p>The wasted money isn't on redundancy and proper design, its on the inefficiencies inherent to government work.  Ares 1 is being propped up not by its technical merits, but by the fact that if it is cancelled a lot of jobs will be lost in Alabama and the senators from that state are defending it with everything they have.  There is nothing magical about civil servants that makes them more conscientious -- I've worked as both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If SpaceX or Orbital Sciences kills an astronaut they 're going out of business just as quickly as if they do n't deliver a product at all .
There will probably be less tolerance for failure from a private company than there is for NASA failures .
On top of this , the people working at a private company are n't especially less or more moral than civil servants.The wasted money is n't on redundancy and proper design , its on the inefficiencies inherent to government work .
Ares 1 is being propped up not by its technical merits , but by the fact that if it is cancelled a lot of jobs will be lost in Alabama and the senators from that state are defending it with everything they have .
There is nothing magical about civil servants that makes them more conscientious -- I 've worked as both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If SpaceX or Orbital Sciences kills an astronaut they're going out of business just as quickly as if they don't deliver a product at all.
There will probably be less tolerance for failure from a private company than there is for NASA failures.
On top of this, the people working at a private company aren't especially less or more moral than civil servants.The wasted money isn't on redundancy and proper design, its on the inefficiencies inherent to government work.
Ares 1 is being propped up not by its technical merits, but by the fact that if it is cancelled a lot of jobs will be lost in Alabama and the senators from that state are defending it with everything they have.
There is nothing magical about civil servants that makes them more conscientious -- I've worked as both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30949236</id>
	<title>Just to play Devil's advocate...</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1264780080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how many *significant* recalls have there been for vehicles within, oh, just the past four years? The past two? Just 2009? How about the most recent one, gas pedals on certain Toyotas sticking? It's bad enough if something like that causes a wreck here on Earth, but in space, there's no such thing as "a crash you walk away from."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how many * significant * recalls have there been for vehicles within , oh , just the past four years ?
The past two ?
Just 2009 ?
How about the most recent one , gas pedals on certain Toyotas sticking ?
It 's bad enough if something like that causes a wreck here on Earth , but in space , there 's no such thing as " a crash you walk away from .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how many *significant* recalls have there been for vehicles within, oh, just the past four years?
The past two?
Just 2009?
How about the most recent one, gas pedals on certain Toyotas sticking?
It's bad enough if something like that causes a wreck here on Earth, but in space, there's no such thing as "a crash you walk away from.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861556</id>
	<title>Who is surprised?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1264186320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies</p></div></blockquote><p> <em>Government</em> officials warning <em>against private</em> companies. Who is surprised?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies Government officials warning against private companies .
Who is surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies Government officials warning against private companies.
Who is surprised?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30866298</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1264173240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can think of a whole bunch of places more dangerous than a space flight. Ankle deep in a lava flow. The bottom of the Marianas Trench. In an alligator's mouth. In a hangman's noose. In a running tree chipper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of a whole bunch of places more dangerous than a space flight .
Ankle deep in a lava flow .
The bottom of the Marianas Trench .
In an alligator 's mouth .
In a hangman 's noose .
In a running tree chipper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of a whole bunch of places more dangerous than a space flight.
Ankle deep in a lava flow.
The bottom of the Marianas Trench.
In an alligator's mouth.
In a hangman's noose.
In a running tree chipper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860648</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit</title>
	<author>Infiniti2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264181760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree you'd not be the only one.  I <i>also</i> would go, I just wouldn't be one of the first.  And, this isn't purely for reasons of a mechanical nature, but I'd like to wait until the pilots and other staff are a little more confident and comfortable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree you 'd not be the only one .
I also would go , I just would n't be one of the first .
And , this is n't purely for reasons of a mechanical nature , but I 'd like to wait until the pilots and other staff are a little more confident and comfortable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree you'd not be the only one.
I also would go, I just wouldn't be one of the first.
And, this isn't purely for reasons of a mechanical nature, but I'd like to wait until the pilots and other staff are a little more confident and comfortable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859152</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit</title>
	<author>Infiniti2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264174440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it is worth a shot to try it in space.</p></div><p>Absolutely.  You first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is worth a shot to try it in space.Absolutely .
You first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is worth a shot to try it in space.Absolutely.
You first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860660</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>Stupendoussteve</author>
	<datestamp>1264181880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo\_1" title="wikipedia.org">Apollo 1</a> [wikipedia.org] fire seems to disagree with this idea that NASA was crazy-careful. This was not wholly NASA-caused issue, but they definitely contributed to the causes of the fire and deaths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apollo 1 [ wikipedia.org ] fire seems to disagree with this idea that NASA was crazy-careful .
This was not wholly NASA-caused issue , but they definitely contributed to the causes of the fire and deaths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apollo 1 [wikipedia.org] fire seems to disagree with this idea that NASA was crazy-careful.
This was not wholly NASA-caused issue, but they definitely contributed to the causes of the fire and deaths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859250</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264174980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is just standard politics...</p><p>Government agencies doesn't like Companies doing what they do. They portrait a company as a greedy organization who will cut all the corners and create a product that is doomed to fail.</p><p>Companies doesn't like Government taking over what they do. They Portrait the government as a huge inefficient bureaucracy who will spend more then what they need and make compromise over compromise until you have a bad product which doesn't do anything well.</p><p>So in the end Your screwed both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is just standard politics...Government agencies does n't like Companies doing what they do .
They portrait a company as a greedy organization who will cut all the corners and create a product that is doomed to fail.Companies does n't like Government taking over what they do .
They Portrait the government as a huge inefficient bureaucracy who will spend more then what they need and make compromise over compromise until you have a bad product which does n't do anything well.So in the end Your screwed both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is just standard politics...Government agencies doesn't like Companies doing what they do.
They portrait a company as a greedy organization who will cut all the corners and create a product that is doomed to fail.Companies doesn't like Government taking over what they do.
They Portrait the government as a huge inefficient bureaucracy who will spend more then what they need and make compromise over compromise until you have a bad product which doesn't do anything well.So in the end Your screwed both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860876</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264182960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boeing and Airbus seem to manage their incredible safety rates for the last 50 years without any problems, and they're for-profit companies. (With various degrees of government support, but this hypothetical space vendor would have that as well.)</p><p>Given, their task is less complex, but then again the amount of flights is at least three orders of magnitude greater as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boeing and Airbus seem to manage their incredible safety rates for the last 50 years without any problems , and they 're for-profit companies .
( With various degrees of government support , but this hypothetical space vendor would have that as well .
) Given , their task is less complex , but then again the amount of flights is at least three orders of magnitude greater as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boeing and Airbus seem to manage their incredible safety rates for the last 50 years without any problems, and they're for-profit companies.
(With various degrees of government support, but this hypothetical space vendor would have that as well.
)Given, their task is less complex, but then again the amount of flights is at least three orders of magnitude greater as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858896</id>
	<title>Space Shuttles retiring</title>
	<author>jgreco</author>
	<datestamp>1264173060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And with the Space Shuttles being retired, and no replacement available in the immediate future, what do they suggest?

Maybe a giant slingshot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And with the Space Shuttles being retired , and no replacement available in the immediate future , what do they suggest ?
Maybe a giant slingshot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with the Space Shuttles being retired, and no replacement available in the immediate future, what do they suggest?
Maybe a giant slingshot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860412</id>
	<title>Could make boat loads of money</title>
	<author>TheBusiness</author>
	<datestamp>1264180740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not build an Earth orbiting Prison.  Theres gotta be some money in that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not build an Earth orbiting Prison .
Theres got ta be some money in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not build an Earth orbiting Prison.
Theres gotta be some money in that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862558</id>
	<title>Re:Elon Musk's Rebuttal</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1264192500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also worth pointing out that Musk has a major financial stake in whether or not commercial providers are chosen.<br>
&nbsp; <br>If you read the article you linked, you also see where he weasels...  He blasts the panel for 'claiming' his vehicles isn't man rated - but then states "it is man rated except for the escape system".  (Um, Elon - being man rated is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't.)  The same goes for the Falcon 9 - he claims it isn't 'paper' like the Ares, but then the article points out that it hasn't flown and that its scheduled first flight is likely to slip (again).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also worth pointing out that Musk has a major financial stake in whether or not commercial providers are chosen .
  If you read the article you linked , you also see where he weasels... He blasts the panel for 'claiming ' his vehicles is n't man rated - but then states " it is man rated except for the escape system " .
( Um , Elon - being man rated is like being pregnant , you either are or you are n't .
) The same goes for the Falcon 9 - he claims it is n't 'paper ' like the Ares , but then the article points out that it has n't flown and that its scheduled first flight is likely to slip ( again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also worth pointing out that Musk has a major financial stake in whether or not commercial providers are chosen.
  If you read the article you linked, you also see where he weasels...  He blasts the panel for 'claiming' his vehicles isn't man rated - but then states "it is man rated except for the escape system".
(Um, Elon - being man rated is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't.
)  The same goes for the Falcon 9 - he claims it isn't 'paper' like the Ares, but then the article points out that it hasn't flown and that its scheduled first flight is likely to slip (again).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861452</id>
	<title>I've lost faith in government contractors.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264185840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone keeps demanding that NASA outsource commercial space flight but really, has outsourcing ever really delivered for any industry, let alone a government with highly technical needs?  I don't think it has.</p><p>Take the US Navy for example.  Before the private contractor lobby, the Navy built its own warships and at its own yards.  Now, they have a byzantine procurement system, cost overruns out the wazoo, I mean, even the Littoral Combat Ship has turned into a joke, and WTF does a carrier cost 10 billion now, or 20 billion.  It's a joke, a bunch of finger pointing by vendors, and frankly, enough already.  Any more the Navy is just a subsidy for Newport News and Bath Iron Works.  I'd say, let's reopen the Philly Navy Yard and have the Navy build its own ships, without all the red tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone keeps demanding that NASA outsource commercial space flight but really , has outsourcing ever really delivered for any industry , let alone a government with highly technical needs ?
I do n't think it has.Take the US Navy for example .
Before the private contractor lobby , the Navy built its own warships and at its own yards .
Now , they have a byzantine procurement system , cost overruns out the wazoo , I mean , even the Littoral Combat Ship has turned into a joke , and WTF does a carrier cost 10 billion now , or 20 billion .
It 's a joke , a bunch of finger pointing by vendors , and frankly , enough already .
Any more the Navy is just a subsidy for Newport News and Bath Iron Works .
I 'd say , let 's reopen the Philly Navy Yard and have the Navy build its own ships , without all the red tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone keeps demanding that NASA outsource commercial space flight but really, has outsourcing ever really delivered for any industry, let alone a government with highly technical needs?
I don't think it has.Take the US Navy for example.
Before the private contractor lobby, the Navy built its own warships and at its own yards.
Now, they have a byzantine procurement system, cost overruns out the wazoo, I mean, even the Littoral Combat Ship has turned into a joke, and WTF does a carrier cost 10 billion now, or 20 billion.
It's a joke, a bunch of finger pointing by vendors, and frankly, enough already.
Any more the Navy is just a subsidy for Newport News and Bath Iron Works.
I'd say, let's reopen the Philly Navy Yard and have the Navy build its own ships, without all the red tape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30951296</id>
	<title>Re:"Probably not cost effective"</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264787940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have choices, the free market works well. With a monopoly there is no free market, and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.</p></div><p>No, the lesson here is that if there has to be a monopoly, then you are better off owning the monopoly. Elected government running the monopoly is one way for the customers to own the monopoly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have choices , the free market works well .
With a monopoly there is no free market , and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.No , the lesson here is that if there has to be a monopoly , then you are better off owning the monopoly .
Elected government running the monopoly is one way for the customers to own the monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have choices, the free market works well.
With a monopoly there is no free market, and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.No, the lesson here is that if there has to be a monopoly, then you are better off owning the monopoly.
Elected government running the monopoly is one way for the customers to own the monopoly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859656</id>
	<title>No change if LMco or Boeing build it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people at NASA are not LMco or Boeing contractors already?  Most of my friends at JSC in Houston are employed by one of these companies, under contract to NASA.  You really think this is not already a joint effort?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people at NASA are not LMco or Boeing contractors already ?
Most of my friends at JSC in Houston are employed by one of these companies , under contract to NASA .
You really think this is not already a joint effort ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people at NASA are not LMco or Boeing contractors already?
Most of my friends at JSC in Houston are employed by one of these companies, under contract to NASA.
You really think this is not already a joint effort?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861138</id>
	<title>Some great rebuttals</title>
	<author>FleaPlus</author>
	<datestamp>1264184160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clark Lindsay:</p><p><a href="http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=17960" title="hobbyspace.com">http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=17960</a> [hobbyspace.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is ridiculous from beginning to end. Even with optimum funding, the Ares I won't fly for at least 5 years and probably not for 7 or 8 years. So how has it demonstrated or substantiated any capability or superiority? Citing the Ares I-X flight is absurd. That vehicle had virtually nothing in common with Ares I. Griffin's quick and dirty 60 day ESAS hardly sets a standard for optimized design.</p><p>It is in fact the panel that is speculating as to the ultimate safety of the Ares I. It will be so expensive to operate, it will never fly enough times to accumulate sufficient flights to prove any statistical prediction of its safety.</p><p>And by the way, why is a safety panel making judgments about cost-effectiveness? Even if COTS-D were funded, Falcon 9/Dragon will involve about 100 times less NASA funding than Ares I/Orion. Yes, the latter is designed for deep space but that should not require 100 times more money. The F9/Dragon operating costs will also be a fraction of that for Ares I/Orion. Ignoring such cost differences would be considered not just "unwise" but ridiculous by most taxpayers.</p><p>The panel further speculates on the degree of safety of the COTS designs, which really refers to Falcon 9/Dragon since Orbital has made no move to develop a crew capability for Taurus II/Cygnus. There's no indication that the panel made any effort to investigate the statements from SpaceX that the F9/Dragon system has been designed from the beginning to meet NASA's human rating requirements (at least to the degree that the company could determine those requirements). With such enormous cost savings at stake, you might think the panel would want to know if it could be built with high margins.</p></div><p>Commercial Spaceflight Federation:</p><p><a href="http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1058" title="commercial...flight.org">http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1058</a> [commercial...flight.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The ASAP's repeated references to the two "COTS firms" ignores the fact that many companies, including both established firms and new entrants, will compete in the Commercial Crew Program envisioned by the Augustine Committee. While the Falcon 9 and Taurus II vehicles have already met numerous hardware milestones and will have a substantial track record by the time any astronauts are placed onboard, several other potential Commercial Crew providers envision use of launch vehicles such as the Atlas V, vehicles that are already entrusted by the government to launch multi-billion dollar national security payloads upon which the lives of our troops overseas depend.<br>Despite the ASAP Report's contention that commercial vehicles are "nothing more than unsubstantiated claims," the demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles and numerous upcoming manifested cargo flights ensure that no astronaut will fly on a commercial vehicle that lacks a long, proven track record. The Atlas V, for example, has a record of 19 consecutive successful launches and the Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes, and dozens of flights of the Atlas, Taurus, and Falcon vehicles are scheduled to occur before 2014 in addition to successful flights already completed.<br>Further, thirteen former NASA astronauts, who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions, stated in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "We are fully confident that the commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle. Commercial transportation systems using boosters such as the Atlas V, Taurus II, or Falcon 9 will have the advantage of multiple unmanned flights to build a track record of safe operations prior to carrying humans. These vehicles are already set to fly over 40 flights to orbit in the next four years."<br>In contrast, ASAP describes the Ares I as "demonstrated" despite the fact the Augustine Committee determined the Ares I vehicle will likely not fly until 2017, and the ASAP ignores the fact that NASA is planning to place astronauts on the second orbital flight of the Ares I system. As Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley recently stated, placing astronauts on these early Ares I flights poses a safety risk equal to or worse than that of the current Space Shuttle:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "What at least some of our work suggests is that, yes, on the second launch the LOC [loss of crew] risk may be roughly on par with today's mature shuttle risk. Other assessments are less rosy (a little riskier than a shuttle launch)."<br>The Commercial Spaceflight Federation disagrees with the ASAP's characterization of a Commercial Crew Program as an "alternative" to Ares I, because these two systems fulfill very different missions - Commercial Crew is not an alternative to systems designed to travel beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Commercial Crew is akin to developing a Gemini spacecraft for low Earth orbit, rather than an Apollo spacecraft for reaching the Moon. The Orion exploration vehicle, for example, must reenter the atmosphere at one-and-a-half times orbital velocity, encountering nearly double the heat loads that a LEO-only spacecraft would encounter. Because it serves a simpler mission, any vehicle that is designed simply to service the Space Station and other LEO destinations will be more cost-effective without sacrificing safety.<br>The ASAP mischaracterized how safety was treated by The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (also known as the "Augustine Committee"). The ASAP's 2009 Annual Report perpetuates the unfortunate misconception that the Augustine Committee inappropriately assumed safety to be a "given" (here the ASAP appears to be misquoting the Augustine Committee's statement that safety was treated as "sine qua non" - in fact, "sine qua non" is universally defined as "something absolutely indispensable or essential").  As Norm Augustine stated in a Congressional hearing, safety was "the number one issue for us [the Committee] to consider."  The Augustine Committee, whose 10 members have cumulatively amassed 293 years of space industry experience, spent an extensive amount of time on safety issues and determined that "the Committee... would not suggest that a commercial service be provided for transportation of NASA crew if NASA could not be convinced that it was substantially safe." In contrast, the ASAP stated it has "not yet had the opportunity to evaluate any of these [commercial] concepts with regard to inherent safety issues."</p></div><p>Elon Musk:</p><p><a href="http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/19safety/" title="spaceflightnow.com">http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/19safety/</a> [spaceflightnow.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>According to Musk, the panel's findings are "bizarre." He says the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft "meet all of NASA's published human-rating requirements, apart from the escape systems."</p><p>"They've spent almost no time at SpaceX," Musk said. "They've not reviewed our data. They have no idea what what our margins are, and what is and what isn't human-rated."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>"The Ares 1 is a paper rocket that's far off in the future," Musk said. "Falcon 9 is a real rocket, most of which is at Cape Canaveral right now."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clark Lindsay : http : //www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php ? itemid = 17960 [ hobbyspace.com ] This is ridiculous from beginning to end .
Even with optimum funding , the Ares I wo n't fly for at least 5 years and probably not for 7 or 8 years .
So how has it demonstrated or substantiated any capability or superiority ?
Citing the Ares I-X flight is absurd .
That vehicle had virtually nothing in common with Ares I. Griffin 's quick and dirty 60 day ESAS hardly sets a standard for optimized design.It is in fact the panel that is speculating as to the ultimate safety of the Ares I. It will be so expensive to operate , it will never fly enough times to accumulate sufficient flights to prove any statistical prediction of its safety.And by the way , why is a safety panel making judgments about cost-effectiveness ?
Even if COTS-D were funded , Falcon 9/Dragon will involve about 100 times less NASA funding than Ares I/Orion .
Yes , the latter is designed for deep space but that should not require 100 times more money .
The F9/Dragon operating costs will also be a fraction of that for Ares I/Orion .
Ignoring such cost differences would be considered not just " unwise " but ridiculous by most taxpayers.The panel further speculates on the degree of safety of the COTS designs , which really refers to Falcon 9/Dragon since Orbital has made no move to develop a crew capability for Taurus II/Cygnus .
There 's no indication that the panel made any effort to investigate the statements from SpaceX that the F9/Dragon system has been designed from the beginning to meet NASA 's human rating requirements ( at least to the degree that the company could determine those requirements ) .
With such enormous cost savings at stake , you might think the panel would want to know if it could be built with high margins.Commercial Spaceflight Federation : http : //www.commercialspaceflight.org/ ? p = 1058 [ commercial...flight.org ] The ASAP 's repeated references to the two " COTS firms " ignores the fact that many companies , including both established firms and new entrants , will compete in the Commercial Crew Program envisioned by the Augustine Committee .
While the Falcon 9 and Taurus II vehicles have already met numerous hardware milestones and will have a substantial track record by the time any astronauts are placed onboard , several other potential Commercial Crew providers envision use of launch vehicles such as the Atlas V , vehicles that are already entrusted by the government to launch multi-billion dollar national security payloads upon which the lives of our troops overseas depend.Despite the ASAP Report 's contention that commercial vehicles are " nothing more than unsubstantiated claims , " the demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles and numerous upcoming manifested cargo flights ensure that no astronaut will fly on a commercial vehicle that lacks a long , proven track record .
The Atlas V , for example , has a record of 19 consecutive successful launches and the Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes , and dozens of flights of the Atlas , Taurus , and Falcon vehicles are scheduled to occur before 2014 in addition to successful flights already completed.Further , thirteen former NASA astronauts , who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions , stated in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely :             " We are fully confident that the commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system , which has flown safely for the last 38 years , and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle .
Commercial transportation systems using boosters such as the Atlas V , Taurus II , or Falcon 9 will have the advantage of multiple unmanned flights to build a track record of safe operations prior to carrying humans .
These vehicles are already set to fly over 40 flights to orbit in the next four years .
" In contrast , ASAP describes the Ares I as " demonstrated " despite the fact the Augustine Committee determined the Ares I vehicle will likely not fly until 2017 , and the ASAP ignores the fact that NASA is planning to place astronauts on the second orbital flight of the Ares I system .
As Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley recently stated , placing astronauts on these early Ares I flights poses a safety risk equal to or worse than that of the current Space Shuttle :             " What at least some of our work suggests is that , yes , on the second launch the LOC [ loss of crew ] risk may be roughly on par with today 's mature shuttle risk .
Other assessments are less rosy ( a little riskier than a shuttle launch ) .
" The Commercial Spaceflight Federation disagrees with the ASAP 's characterization of a Commercial Crew Program as an " alternative " to Ares I , because these two systems fulfill very different missions - Commercial Crew is not an alternative to systems designed to travel beyond Low Earth Orbit ( LEO ) .
Commercial Crew is akin to developing a Gemini spacecraft for low Earth orbit , rather than an Apollo spacecraft for reaching the Moon .
The Orion exploration vehicle , for example , must reenter the atmosphere at one-and-a-half times orbital velocity , encountering nearly double the heat loads that a LEO-only spacecraft would encounter .
Because it serves a simpler mission , any vehicle that is designed simply to service the Space Station and other LEO destinations will be more cost-effective without sacrificing safety.The ASAP mischaracterized how safety was treated by The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee ( also known as the " Augustine Committee " ) .
The ASAP 's 2009 Annual Report perpetuates the unfortunate misconception that the Augustine Committee inappropriately assumed safety to be a " given " ( here the ASAP appears to be misquoting the Augustine Committee 's statement that safety was treated as " sine qua non " - in fact , " sine qua non " is universally defined as " something absolutely indispensable or essential " ) .
As Norm Augustine stated in a Congressional hearing , safety was " the number one issue for us [ the Committee ] to consider .
" The Augustine Committee , whose 10 members have cumulatively amassed 293 years of space industry experience , spent an extensive amount of time on safety issues and determined that " the Committee... would not suggest that a commercial service be provided for transportation of NASA crew if NASA could not be convinced that it was substantially safe .
" In contrast , the ASAP stated it has " not yet had the opportunity to evaluate any of these [ commercial ] concepts with regard to inherent safety issues .
" Elon Musk : http : //www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/19safety/ [ spaceflightnow.com ] According to Musk , the panel 's findings are " bizarre .
" He says the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft " meet all of NASA 's published human-rating requirements , apart from the escape systems .
" " They 've spent almost no time at SpaceX , " Musk said .
" They 've not reviewed our data .
They have no idea what what our margins are , and what is and what is n't human-rated .
" ... " The Ares 1 is a paper rocket that 's far off in the future , " Musk said .
" Falcon 9 is a real rocket , most of which is at Cape Canaveral right now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clark Lindsay:http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=17960 [hobbyspace.com] This is ridiculous from beginning to end.
Even with optimum funding, the Ares I won't fly for at least 5 years and probably not for 7 or 8 years.
So how has it demonstrated or substantiated any capability or superiority?
Citing the Ares I-X flight is absurd.
That vehicle had virtually nothing in common with Ares I. Griffin's quick and dirty 60 day ESAS hardly sets a standard for optimized design.It is in fact the panel that is speculating as to the ultimate safety of the Ares I. It will be so expensive to operate, it will never fly enough times to accumulate sufficient flights to prove any statistical prediction of its safety.And by the way, why is a safety panel making judgments about cost-effectiveness?
Even if COTS-D were funded, Falcon 9/Dragon will involve about 100 times less NASA funding than Ares I/Orion.
Yes, the latter is designed for deep space but that should not require 100 times more money.
The F9/Dragon operating costs will also be a fraction of that for Ares I/Orion.
Ignoring such cost differences would be considered not just "unwise" but ridiculous by most taxpayers.The panel further speculates on the degree of safety of the COTS designs, which really refers to Falcon 9/Dragon since Orbital has made no move to develop a crew capability for Taurus II/Cygnus.
There's no indication that the panel made any effort to investigate the statements from SpaceX that the F9/Dragon system has been designed from the beginning to meet NASA's human rating requirements (at least to the degree that the company could determine those requirements).
With such enormous cost savings at stake, you might think the panel would want to know if it could be built with high margins.Commercial Spaceflight Federation:http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1058 [commercial...flight.org] The ASAP's repeated references to the two "COTS firms" ignores the fact that many companies, including both established firms and new entrants, will compete in the Commercial Crew Program envisioned by the Augustine Committee.
While the Falcon 9 and Taurus II vehicles have already met numerous hardware milestones and will have a substantial track record by the time any astronauts are placed onboard, several other potential Commercial Crew providers envision use of launch vehicles such as the Atlas V, vehicles that are already entrusted by the government to launch multi-billion dollar national security payloads upon which the lives of our troops overseas depend.Despite the ASAP Report's contention that commercial vehicles are "nothing more than unsubstantiated claims," the demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles and numerous upcoming manifested cargo flights ensure that no astronaut will fly on a commercial vehicle that lacks a long, proven track record.
The Atlas V, for example, has a record of 19 consecutive successful launches and the Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes, and dozens of flights of the Atlas, Taurus, and Falcon vehicles are scheduled to occur before 2014 in addition to successful flights already completed.Further, thirteen former NASA astronauts, who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions, stated in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely:
            "We are fully confident that the commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.
Commercial transportation systems using boosters such as the Atlas V, Taurus II, or Falcon 9 will have the advantage of multiple unmanned flights to build a track record of safe operations prior to carrying humans.
These vehicles are already set to fly over 40 flights to orbit in the next four years.
"In contrast, ASAP describes the Ares I as "demonstrated" despite the fact the Augustine Committee determined the Ares I vehicle will likely not fly until 2017, and the ASAP ignores the fact that NASA is planning to place astronauts on the second orbital flight of the Ares I system.
As Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley recently stated, placing astronauts on these early Ares I flights poses a safety risk equal to or worse than that of the current Space Shuttle:
            "What at least some of our work suggests is that, yes, on the second launch the LOC [loss of crew] risk may be roughly on par with today's mature shuttle risk.
Other assessments are less rosy (a little riskier than a shuttle launch).
"The Commercial Spaceflight Federation disagrees with the ASAP's characterization of a Commercial Crew Program as an "alternative" to Ares I, because these two systems fulfill very different missions - Commercial Crew is not an alternative to systems designed to travel beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
Commercial Crew is akin to developing a Gemini spacecraft for low Earth orbit, rather than an Apollo spacecraft for reaching the Moon.
The Orion exploration vehicle, for example, must reenter the atmosphere at one-and-a-half times orbital velocity, encountering nearly double the heat loads that a LEO-only spacecraft would encounter.
Because it serves a simpler mission, any vehicle that is designed simply to service the Space Station and other LEO destinations will be more cost-effective without sacrificing safety.The ASAP mischaracterized how safety was treated by The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (also known as the "Augustine Committee").
The ASAP's 2009 Annual Report perpetuates the unfortunate misconception that the Augustine Committee inappropriately assumed safety to be a "given" (here the ASAP appears to be misquoting the Augustine Committee's statement that safety was treated as "sine qua non" - in fact, "sine qua non" is universally defined as "something absolutely indispensable or essential").
As Norm Augustine stated in a Congressional hearing, safety was "the number one issue for us [the Committee] to consider.
"  The Augustine Committee, whose 10 members have cumulatively amassed 293 years of space industry experience, spent an extensive amount of time on safety issues and determined that "the Committee... would not suggest that a commercial service be provided for transportation of NASA crew if NASA could not be convinced that it was substantially safe.
" In contrast, the ASAP stated it has "not yet had the opportunity to evaluate any of these [commercial] concepts with regard to inherent safety issues.
"Elon Musk:http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/19safety/ [spaceflightnow.com] According to Musk, the panel's findings are "bizarre.
" He says the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft "meet all of NASA's published human-rating requirements, apart from the escape systems.
""They've spent almost no time at SpaceX," Musk said.
"They've not reviewed our data.
They have no idea what what our margins are, and what is and what isn't human-rated.
" ..."The Ares 1 is a paper rocket that's far off in the future," Musk said.
"Falcon 9 is a real rocket, most of which is at Cape Canaveral right now.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859198</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>Manfred Maccx</author>
	<datestamp>1264174740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure about that.  I'm pretty sure that Nasa issue the specs, requirements and the scope of work but the engineering is done by those companies not by the Nasa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure about that .
I 'm pretty sure that Nasa issue the specs , requirements and the scope of work but the engineering is done by those companies not by the Nasa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure about that.
I'm pretty sure that Nasa issue the specs, requirements and the scope of work but the engineering is done by those companies not by the Nasa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861750</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1264187640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And who have been prime contractors for NASA vehicles in the past?  Surprise!  Lockheed Martin and Boeing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And who have been prime contractors for NASA vehicles in the past ?
Surprise ! Lockheed Martin and Boeing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who have been prime contractors for NASA vehicles in the past?
Surprise!  Lockheed Martin and Boeing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860822</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1264182720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In the second, they switched an insulation design </i></p><p>The insulation that fell off and hit the wing <a href="http://www.sts107.info/kooksandmyths/kooks.htm#EPA" title="sts107.info">was still the old insulation</a> [sts107.info].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the second , they switched an insulation design The insulation that fell off and hit the wing was still the old insulation [ sts107.info ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the second, they switched an insulation design The insulation that fell off and hit the wing was still the old insulation [sts107.info].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861050</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264183740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would inject the money back into our nation's system; If combined with Bigelow's multiple space stations, It would drop the price of launches (multiple locations will increase the rate of launches, which will lower the price). It would bring back our high tech industries.<br> <br>
OTH, if we go with Russia launches, then I suspect that those who push that, will follow it up with pushing us to use Chinese launches.<br> <br>
Yeah, it is VERY DIFFERENT. I prefer us to stay  with private Launches, or at least stay with western launches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would inject the money back into our nation 's system ; If combined with Bigelow 's multiple space stations , It would drop the price of launches ( multiple locations will increase the rate of launches , which will lower the price ) .
It would bring back our high tech industries .
OTH , if we go with Russia launches , then I suspect that those who push that , will follow it up with pushing us to use Chinese launches .
Yeah , it is VERY DIFFERENT .
I prefer us to stay with private Launches , or at least stay with western launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would inject the money back into our nation's system; If combined with Bigelow's multiple space stations, It would drop the price of launches (multiple locations will increase the rate of launches, which will lower the price).
It would bring back our high tech industries.
OTH, if we go with Russia launches, then I suspect that those who push that, will follow it up with pushing us to use Chinese launches.
Yeah, it is VERY DIFFERENT.
I prefer us to stay  with private Launches, or at least stay with western launches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861312</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1264185000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe NASA keeps Independent Verification and Validation for critical system in-house.  Building a rocket is an easy task compared to certifying that it's safe for manned space flight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe NASA keeps Independent Verification and Validation for critical system in-house .
Building a rocket is an easy task compared to certifying that it 's safe for manned space flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe NASA keeps Independent Verification and Validation for critical system in-house.
Building a rocket is an easy task compared to certifying that it's safe for manned space flight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858922</id>
	<title>Uhhh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't private companies like Boeing and Lockheed doing this for the Government now? They're the ones building the space flight systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't private companies like Boeing and Lockheed doing this for the Government now ?
They 're the ones building the space flight systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't private companies like Boeing and Lockheed doing this for the Government now?
They're the ones building the space flight systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30951738</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264789380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The profit motive is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is. I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.</p></div><p>Then don't fly limit-edition, experimental, for profit craft. A key flaw with your argument is that nobody will want your whiny ass in a seat. They'll want someone who understands what's going on and is willing to take the risks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The profit motive is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is .
I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.Then do n't fly limit-edition , experimental , for profit craft .
A key flaw with your argument is that nobody will want your whiny ass in a seat .
They 'll want someone who understands what 's going on and is willing to take the risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The profit motive is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.
I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.Then don't fly limit-edition, experimental, for profit craft.
A key flaw with your argument is that nobody will want your whiny ass in a seat.
They'll want someone who understands what's going on and is willing to take the risks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862188</id>
	<title>Re:"Probably not cost effective"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264190340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are better served by a private monopoly properly controlled by the government. If the service is bad, you can still vote against the mayor for not properly regulating it, or a competitor can provide a better service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are better served by a private monopoly properly controlled by the government .
If the service is bad , you can still vote against the mayor for not properly regulating it , or a competitor can provide a better service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are better served by a private monopoly properly controlled by the government.
If the service is bad, you can still vote against the mayor for not properly regulating it, or a competitor can provide a better service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861876</id>
	<title>Too much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264188660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How dare these underlings propose to deny CEOs of their rightful God-given bonuses. These underlings will feel the wrath of the mighty Predator and his companion Reaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How dare these underlings propose to deny CEOs of their rightful God-given bonuses .
These underlings will feel the wrath of the mighty Predator and his companion Reaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How dare these underlings propose to deny CEOs of their rightful God-given bonuses.
These underlings will feel the wrath of the mighty Predator and his companion Reaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858894</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264173060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Translation:<br>
<br>
Nobody offered us a bribe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : Nobody offered us a bribe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation:

Nobody offered us a bribe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859588</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1264176660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately for you, I don't think anyone is ever going to ask to go for the ride.   And if cheap commercial space flight gets shoved in the attic, I don't think any of your children will get the chance to say no either.

</p><p>But if we're going to let people try to climb Everest, go cave diving, and test experimental aircraft, I don't see why we need to go nuts with space safety, assuming there are plenty of people eager to take the risk.  I mean, <em>trying</em> to be super careful hasn't even worked--to this day we still learn about our mistakes when the whole thing goes kablooey.  Trying to overengineer it doesn't make it safe, what we really need is just to get through this first phase of space flight where we are still heavily experimenting, and the only way to do that is to just go for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately for you , I do n't think anyone is ever going to ask to go for the ride .
And if cheap commercial space flight gets shoved in the attic , I do n't think any of your children will get the chance to say no either .
But if we 're going to let people try to climb Everest , go cave diving , and test experimental aircraft , I do n't see why we need to go nuts with space safety , assuming there are plenty of people eager to take the risk .
I mean , trying to be super careful has n't even worked--to this day we still learn about our mistakes when the whole thing goes kablooey .
Trying to overengineer it does n't make it safe , what we really need is just to get through this first phase of space flight where we are still heavily experimenting , and the only way to do that is to just go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately for you, I don't think anyone is ever going to ask to go for the ride.
And if cheap commercial space flight gets shoved in the attic, I don't think any of your children will get the chance to say no either.
But if we're going to let people try to climb Everest, go cave diving, and test experimental aircraft, I don't see why we need to go nuts with space safety, assuming there are plenty of people eager to take the risk.
I mean, trying to be super careful hasn't even worked--to this day we still learn about our mistakes when the whole thing goes kablooey.
Trying to overengineer it doesn't make it safe, what we really need is just to get through this first phase of space flight where we are still heavily experimenting, and the only way to do that is to just go for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859424</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1264175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So are you deliberately forgetting about all the lobbyists that will fight any regulation???</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are you deliberately forgetting about all the lobbyists that will fight any regulation ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are you deliberately forgetting about all the lobbyists that will fight any regulation??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860088</id>
	<title>NASA scared of SpaceX making a better ship?</title>
	<author>watermodem</author>
	<datestamp>1264179180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to view this as NASA bureaucrats being scared of SpaceX designing and building a better ship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to view this as NASA bureaucrats being scared of SpaceX designing and building a better ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to view this as NASA bureaucrats being scared of SpaceX designing and building a better ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1264175820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then don't drive a car.  FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't drive a car .
FYI : They were made by for-profit companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't drive a car.
FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862204</id>
	<title>This is because.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264190580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They know there is ET life and spaceships out there. Must keep lit shut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They know there is ET life and spaceships out there .
Must keep lit shut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They know there is ET life and spaceships out there.
Must keep lit shut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861728</id>
	<title>You're misrepresenting facts</title>
	<author>Ambitwistor</author>
	<datestamp>1264187460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch.</p></div><p>No, they didn't.  Morton-Thiokol initially recommended that NASA postpone the launch.  After much debate, they decide to go offline and reanalyse the risks.  (It's not clear whether NASA explicitly asked them to reconsider their recommendation, or whether it was Morton-Thiokol's own idea)  Morton-Thiokol came back and told NASA they'd determined it would be okay to launch after all.  NASA then acted upon Morton-Thiokol's recommendation.</p><p>Morton-Thiokol <em>management</em> ignored warnings from Morton-Thiokol engineers to postpone the launch.  (Strictly speaking they didn't ignore the warnings, they overruled them, because they didn't think the engineers presented a sufficiently strong case for a catastrophic risk.  Of course this was a foolish thing to do.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.</p></div><p>NASA's reasons for pressing on were that M-T told them it would be safe to do so.  We don't know what NASA's reasons were for asking M-T to reanalyze the risks, if in fact they even did so.  It's true that NASA wasn't eager to postpone the launch until April, and wanted a strong justification for doing so which M-T ultimately failed to provide.  (Arguably that's backwards, they should have demanded a strong justification to <em>proceed</em> with the launch if doubts were present, but this decision failure is not the same as having "entirely commercial" motives.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch.No , they did n't .
Morton-Thiokol initially recommended that NASA postpone the launch .
After much debate , they decide to go offline and reanalyse the risks .
( It 's not clear whether NASA explicitly asked them to reconsider their recommendation , or whether it was Morton-Thiokol 's own idea ) Morton-Thiokol came back and told NASA they 'd determined it would be okay to launch after all .
NASA then acted upon Morton-Thiokol 's recommendation.Morton-Thiokol management ignored warnings from Morton-Thiokol engineers to postpone the launch .
( Strictly speaking they did n't ignore the warnings , they overruled them , because they did n't think the engineers presented a sufficiently strong case for a catastrophic risk .
Of course this was a foolish thing to do .
) NASA 's reasons for pressing on , in spite of these warnings , was entirely commercial.NASA 's reasons for pressing on were that M-T told them it would be safe to do so .
We do n't know what NASA 's reasons were for asking M-T to reanalyze the risks , if in fact they even did so .
It 's true that NASA was n't eager to postpone the launch until April , and wanted a strong justification for doing so which M-T ultimately failed to provide .
( Arguably that 's backwards , they should have demanded a strong justification to proceed with the launch if doubts were present , but this decision failure is not the same as having " entirely commercial " motives .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch.No, they didn't.
Morton-Thiokol initially recommended that NASA postpone the launch.
After much debate, they decide to go offline and reanalyse the risks.
(It's not clear whether NASA explicitly asked them to reconsider their recommendation, or whether it was Morton-Thiokol's own idea)  Morton-Thiokol came back and told NASA they'd determined it would be okay to launch after all.
NASA then acted upon Morton-Thiokol's recommendation.Morton-Thiokol management ignored warnings from Morton-Thiokol engineers to postpone the launch.
(Strictly speaking they didn't ignore the warnings, they overruled them, because they didn't think the engineers presented a sufficiently strong case for a catastrophic risk.
Of course this was a foolish thing to do.
)NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.NASA's reasons for pressing on were that M-T told them it would be safe to do so.
We don't know what NASA's reasons were for asking M-T to reanalyze the risks, if in fact they even did so.
It's true that NASA wasn't eager to postpone the launch until April, and wanted a strong justification for doing so which M-T ultimately failed to provide.
(Arguably that's backwards, they should have demanded a strong justification to proceed with the launch if doubts were present, but this decision failure is not the same as having "entirely commercial" motives.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861340</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Moridin42</author>
	<datestamp>1264185120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That isn't so difficult to accomplish. When you are negotiating for a ticket, tell them that you'll release the funds from escrow when you are safely on the ground.</p><p>If you have the kind of money to afford space travel, you can probably swing that sort of arrangement. By the time space travel gets cheap, safety will be more of a proven record, and it won't be necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't so difficult to accomplish .
When you are negotiating for a ticket , tell them that you 'll release the funds from escrow when you are safely on the ground.If you have the kind of money to afford space travel , you can probably swing that sort of arrangement .
By the time space travel gets cheap , safety will be more of a proven record , and it wo n't be necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't so difficult to accomplish.
When you are negotiating for a ticket, tell them that you'll release the funds from escrow when you are safely on the ground.If you have the kind of money to afford space travel, you can probably swing that sort of arrangement.
By the time space travel gets cheap, safety will be more of a proven record, and it won't be necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878</id>
	<title>This just in....Monopolies do not like competition</title>
	<author>Ada\_Rules</author>
	<datestamp>1264173000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm... NASA also relies on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.

The shuttle has about a 1 in 65 chance of catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the crew.

For all of  its vaunted simplicity, the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space (and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground).

I honestly don't know if private companies will do better or not but it is not as if NASA's record in this area is all that great either. Having a somewhat adversarial relationship between private enterprise and the government as we have with airlines appears to have contributed to overall safe air travel. I think it is worth a shot to try it in space.

When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it, you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... NASA also relies on " unsubstantiated claims " and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit .
The shuttle has about a 1 in 65 chance of catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the crew .
For all of its vaunted simplicity , the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space ( and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground ) .
I honestly do n't know if private companies will do better or not but it is not as if NASA 's record in this area is all that great either .
Having a somewhat adversarial relationship between private enterprise and the government as we have with airlines appears to have contributed to overall safe air travel .
I think it is worth a shot to try it in space .
When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it , you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... NASA also relies on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.
The shuttle has about a 1 in 65 chance of catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the crew.
For all of  its vaunted simplicity, the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space (and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground).
I honestly don't know if private companies will do better or not but it is not as if NASA's record in this area is all that great either.
Having a somewhat adversarial relationship between private enterprise and the government as we have with airlines appears to have contributed to overall safe air travel.
I think it is worth a shot to try it in space.
When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it, you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859978</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1264178640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Challenger wasn't the worst space program disaster.

</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/world/1980-soviet-rocket-accident-killed-50.html?pagewanted=1" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/world/1980-soviet-rocket-accident-killed-50.html?pagewanted=1</a> [nytimes.com]</li>
<li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin\_catastrophe" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin\_catastrophe</a> [wikipedia.org]</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Challenger was n't the worst space program disaster .
http : //www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/world/1980-soviet-rocket-accident-killed-50.html ? pagewanted = 1 [ nytimes.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin \ _catastrophe [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Challenger wasn't the worst space program disaster.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/world/1980-soviet-rocket-accident-killed-50.html?pagewanted=1 [nytimes.com]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin\_catastrophe [wikipedia.org]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861772</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264187820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's engineering, not science at this point.  Its not a matter of learning how to do it, its a matter of learning how to streamline it and make it safer, cheaper and more reliable.</p><p>NASA has proven to be incapable of developing a viable launch vehicle -- this isn't to blame the people at NASA, I know and like many of them, but structurally, it just isn't happening. Look at Ares 1, overbudget, underperforming and subject more to the goals of keeping jobs in Alabama rather than getting astronauts to orbit.   Ares 1-X, a cobbled together model that was passed off as a prototype, cost around $500M -- this is as much as all the work of SpaceX.  While the argument that Falcon 9 has yet to fly, and there may be a lot of trouble along the way is valid, it applies just as much to Ares 1.</p><p>Private companies with private investment will be trying harder to be efficient and achieve competitive costs, but this won't be at the expense of safety.  If SpaceX kills an astronaut its as bad for their bottom line as if they don't fly at all.  Ferrying astronauts to space is no longer the frontier -- NASA showed us how to do it, now its time to let more efficient methods come to bear.  Let NASA continue its role as the leading edge of exploration, the Lewis and Clark role.  There is no profit and very high risks in sending rovers to Mars or learning how to send astronauts to asteroids, but there is great societal benefit -- this is a great job for the government.   However, ferrying people and cargo to orbit has much lower risks and the ability to generate profit -- if market-oriented contracts can reduce costs we can do more to expand the frontier, which is ultimately the goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's engineering , not science at this point .
Its not a matter of learning how to do it , its a matter of learning how to streamline it and make it safer , cheaper and more reliable.NASA has proven to be incapable of developing a viable launch vehicle -- this is n't to blame the people at NASA , I know and like many of them , but structurally , it just is n't happening .
Look at Ares 1 , overbudget , underperforming and subject more to the goals of keeping jobs in Alabama rather than getting astronauts to orbit .
Ares 1-X , a cobbled together model that was passed off as a prototype , cost around $ 500M -- this is as much as all the work of SpaceX .
While the argument that Falcon 9 has yet to fly , and there may be a lot of trouble along the way is valid , it applies just as much to Ares 1.Private companies with private investment will be trying harder to be efficient and achieve competitive costs , but this wo n't be at the expense of safety .
If SpaceX kills an astronaut its as bad for their bottom line as if they do n't fly at all .
Ferrying astronauts to space is no longer the frontier -- NASA showed us how to do it , now its time to let more efficient methods come to bear .
Let NASA continue its role as the leading edge of exploration , the Lewis and Clark role .
There is no profit and very high risks in sending rovers to Mars or learning how to send astronauts to asteroids , but there is great societal benefit -- this is a great job for the government .
However , ferrying people and cargo to orbit has much lower risks and the ability to generate profit -- if market-oriented contracts can reduce costs we can do more to expand the frontier , which is ultimately the goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's engineering, not science at this point.
Its not a matter of learning how to do it, its a matter of learning how to streamline it and make it safer, cheaper and more reliable.NASA has proven to be incapable of developing a viable launch vehicle -- this isn't to blame the people at NASA, I know and like many of them, but structurally, it just isn't happening.
Look at Ares 1, overbudget, underperforming and subject more to the goals of keeping jobs in Alabama rather than getting astronauts to orbit.
Ares 1-X, a cobbled together model that was passed off as a prototype, cost around $500M -- this is as much as all the work of SpaceX.
While the argument that Falcon 9 has yet to fly, and there may be a lot of trouble along the way is valid, it applies just as much to Ares 1.Private companies with private investment will be trying harder to be efficient and achieve competitive costs, but this won't be at the expense of safety.
If SpaceX kills an astronaut its as bad for their bottom line as if they don't fly at all.
Ferrying astronauts to space is no longer the frontier -- NASA showed us how to do it, now its time to let more efficient methods come to bear.
Let NASA continue its role as the leading edge of exploration, the Lewis and Clark role.
There is no profit and very high risks in sending rovers to Mars or learning how to send astronauts to asteroids, but there is great societal benefit -- this is a great job for the government.
However, ferrying people and cargo to orbit has much lower risks and the ability to generate profit -- if market-oriented contracts can reduce costs we can do more to expand the frontier, which is ultimately the goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122</id>
	<title>Two words to the federal panel...</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1264174320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shut up.</p><p>Deregulating space travel is the only way we're ever going to make a dent there, for the time being and with the current political climate.</p><p>Please, just shut up.  Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut up.Deregulating space travel is the only way we 're ever going to make a dent there , for the time being and with the current political climate.Please , just shut up .
Yes , a few are going to die going up , but they know the risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut up.Deregulating space travel is the only way we're ever going to make a dent there, for the time being and with the current political climate.Please, just shut up.
Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860094</id>
	<title>The last thing i want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264179180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is more commercialization of our institutions and cultural artifacts.  The next step after letting Boeing shuttle our astronauts would be renaming the ISS as "The Tostidos Space Station".  Next would be Cape Coca-cola.  The Nike rocket would at least be somewhat apropos to the tiny crowd who knows something of aerospace history and mythology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is more commercialization of our institutions and cultural artifacts .
The next step after letting Boeing shuttle our astronauts would be renaming the ISS as " The Tostidos Space Station " .
Next would be Cape Coca-cola .
The Nike rocket would at least be somewhat apropos to the tiny crowd who knows something of aerospace history and mythology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is more commercialization of our institutions and cultural artifacts.
The next step after letting Boeing shuttle our astronauts would be renaming the ISS as "The Tostidos Space Station".
Next would be Cape Coca-cola.
The Nike rocket would at least be somewhat apropos to the tiny crowd who knows something of aerospace history and mythology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859330</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>rakanishu</author>
	<datestamp>1264175400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The CEO must ride with the astronauts. That'll make it safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CEO must ride with the astronauts .
That 'll make it safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CEO must ride with the astronauts.
That'll make it safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858944</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The space shuttle orbiter is made by Rockwell and Boeing.  The external tank is made by Lockheed.  Boeing also made parts of the Saturn V and Delta rockets.  Lockheed Martin are already designing and developing Orion.  <br> <br>
I think a few private companies are reasonably experienced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The space shuttle orbiter is made by Rockwell and Boeing .
The external tank is made by Lockheed .
Boeing also made parts of the Saturn V and Delta rockets .
Lockheed Martin are already designing and developing Orion .
I think a few private companies are reasonably experienced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The space shuttle orbiter is made by Rockwell and Boeing.
The external tank is made by Lockheed.
Boeing also made parts of the Saturn V and Delta rockets.
Lockheed Martin are already designing and developing Orion.
I think a few private companies are reasonably experienced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1264174560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.</p></div></blockquote><p>For all of their "caution", the following two incidents happened and come immediately to mind:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Challenger\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org">The Challenger Disaster</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Columbia\_disaster" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Columbia\_disaster</a> [wikipedia.org]&gt;The Columbia Disaster</p><p>In the first, they launched in adverse conditions that aggravated a <em> <b>design flaw</b> </em> in the solid fuel booster's design that caused the Challenger to blow up as it ascended into orbit.  The design flaw was approved by that "crazy-careful" NASA and the launch was approved by the same, over concerns about the design and the conditions by the subcontractor for the engines.  If you saw the high-level design drawings for the sealing system they chose to use in the Space Shuttle booster (the most powerful solid fuel booster developed to date at that time...) when compared against the design they chose to use with the Titan II boosters they added to the Gemini program rockets, you'd see that they cheapened the design in the Shuttle booster- with a vastly more powerful booster.  Couple that with conditions that would almost guarantee the failure we saw- and an insistence to launch when NASA knew there was a solid chance of this sort of failure- there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.</p><p>In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...).  The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue.  No checks of potential damage on the critical heat shield were done- not that they could have repaired the damage or easily got the crew back in one piece if they'd found out that they were in trouble there.  No major accounting for damaged heat shield sections or planning for a detected problem (in the form of another shuttle on a rescue mission...) had ever really been done.  Again, there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.</p><p>In the end, the only reason we've had the track record we have had with NASA in the Shuttle era of the agency has been that there've been few runs at things.  Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things.  They're not so careful these days- else the two incidents wouldn't have transpired the way they did.  In the first, they'd have scrubbed the mission for another day, which would have prevented the disaster altogether.  In the second, had it happened with the people's attitudes during the Apollo 13 timeframe, they would've done a once-over of the shuttle visually either with monitoring gear or via EVA to ensure the integrity of the shuttle.  They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same.  NASA's gotten to where they're probably only slightly better than the commercial interests in safety because they're well under budget (which is why they're trying desperately to keep it all in-house if possible; they can justify what they've got right now- if they outsource, the budget shrinks on them even further...) and they're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be.  That's not to say they don't have good people and some of the best and brightest- but to characterize them as being vastly better on safety than the commercial interests because they're not going to cut corners, etc. is wrong and mistaken at best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things , and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner , yes it 'll save a bundle , and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.For all of their " caution " , the following two incidents happened and come immediately to mind : The Challenger Disaster [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space \ _Shuttle \ _Columbia \ _disaster [ wikipedia.org ] &gt; The Columbia DisasterIn the first , they launched in adverse conditions that aggravated a design flaw in the solid fuel booster 's design that caused the Challenger to blow up as it ascended into orbit .
The design flaw was approved by that " crazy-careful " NASA and the launch was approved by the same , over concerns about the design and the conditions by the subcontractor for the engines .
If you saw the high-level design drawings for the sealing system they chose to use in the Space Shuttle booster ( the most powerful solid fuel booster developed to date at that time... ) when compared against the design they chose to use with the Titan II boosters they added to the Gemini program rockets , you 'd see that they cheapened the design in the Shuttle booster- with a vastly more powerful booster .
Couple that with conditions that would almost guarantee the failure we saw- and an insistence to launch when NASA knew there was a solid chance of this sort of failure- there 's nothing " crazy-careful " in that mix.In the second , they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs ( good thing... ) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle ( bad thing... ) .
The testing applied to the new insulation foam was n't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was , which led to the eventual issue .
No checks of potential damage on the critical heat shield were done- not that they could have repaired the damage or easily got the crew back in one piece if they 'd found out that they were in trouble there .
No major accounting for damaged heat shield sections or planning for a detected problem ( in the form of another shuttle on a rescue mission... ) had ever really been done .
Again , there 's nothing " crazy-careful " in that mix.In the end , the only reason we 've had the track record we have had with NASA in the Shuttle era of the agency has been that there 've been few runs at things .
Yes , in the past , NASA was crazy-careful , but that was more around the Apollo era of things .
They 're not so careful these days- else the two incidents would n't have transpired the way they did .
In the first , they 'd have scrubbed the mission for another day , which would have prevented the disaster altogether .
In the second , had it happened with the people 's attitudes during the Apollo 13 timeframe , they would 've done a once-over of the shuttle visually either with monitoring gear or via EVA to ensure the integrity of the shuttle .
They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they could n't repair the same .
NASA 's gotten to where they 're probably only slightly better than the commercial interests in safety because they 're well under budget ( which is why they 're trying desperately to keep it all in-house if possible ; they can justify what they 've got right now- if they outsource , the budget shrinks on them even further... ) and they 're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be .
That 's not to say they do n't have good people and some of the best and brightest- but to characterize them as being vastly better on safety than the commercial interests because they 're not going to cut corners , etc .
is wrong and mistaken at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.For all of their "caution", the following two incidents happened and come immediately to mind:The Challenger Disaster [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Columbia\_disaster [wikipedia.org]&gt;The Columbia DisasterIn the first, they launched in adverse conditions that aggravated a  design flaw  in the solid fuel booster's design that caused the Challenger to blow up as it ascended into orbit.
The design flaw was approved by that "crazy-careful" NASA and the launch was approved by the same, over concerns about the design and the conditions by the subcontractor for the engines.
If you saw the high-level design drawings for the sealing system they chose to use in the Space Shuttle booster (the most powerful solid fuel booster developed to date at that time...) when compared against the design they chose to use with the Titan II boosters they added to the Gemini program rockets, you'd see that they cheapened the design in the Shuttle booster- with a vastly more powerful booster.
Couple that with conditions that would almost guarantee the failure we saw- and an insistence to launch when NASA knew there was a solid chance of this sort of failure- there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...).
The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue.
No checks of potential damage on the critical heat shield were done- not that they could have repaired the damage or easily got the crew back in one piece if they'd found out that they were in trouble there.
No major accounting for damaged heat shield sections or planning for a detected problem (in the form of another shuttle on a rescue mission...) had ever really been done.
Again, there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.In the end, the only reason we've had the track record we have had with NASA in the Shuttle era of the agency has been that there've been few runs at things.
Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things.
They're not so careful these days- else the two incidents wouldn't have transpired the way they did.
In the first, they'd have scrubbed the mission for another day, which would have prevented the disaster altogether.
In the second, had it happened with the people's attitudes during the Apollo 13 timeframe, they would've done a once-over of the shuttle visually either with monitoring gear or via EVA to ensure the integrity of the shuttle.
They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same.
NASA's gotten to where they're probably only slightly better than the commercial interests in safety because they're well under budget (which is why they're trying desperately to keep it all in-house if possible; they can justify what they've got right now- if they outsource, the budget shrinks on them even further...) and they're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be.
That's not to say they don't have good people and some of the best and brightest- but to characterize them as being vastly better on safety than the commercial interests because they're not going to cut corners, etc.
is wrong and mistaken at best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30900192</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then don't drive a car.  FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.</p></div><p>Except for GM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't drive a car .
FYI : They were made by for-profit companies.Except for GM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't drive a car.
FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.Except for GM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30864852</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1264162080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things.</p></div><p>
I'm sorry, but you should really read up on your NASA history again. "crazy" does indeed apply<br>
to a lot of things they did back then. "careful" - not so much.<br>
<br>
The first manned Apollo mission for example, Apollo 8, was done after a pretty much failed unmanned<br>
test flight of a Saturn V (Apollo 6) - and was only the third Saturn V launch ever.<br>
<br>
Now imagine a situation like that for the Shuttle successor, a launcher that relies heavily on previous<br>
experience - something the Apollo guys didn't have: First launch with dummy payload goes OK, second launch<br>
with the real thing fails miserably. Would you expect the third launch to be manned?<br>
<br>
Apollo-NASA was thorough, <i>very</i> professional, <i>highly</i> innovative, and concentrated on getting things done.<br>
The risks were known, and everyone involved accepted them as part of doing what they were doing. This included accepting<br>
"we might go <i>boom</i>", knowing that the engineers involved did the best they could to prevent known sources of <i>boom</i>, while<br>
still being unable to prevent unknown ones.<br>
<br>
Note that both Shuttle losses fall under the "known sources" category, something I believe would not have happened with<br>
Apollo-NASA - not because of them being more careful, but because of them being more competent:<br>
They actually listened to the engineers, and trusted their judgements, all the way down to the subcontractors.<br>
<br>
Today, even a remote possibility of <i>boom</i> is considered unacceptable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , in the past , NASA was crazy-careful , but that was more around the Apollo era of things .
I 'm sorry , but you should really read up on your NASA history again .
" crazy " does indeed apply to a lot of things they did back then .
" careful " - not so much .
The first manned Apollo mission for example , Apollo 8 , was done after a pretty much failed unmanned test flight of a Saturn V ( Apollo 6 ) - and was only the third Saturn V launch ever .
Now imagine a situation like that for the Shuttle successor , a launcher that relies heavily on previous experience - something the Apollo guys did n't have : First launch with dummy payload goes OK , second launch with the real thing fails miserably .
Would you expect the third launch to be manned ?
Apollo-NASA was thorough , very professional , highly innovative , and concentrated on getting things done .
The risks were known , and everyone involved accepted them as part of doing what they were doing .
This included accepting " we might go boom " , knowing that the engineers involved did the best they could to prevent known sources of boom , while still being unable to prevent unknown ones .
Note that both Shuttle losses fall under the " known sources " category , something I believe would not have happened with Apollo-NASA - not because of them being more careful , but because of them being more competent : They actually listened to the engineers , and trusted their judgements , all the way down to the subcontractors .
Today , even a remote possibility of boom is considered unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things.
I'm sorry, but you should really read up on your NASA history again.
"crazy" does indeed apply
to a lot of things they did back then.
"careful" - not so much.
The first manned Apollo mission for example, Apollo 8, was done after a pretty much failed unmanned
test flight of a Saturn V (Apollo 6) - and was only the third Saturn V launch ever.
Now imagine a situation like that for the Shuttle successor, a launcher that relies heavily on previous
experience - something the Apollo guys didn't have: First launch with dummy payload goes OK, second launch
with the real thing fails miserably.
Would you expect the third launch to be manned?
Apollo-NASA was thorough, very professional, highly innovative, and concentrated on getting things done.
The risks were known, and everyone involved accepted them as part of doing what they were doing.
This included accepting
"we might go boom", knowing that the engineers involved did the best they could to prevent known sources of boom, while
still being unable to prevent unknown ones.
Note that both Shuttle losses fall under the "known sources" category, something I believe would not have happened with
Apollo-NASA - not because of them being more careful, but because of them being more competent:
They actually listened to the engineers, and trusted their judgements, all the way down to the subcontractors.
Today, even a remote possibility of boom is considered unacceptable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859784</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1264177680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things

Like when the Challenger blew up?  They are only crazy-careful about keeping things in house.<br> <br>
Boeing and Lockhead have been building extreme high altitude (near outer space) aircraft for decades.  Their safety records are about as good (or better) than NASA's.  These people at these companies know what they are doing.<br> <br>

Also if NASA was so crazy-careful they wouldn't be trusting to send astronauts on Russian built rockets.  Their safety record is no better than NASA but they are, in all practical purposes, a private space transport organization.<br> <br>

As for Dick Rutan's efforts, they are beyond awesome but only daredevils may apply at this point.  He is stuck trying to push the technology beyond the limits and keep thing safe. One of these days things are going to go horribly wrong in one of his in spite of doing everything "right".  It is a high price his team is willing to pay.  In that case I can understand NASA having hissy fits over a private space transport system like that.  I would!<br> <br>
--<br>
I am a redunant contractor working for the Redunancy section of the Redundancy Division of the Department of Redundancy Department...Redundancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things Like when the Challenger blew up ?
They are only crazy-careful about keeping things in house .
Boeing and Lockhead have been building extreme high altitude ( near outer space ) aircraft for decades .
Their safety records are about as good ( or better ) than NASA 's .
These people at these companies know what they are doing .
Also if NASA was so crazy-careful they would n't be trusting to send astronauts on Russian built rockets .
Their safety record is no better than NASA but they are , in all practical purposes , a private space transport organization .
As for Dick Rutan 's efforts , they are beyond awesome but only daredevils may apply at this point .
He is stuck trying to push the technology beyond the limits and keep thing safe .
One of these days things are going to go horribly wrong in one of his in spite of doing everything " right " .
It is a high price his team is willing to pay .
In that case I can understand NASA having hissy fits over a private space transport system like that .
I would !
-- I am a redunant contractor working for the Redunancy section of the Redundancy Division of the Department of Redundancy Department...Redundancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things

Like when the Challenger blew up?
They are only crazy-careful about keeping things in house.
Boeing and Lockhead have been building extreme high altitude (near outer space) aircraft for decades.
Their safety records are about as good (or better) than NASA's.
These people at these companies know what they are doing.
Also if NASA was so crazy-careful they wouldn't be trusting to send astronauts on Russian built rockets.
Their safety record is no better than NASA but they are, in all practical purposes, a private space transport organization.
As for Dick Rutan's efforts, they are beyond awesome but only daredevils may apply at this point.
He is stuck trying to push the technology beyond the limits and keep thing safe.
One of these days things are going to go horribly wrong in one of his in spite of doing everything "right".
It is a high price his team is willing to pay.
In that case I can understand NASA having hissy fits over a private space transport system like that.
I would!
--
I am a redunant contractor working for the Redunancy section of the Redundancy Division of the Department of Redundancy Department...Redundancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860592</id>
	<title>The New Kids Fire Back</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1264181460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full article: <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30060" title="spaceref.com">http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30060</a> [spaceref.com]</p><p>Among points I picked up on myself, they point out that since there are no existing standards for them to follow for building human rated craft, they claim that none of them have experience doing so is non sequitor. They politely don't point out that the sole existing man rated spacecraft has had two fatal failures, though they'd also have to admit it's experimental, not commercial, even though built by human rated aircraft corporations.</p><p>Even more politely, when ASAP makes the statement that the commercial start ups hoping to carry people are making unsubstantiated claims, they do reply that since they haven't built the hardware yet to test it, and only have stated intentions, it's hardly a valid criticism but don't resort to the sorely needed "DUH!".</p><p>ASAP has done a creditable job when it came to criticizing their own work. That is, the BigAero members cooperated fully when investigating problems. But as far as dealing a blow to commercial startups, TFA is so full of FUD that NASA can only take it and leave it or risk being seen being led around by the corporate welfare milk teat.</p><p>FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and more recently Commerce's Office of Space Commercialization, have been plowing full speed ahead to clear the way for the new guys just as much as the big ones. When multibillion dollar corporations get scared enough to "warn" NASA, things are probably going to get interesting. I thought they were interesting enough the year Rutan won the X-prize, because half the licenses for commercial launches issued that year by FAA/AST had his name on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full article : http : //www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html ? pid = 30060 [ spaceref.com ] Among points I picked up on myself , they point out that since there are no existing standards for them to follow for building human rated craft , they claim that none of them have experience doing so is non sequitor .
They politely do n't point out that the sole existing man rated spacecraft has had two fatal failures , though they 'd also have to admit it 's experimental , not commercial , even though built by human rated aircraft corporations.Even more politely , when ASAP makes the statement that the commercial start ups hoping to carry people are making unsubstantiated claims , they do reply that since they have n't built the hardware yet to test it , and only have stated intentions , it 's hardly a valid criticism but do n't resort to the sorely needed " DUH !
" .ASAP has done a creditable job when it came to criticizing their own work .
That is , the BigAero members cooperated fully when investigating problems .
But as far as dealing a blow to commercial startups , TFA is so full of FUD that NASA can only take it and leave it or risk being seen being led around by the corporate welfare milk teat.FAA 's Office of Commercial Space Transportation , and more recently Commerce 's Office of Space Commercialization , have been plowing full speed ahead to clear the way for the new guys just as much as the big ones .
When multibillion dollar corporations get scared enough to " warn " NASA , things are probably going to get interesting .
I thought they were interesting enough the year Rutan won the X-prize , because half the licenses for commercial launches issued that year by FAA/AST had his name on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full article: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30060 [spaceref.com]Among points I picked up on myself, they point out that since there are no existing standards for them to follow for building human rated craft, they claim that none of them have experience doing so is non sequitor.
They politely don't point out that the sole existing man rated spacecraft has had two fatal failures, though they'd also have to admit it's experimental, not commercial, even though built by human rated aircraft corporations.Even more politely, when ASAP makes the statement that the commercial start ups hoping to carry people are making unsubstantiated claims, they do reply that since they haven't built the hardware yet to test it, and only have stated intentions, it's hardly a valid criticism but don't resort to the sorely needed "DUH!
".ASAP has done a creditable job when it came to criticizing their own work.
That is, the BigAero members cooperated fully when investigating problems.
But as far as dealing a blow to commercial startups, TFA is so full of FUD that NASA can only take it and leave it or risk being seen being led around by the corporate welfare milk teat.FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and more recently Commerce's Office of Space Commercialization, have been plowing full speed ahead to clear the way for the new guys just as much as the big ones.
When multibillion dollar corporations get scared enough to "warn" NASA, things are probably going to get interesting.
I thought they were interesting enough the year Rutan won the X-prize, because half the licenses for commercial launches issued that year by FAA/AST had his name on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859838</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1264177980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem that would be solved by paying other countries to fly missions is that we overvalue astronauts to the point where protecting them has made \_using\_ them prohibitive.</p><p>We cheerfully drive cars that kill tens of thousands in the US every year, and accept lots of other deathy/woundy/cripply outcomes as the cost of doing business. We can do that with astronauts if we get NASA and government out of manned launches thus ending public expectations of perfection.</p><p>All pre-astronaut models of Terran exploration understood that people are cheap and wrote off lots of them. The bravery of those who succeeded met with public praise, a reasonable reward for the right sort of fellow. We forget the legacy test pilots, but those guys knew the risk, thrived when challenged, and accomplished great things. Get manned missions out of NASA, use NASA for science instead of tourism, and learn about the universe instead of wasting limited resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem that would be solved by paying other countries to fly missions is that we overvalue astronauts to the point where protecting them has made \ _using \ _ them prohibitive.We cheerfully drive cars that kill tens of thousands in the US every year , and accept lots of other deathy/woundy/cripply outcomes as the cost of doing business .
We can do that with astronauts if we get NASA and government out of manned launches thus ending public expectations of perfection.All pre-astronaut models of Terran exploration understood that people are cheap and wrote off lots of them .
The bravery of those who succeeded met with public praise , a reasonable reward for the right sort of fellow .
We forget the legacy test pilots , but those guys knew the risk , thrived when challenged , and accomplished great things .
Get manned missions out of NASA , use NASA for science instead of tourism , and learn about the universe instead of wasting limited resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem that would be solved by paying other countries to fly missions is that we overvalue astronauts to the point where protecting them has made \_using\_ them prohibitive.We cheerfully drive cars that kill tens of thousands in the US every year, and accept lots of other deathy/woundy/cripply outcomes as the cost of doing business.
We can do that with astronauts if we get NASA and government out of manned launches thus ending public expectations of perfection.All pre-astronaut models of Terran exploration understood that people are cheap and wrote off lots of them.
The bravery of those who succeeded met with public praise, a reasonable reward for the right sort of fellow.
We forget the legacy test pilots, but those guys knew the risk, thrived when challenged, and accomplished great things.
Get manned missions out of NASA, use NASA for science instead of tourism, and learn about the universe instead of wasting limited resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860264</id>
	<title>Elon Musk's Rebuttal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264179900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's also worth pointing out <a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/19safety/" title="spaceflightnow.com" rel="nofollow">Elon Musk's rebuttal</a> [spaceflightnow.com] to the findings of this NASA safety panel. I'm glad to see someone in the private spaceflight industry has the cajones to call BS when he sees it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's also worth pointing out Elon Musk 's rebuttal [ spaceflightnow.com ] to the findings of this NASA safety panel .
I 'm glad to see someone in the private spaceflight industry has the cajones to call BS when he sees it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's also worth pointing out Elon Musk's rebuttal [spaceflightnow.com] to the findings of this NASA safety panel.
I'm glad to see someone in the private spaceflight industry has the cajones to call BS when he sees it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861300</id>
	<title>Re:Two words to the federal panel...</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1264185000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shut up.</p><p>Deregulating space travel is the only way we're ever going to make a dent there, for the time being and with the current political climate.</p><p>Please, just shut up.  Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks.</p></div><p>There is nothing stopping a private consortium from funding out of private capital the development of it's own space flight system, then selling its launch services to the government or space tourists. In fact there a number of companies trying to do this right now, for small satellites mostly (and non-orbital thrill rides).</p><p>What is preventing LockMart or Boeing from coughing up the $5 to $10 billion required for a full-scale manned launch system? Nothing... except they want the government to contract in advance to use them exclusively for launch services in the future, or else they want the government to fund the "private deregulated" project. They do not want to invest and compete, they want a "pre-bailout", a no risk proposition from the beginning.</p><p>Private enterprise can be efficient if there is competition - multiple providers - and preferably also a marketplace of multiple customers. When there is one provider for an essential service needed by only one customer none of the supposed disciplines of the marketplace function and there is no pragmatic (that is, practical as opposed to ideological) reason for the government not to own its own launch system and many for it to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut up.Deregulating space travel is the only way we 're ever going to make a dent there , for the time being and with the current political climate.Please , just shut up .
Yes , a few are going to die going up , but they know the risks.There is nothing stopping a private consortium from funding out of private capital the development of it 's own space flight system , then selling its launch services to the government or space tourists .
In fact there a number of companies trying to do this right now , for small satellites mostly ( and non-orbital thrill rides ) .What is preventing LockMart or Boeing from coughing up the $ 5 to $ 10 billion required for a full-scale manned launch system ?
Nothing... except they want the government to contract in advance to use them exclusively for launch services in the future , or else they want the government to fund the " private deregulated " project .
They do not want to invest and compete , they want a " pre-bailout " , a no risk proposition from the beginning.Private enterprise can be efficient if there is competition - multiple providers - and preferably also a marketplace of multiple customers .
When there is one provider for an essential service needed by only one customer none of the supposed disciplines of the marketplace function and there is no pragmatic ( that is , practical as opposed to ideological ) reason for the government not to own its own launch system and many for it to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut up.Deregulating space travel is the only way we're ever going to make a dent there, for the time being and with the current political climate.Please, just shut up.
Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks.There is nothing stopping a private consortium from funding out of private capital the development of it's own space flight system, then selling its launch services to the government or space tourists.
In fact there a number of companies trying to do this right now, for small satellites mostly (and non-orbital thrill rides).What is preventing LockMart or Boeing from coughing up the $5 to $10 billion required for a full-scale manned launch system?
Nothing... except they want the government to contract in advance to use them exclusively for launch services in the future, or else they want the government to fund the "private deregulated" project.
They do not want to invest and compete, they want a "pre-bailout", a no risk proposition from the beginning.Private enterprise can be efficient if there is competition - multiple providers - and preferably also a marketplace of multiple customers.
When there is one provider for an essential service needed by only one customer none of the supposed disciplines of the marketplace function and there is no pragmatic (that is, practical as opposed to ideological) reason for the government not to own its own launch system and many for it to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30948112</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then don't drive a car.  FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.</p></div><p>My car was made by GM, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't drive a car .
FYI : They were made by for-profit companies.My car was made by GM , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't drive a car.
FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.My car was made by GM, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859014</id>
	<title>"Probably not cost effective"</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1264173600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures, and said that switching to private alternatives now would be "unwise and probably not cost-effective.</i>

</p><p>Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures , and said that switching to private alternatives now would be " unwise and probably not cost-effective .
Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures, and said that switching to private alternatives now would be "unwise and probably not cost-effective.
Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859110</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264174260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Little experience?</p><p>Apollo CM/SM: North American Aviation, now part of Boeing.<br>Space Shuttle Orbiter: See above.<br>LEM: Grumman Aircraft Engineering, ackquired by Northrop to form Northrop Grumman.</p><p>Who do you think built the crafts that were used so far? NASA itself? Consider: They worked, mostly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Little experience ? Apollo CM/SM : North American Aviation , now part of Boeing.Space Shuttle Orbiter : See above.LEM : Grumman Aircraft Engineering , ackquired by Northrop to form Northrop Grumman.Who do you think built the crafts that were used so far ?
NASA itself ?
Consider : They worked , mostly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little experience?Apollo CM/SM: North American Aviation, now part of Boeing.Space Shuttle Orbiter: See above.LEM: Grumman Aircraft Engineering, ackquired by Northrop to form Northrop Grumman.Who do you think built the crafts that were used so far?
NASA itself?
Consider: They worked, mostly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862226</id>
	<title>Reasonable</title>
	<author>Xinvoker</author>
	<datestamp>1264190700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that there isn't a single commercial company that has demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit, i think it's reasonable to be cautious. The Dragon capsule (The one that goes on top of the Falcon 9, SpaceX) is designed so that it can be modified to carry humans. But not even the rocket itself has been launched yet. If they successfully complete all their COTS resupply missions to the ISS, then they can be considered an option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that there is n't a single commercial company that has demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit , i think it 's reasonable to be cautious .
The Dragon capsule ( The one that goes on top of the Falcon 9 , SpaceX ) is designed so that it can be modified to carry humans .
But not even the rocket itself has been launched yet .
If they successfully complete all their COTS resupply missions to the ISS , then they can be considered an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that there isn't a single commercial company that has demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit, i think it's reasonable to be cautious.
The Dragon capsule (The one that goes on top of the Falcon 9, SpaceX) is designed so that it can be modified to carry humans.
But not even the rocket itself has been launched yet.
If they successfully complete all their COTS resupply missions to the ISS, then they can be considered an option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859050</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1264173840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(because airplanes drop left and right because boeing wanted to save costs on wind materials<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not)</p><p>Faced with how much dead astronauts would cost em, they would definitelly not cut every possible corner.</p><p>One thing is saving few bucks by using X instead of Y, another having crash-reputation and having to pay-off families of deceased and/or cost of cargo.</p><p>Anyhow, being you, I would really reconsider "All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible" statement anyway. They most certainly are not spending those money on that, that is given by fact that is is goverment agency responsible for quite nice funds, funds that friends of people who are in charge of them could do with even if they offer slightly wrose product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( because airplanes drop left and right because boeing wanted to save costs on wind materials ... not ) Faced with how much dead astronauts would cost em , they would definitelly not cut every possible corner.One thing is saving few bucks by using X instead of Y , another having crash-reputation and having to pay-off families of deceased and/or cost of cargo.Anyhow , being you , I would really reconsider " All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible " statement anyway .
They most certainly are not spending those money on that , that is given by fact that is is goverment agency responsible for quite nice funds , funds that friends of people who are in charge of them could do with even if they offer slightly wrose product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(because airplanes drop left and right because boeing wanted to save costs on wind materials ... not)Faced with how much dead astronauts would cost em, they would definitelly not cut every possible corner.One thing is saving few bucks by using X instead of Y, another having crash-reputation and having to pay-off families of deceased and/or cost of cargo.Anyhow, being you, I would really reconsider "All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible" statement anyway.
They most certainly are not spending those money on that, that is given by fact that is is goverment agency responsible for quite nice funds, funds that friends of people who are in charge of them could do with even if they offer slightly wrose product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30949048</id>
	<title>Re:How is this a good idea?</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1264779180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but where does that stop? What if the program puts such a cheap value on the participating astronauts that they become as expendable as the impact probes we shot at the moon? What if Airmen stop signing up? What then? Conscription? Random short-stick lottery from qualifying candidates? As far as your other examples go, cars and so forth, a lot has to do with, yes, private sector interests that will pay just enough to reasonably limit their liability, and not a penny more, politics, and a general public that's been numbed to a point of indifference. Using certain things about our society that are pretty f***ed up as an example and justification to let our space program be f***ed up is just a bad can of worms to open. Allowing standards to slacken instead of being raised, that's not progress; that's the disgusting slob still at the bar some time in the A.M. drunkenly screaming, "WHADYA MEAN, LAST CALL?! BULL****!!!" I, for one, do not want us to be that guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but where does that stop ?
What if the program puts such a cheap value on the participating astronauts that they become as expendable as the impact probes we shot at the moon ?
What if Airmen stop signing up ?
What then ?
Conscription ? Random short-stick lottery from qualifying candidates ?
As far as your other examples go , cars and so forth , a lot has to do with , yes , private sector interests that will pay just enough to reasonably limit their liability , and not a penny more , politics , and a general public that 's been numbed to a point of indifference .
Using certain things about our society that are pretty f * * * ed up as an example and justification to let our space program be f * * * ed up is just a bad can of worms to open .
Allowing standards to slacken instead of being raised , that 's not progress ; that 's the disgusting slob still at the bar some time in the A.M. drunkenly screaming , " WHADYA MEAN , LAST CALL ? !
BULL * * * * ! ! ! " I , for one , do not want us to be that guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but where does that stop?
What if the program puts such a cheap value on the participating astronauts that they become as expendable as the impact probes we shot at the moon?
What if Airmen stop signing up?
What then?
Conscription? Random short-stick lottery from qualifying candidates?
As far as your other examples go, cars and so forth, a lot has to do with, yes, private sector interests that will pay just enough to reasonably limit their liability, and not a penny more, politics, and a general public that's been numbed to a point of indifference.
Using certain things about our society that are pretty f***ed up as an example and justification to let our space program be f***ed up is just a bad can of worms to open.
Allowing standards to slacken instead of being raised, that's not progress; that's the disgusting slob still at the bar some time in the A.M. drunkenly screaming, "WHADYA MEAN, LAST CALL?!
BULL****!!!" I, for one, do not want us to be that guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859422</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Absolutely. You first.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you kidding me?  I would <i>pay</i> to be first, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
You first.Are you kidding me ?
I would pay to be first , and I 'm sure I 'm not the only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
You first.Are you kidding me?
I would pay to be first, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30958548</id>
	<title>Re:NASA isn't good at listening</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1264778580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess you missed <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html" title="nasa.gov">this</a> [nasa.gov], retard. Charles Boldin only has a job, because he is sufficiently diverse, and he lets Obama put his hand up his ass to make his mouth work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess you missed this [ nasa.gov ] , retard .
Charles Boldin only has a job , because he is sufficiently diverse , and he lets Obama put his hand up his ass to make his mouth work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess you missed this [nasa.gov], retard.
Charles Boldin only has a job, because he is sufficiently diverse, and he lets Obama put his hand up his ass to make his mouth work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859362</id>
	<title>The same Boeing that 'built' the border fence??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264175580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boeing also said that they could build a virtual fence on the Mexican border in 3 years and for $1Billion.  5+ years later, the $1 Billion is gone, the virtual fence covers 26 miles, and it doesn't work!  Defense contractors need to be held to higher standards, and not granted any cost-plus contracts,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boeing also said that they could build a virtual fence on the Mexican border in 3 years and for $ 1Billion .
5 + years later , the $ 1 Billion is gone , the virtual fence covers 26 miles , and it does n't work !
Defense contractors need to be held to higher standards , and not granted any cost-plus contracts,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boeing also said that they could build a virtual fence on the Mexican border in 3 years and for $1Billion.
5+ years later, the $1 Billion is gone, the virtual fence covers 26 miles, and it doesn't work!
Defense contractors need to be held to higher standards, and not granted any cost-plus contracts,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859390</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>GiveBenADollar</author>
	<datestamp>1264175820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, NASA never cuts corners. They pay top dollar for their o-rings and take every risk seriously including silly things like supersonic foam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , NASA never cuts corners .
They pay top dollar for their o-rings and take every risk seriously including silly things like supersonic foam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, NASA never cuts corners.
They pay top dollar for their o-rings and take every risk seriously including silly things like supersonic foam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859168</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>aliddell</author>
	<datestamp>1264174500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>being known as a company that lets its passengers die is not likely to result in a whole lot of profits. Hell, I know this and I've never run a business in my life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>being known as a company that lets its passengers die is not likely to result in a whole lot of profits .
Hell , I know this and I 've never run a business in my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>being known as a company that lets its passengers die is not likely to result in a whole lot of profits.
Hell, I know this and I've never run a business in my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859408</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1264175880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the other country we are relying is Russia.  They have the same experience as NASA.
<br> <br>
This *IS* ROCKET SCIENCE.  We should not be taking chances with private companies that will transport people at a "competitive cost."
<br> <br>
They can't get plans to fly on-time, why do you think they can handle space travel!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the other country we are relying is Russia .
They have the same experience as NASA .
This * IS * ROCKET SCIENCE .
We should not be taking chances with private companies that will transport people at a " competitive cost .
" They ca n't get plans to fly on-time , why do you think they can handle space travel !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the other country we are relying is Russia.
They have the same experience as NASA.
This *IS* ROCKET SCIENCE.
We should not be taking chances with private companies that will transport people at a "competitive cost.
"
 
They can't get plans to fly on-time, why do you think they can handle space travel!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861144</id>
	<title>The government is cost effective?</title>
	<author>ZWarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264184160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read most of the replies thus far and they are all talking about the experience level, safety record, and knowledge pool existing at NASA.</p><p>Did nobody catch the irony of a FEDERAL panel claiming that switching to private alternatives would be "...unwise and probably not cost-effective."  Since when is the federal government cost effective?  They spend our money like they can always print more.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Ok, they do print the money, but my point is that a federal panel claiming that the government would be more cost effective than private business is like the con man claiming he can save you money, neither is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read most of the replies thus far and they are all talking about the experience level , safety record , and knowledge pool existing at NASA.Did nobody catch the irony of a FEDERAL panel claiming that switching to private alternatives would be " ...unwise and probably not cost-effective .
" Since when is the federal government cost effective ?
They spend our money like they can always print more .
    Ok , they do print the money , but my point is that a federal panel claiming that the government would be more cost effective than private business is like the con man claiming he can save you money , neither is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read most of the replies thus far and they are all talking about the experience level, safety record, and knowledge pool existing at NASA.Did nobody catch the irony of a FEDERAL panel claiming that switching to private alternatives would be "...unwise and probably not cost-effective.
"  Since when is the federal government cost effective?
They spend our money like they can always print more.
    Ok, they do print the money, but my point is that a federal panel claiming that the government would be more cost effective than private business is like the con man claiming he can save you money, neither is true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859706</id>
	<title>The Article Mischaracterizes The Report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'd like to see NASA abandon Ares for private vehicles, the report isn't quite the blow to private space efforts the article suggests. The report doesn't say that NASA shouldn't use private space vehicles to transport astronauts; it says that private space vehicles aren't at the point where their safety for transport of astronauts can even be determined. And until such a determination can be made, the report concludes, it would be unwise to abandon NASA's Ares vehicle. Here's the key paragraph:</p><p>"To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective. The ability of any current COTS design to &ldquo;close the gap&rdquo; or even provide an equivalent degree of safety is speculative. Switching from a demonstrated (design approach proven by Apollo, use of heritage hardware, and Ares 1-X flight success), well designed, safety optimized (ESAS) system to one based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice. Before any change is made to another architecture, the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure that it offers a level of safety equal to or greater than the program of record."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'd like to see NASA abandon Ares for private vehicles , the report is n't quite the blow to private space efforts the article suggests .
The report does n't say that NASA should n't use private space vehicles to transport astronauts ; it says that private space vehicles are n't at the point where their safety for transport of astronauts can even be determined .
And until such a determination can be made , the report concludes , it would be unwise to abandon NASA 's Ares vehicle .
Here 's the key paragraph : " To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority ( or even equivalence ) is unwise and probably not cost-effective .
The ability of any current COTS design to    close the gap    or even provide an equivalent degree of safety is speculative .
Switching from a demonstrated ( design approach proven by Apollo , use of heritage hardware , and Ares 1-X flight success ) , well designed , safety optimized ( ESAS ) system to one based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice .
Before any change is made to another architecture , the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure that it offers a level of safety equal to or greater than the program of record .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'd like to see NASA abandon Ares for private vehicles, the report isn't quite the blow to private space efforts the article suggests.
The report doesn't say that NASA shouldn't use private space vehicles to transport astronauts; it says that private space vehicles aren't at the point where their safety for transport of astronauts can even be determined.
And until such a determination can be made, the report concludes, it would be unwise to abandon NASA's Ares vehicle.
Here's the key paragraph:"To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective.
The ability of any current COTS design to “close the gap” or even provide an equivalent degree of safety is speculative.
Switching from a demonstrated (design approach proven by Apollo, use of heritage hardware, and Ares 1-X flight success), well designed, safety optimized (ESAS) system to one based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice.
Before any change is made to another architecture, the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure that it offers a level of safety equal to or greater than the program of record.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860530</id>
	<title>Federal what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264181160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just ridiculous.  If the government is going to make suggestions - then they should be putting up the money so that NASA doesn't HAVE to use private companies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::sigh:: don't say anything if you don't have anything productive to say.</p><p>Just another classic example of their take on something without being able to deliver.  Time and time again we are disappointed with the choices and decisions they make.  If it was up to anyone - I think there would be a more proactive space program.  We all know inevitability leads us to live in space.  Which although is difficult is not something we should be afraid of in the slightest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just ridiculous .
If the government is going to make suggestions - then they should be putting up the money so that NASA does n't HAVE to use private companies .
: : sigh : : do n't say anything if you do n't have anything productive to say.Just another classic example of their take on something without being able to deliver .
Time and time again we are disappointed with the choices and decisions they make .
If it was up to anyone - I think there would be a more proactive space program .
We all know inevitability leads us to live in space .
Which although is difficult is not something we should be afraid of in the slightest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just ridiculous.
If the government is going to make suggestions - then they should be putting up the money so that NASA doesn't HAVE to use private companies.
::sigh:: don't say anything if you don't have anything productive to say.Just another classic example of their take on something without being able to deliver.
Time and time again we are disappointed with the choices and decisions they make.
If it was up to anyone - I think there would be a more proactive space program.
We all know inevitability leads us to live in space.
Which although is difficult is not something we should be afraid of in the slightest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858966</id>
	<title>Panel is blinkered...</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1264173360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.</p></div><p>That's true enough. Why let private companies blow your astronauts up when you can get the government to do it for you for many times the cost?</p><p>NASA: the best astronaut-killing rockets that money can buy!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>private space companies rely on " unsubstantiated claims " and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.That 's true enough .
Why let private companies blow your astronauts up when you can get the government to do it for you for many times the cost ? NASA : the best astronaut-killing rockets that money can buy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.That's true enough.
Why let private companies blow your astronauts up when you can get the government to do it for you for many times the cost?NASA: the best astronaut-killing rockets that money can buy!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861504</id>
	<title>Just don't land on my house....</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264186080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks</i></p><p>The issue with space flight is all the times the people crash on the houses, then it will be, "private space company is too big to fail", and they get handouts.  In fact, I don't even know if I want the rocket noise.  We don't really have free enterprise now.  Free enterprise requires accountable corporations serving the national interest, and all we have is a bunch of investors trying to cash in without doing anything.</p><p>If somebody wants to build a spaceship, go ahead, with your money, but if you try to it over my house, I'm shooting it down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , a few are going to die going up , but they know the risksThe issue with space flight is all the times the people crash on the houses , then it will be , " private space company is too big to fail " , and they get handouts .
In fact , I do n't even know if I want the rocket noise .
We do n't really have free enterprise now .
Free enterprise requires accountable corporations serving the national interest , and all we have is a bunch of investors trying to cash in without doing anything.If somebody wants to build a spaceship , go ahead , with your money , but if you try to it over my house , I 'm shooting it down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risksThe issue with space flight is all the times the people crash on the houses, then it will be, "private space company is too big to fail", and they get handouts.
In fact, I don't even know if I want the rocket noise.
We don't really have free enterprise now.
Free enterprise requires accountable corporations serving the national interest, and all we have is a bunch of investors trying to cash in without doing anything.If somebody wants to build a spaceship, go ahead, with your money, but if you try to it over my house, I'm shooting it down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860796</id>
	<title>Re:How is it different</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264182660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the main complaint is that it means less budget, and less employees for NASA. Personally, as a tax payer, I see that as a good thing... but then again I don't get a paycheck from NASA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main complaint is that it means less budget , and less employees for NASA .
Personally , as a tax payer , I see that as a good thing... but then again I do n't get a paycheck from NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main complaint is that it means less budget, and less employees for NASA.
Personally, as a tax payer, I see that as a good thing... but then again I don't get a paycheck from NASA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859282</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264175160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the way it works.  NASA specifies operational requirements.  Engineers (many of whom may be NASA support contractors, not government employees) then translate those into technical requirements that are used as the basis for a competitive procurement.  The winning bidder is responsible for the hard engineering, manufacturing, integration and initial testing.  NASA from that point on acts, as has been mentioned here, as a program manager making sure that things like cost, schedule and performance risks are minimized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the way it works .
NASA specifies operational requirements .
Engineers ( many of whom may be NASA support contractors , not government employees ) then translate those into technical requirements that are used as the basis for a competitive procurement .
The winning bidder is responsible for the hard engineering , manufacturing , integration and initial testing .
NASA from that point on acts , as has been mentioned here , as a program manager making sure that things like cost , schedule and performance risks are minimized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the way it works.
NASA specifies operational requirements.
Engineers (many of whom may be NASA support contractors, not government employees) then translate those into technical requirements that are used as the basis for a competitive procurement.
The winning bidder is responsible for the hard engineering, manufacturing, integration and initial testing.
NASA from that point on acts, as has been mentioned here, as a program manager making sure that things like cost, schedule and performance risks are minimized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858826</id>
	<title>NASA isn't good at listening</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264172700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just trying readying Feynman 's experience with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859230</id>
	<title>Re:NASA isn't good at listening</title>
	<author>McGregorMortis</author>
	<datestamp>1264174920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those O-rings had a safety factor of three !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860016</id>
	<title>Re:Panel is blinkered...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264178820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>-1: Troll</htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 : Troll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1: Troll</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859812</id>
	<title>Re:The profit motive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is more true than you know. We went to the moon in 'outsourced' vehicles. Boeing, Rockwell, North American Aviation, Chrysler, Xerox, McDonnell Douglas, MIT (not a company, but still not NASA...) etc... NASA had a hand in the design and management, but it was up to each of these companies to deliver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more true than you know .
We went to the moon in 'outsourced ' vehicles .
Boeing , Rockwell , North American Aviation , Chrysler , Xerox , McDonnell Douglas , MIT ( not a company , but still not NASA... ) etc... NASA had a hand in the design and management , but it was up to each of these companies to deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more true than you know.
We went to the moon in 'outsourced' vehicles.
Boeing, Rockwell, North American Aviation, Chrysler, Xerox, McDonnell Douglas, MIT (not a company, but still not NASA...) etc... NASA had a hand in the design and management, but it was up to each of these companies to deliver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859420</id>
	<title>Hatch Act</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1264175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is yet more evidence that the <a href="http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm" title="osc.gov">Hatch Act</a> [osc.gov] should be extended to cover government contractors like Lockheed and Boeing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is yet more evidence that the Hatch Act [ osc.gov ] should be extended to cover government contractors like Lockheed and Boeing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is yet more evidence that the Hatch Act [osc.gov] should be extended to cover government contractors like Lockheed and Boeing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859374</id>
	<title>Re:probably a bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264175760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Considering how crazy-political NASA can be with things (Challenger launched in cold temperatures, against the advice of the engineers, so that there could be a "Teacher in Space" for the State of the Union address...), and someone's already pointed out that it was a "green" initiative that changed the coating on the external tank, and how any private company is going to realize that loss of a crew and vehicle means bankruptcy and unemployment for everyone from the CEO to the janitor, maybe the private company has a pretty solid incentive to do a better job.
</p><blockquote><div><p>All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really *is* rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.</p></div></blockquote><p>
But it's not about how much money you spend, it's about how wisely  you spend it.
</p><p>
Civilian jetliners are pretty damn safe, clean, and efficient these days.  That's because private companies, in competition with each other for market share, have learned what corners can be safely cut.  NASA (and while we're on it, the Pentagon) has no such incentive - its real customer is Congress, and Congress doesn't care if it's safe, or even if it flies at all, so long as each Congressional district gets at least one contract for a nut, bolt, or wire.
</p><p>
This is about Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and the other defense contractors keeping a stranglehold on Congressional dollars.  If some young upstart proves he can safely put a man in orbit for $100M, and a satellite in orbit for $10M, Congress might change its mind about $500M shuttle launches and $100M satellite launches.  If you're a defense contractor, that's bad for business - less pork thrown your way.  If you're a Congressman, that's also bad for business - less pork to throw around.  Defense contractors have bigger lobbying budgets than upstart private space companies, and this panel's warning is the entirely predictable result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things , and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner , yes it 'll save a bundle , and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process .
Considering how crazy-political NASA can be with things ( Challenger launched in cold temperatures , against the advice of the engineers , so that there could be a " Teacher in Space " for the State of the Union address... ) , and someone 's already pointed out that it was a " green " initiative that changed the coating on the external tank , and how any private company is going to realize that loss of a crew and vehicle means bankruptcy and unemployment for everyone from the CEO to the janitor , maybe the private company has a pretty solid incentive to do a better job .
All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible .
Rocket science really * is * rocket science .
If you 're not spending that money , you have to expect your safety to go to hell .
But it 's not about how much money you spend , it 's about how wisely you spend it .
Civilian jetliners are pretty damn safe , clean , and efficient these days .
That 's because private companies , in competition with each other for market share , have learned what corners can be safely cut .
NASA ( and while we 're on it , the Pentagon ) has no such incentive - its real customer is Congress , and Congress does n't care if it 's safe , or even if it flies at all , so long as each Congressional district gets at least one contract for a nut , bolt , or wire .
This is about Lockheed-Martin , Boeing , and the other defense contractors keeping a stranglehold on Congressional dollars .
If some young upstart proves he can safely put a man in orbit for $ 100M , and a satellite in orbit for $ 10M , Congress might change its mind about $ 500M shuttle launches and $ 100M satellite launches .
If you 're a defense contractor , that 's bad for business - less pork thrown your way .
If you 're a Congressman , that 's also bad for business - less pork to throw around .
Defense contractors have bigger lobbying budgets than upstart private space companies , and this panel 's warning is the entirely predictable result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.
Considering how crazy-political NASA can be with things (Challenger launched in cold temperatures, against the advice of the engineers, so that there could be a "Teacher in Space" for the State of the Union address...), and someone's already pointed out that it was a "green" initiative that changed the coating on the external tank, and how any private company is going to realize that loss of a crew and vehicle means bankruptcy and unemployment for everyone from the CEO to the janitor, maybe the private company has a pretty solid incentive to do a better job.
All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible.
Rocket science really *is* rocket science.
If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.
But it's not about how much money you spend, it's about how wisely  you spend it.
Civilian jetliners are pretty damn safe, clean, and efficient these days.
That's because private companies, in competition with each other for market share, have learned what corners can be safely cut.
NASA (and while we're on it, the Pentagon) has no such incentive - its real customer is Congress, and Congress doesn't care if it's safe, or even if it flies at all, so long as each Congressional district gets at least one contract for a nut, bolt, or wire.
This is about Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and the other defense contractors keeping a stranglehold on Congressional dollars.
If some young upstart proves he can safely put a man in orbit for $100M, and a satellite in orbit for $10M, Congress might change its mind about $500M shuttle launches and $100M satellite launches.
If you're a defense contractor, that's bad for business - less pork thrown your way.
If you're a Congressman, that's also bad for business - less pork to throw around.
Defense contractors have bigger lobbying budgets than upstart private space companies, and this panel's warning is the entirely predictable result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30872054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30948112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30864852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30949048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30951738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30949236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30883292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30958548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30866298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30951296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30900192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1319234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30883292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30949048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859048
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859282
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30864852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30951296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30872054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30900192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30948112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30949236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30866298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30951738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30862486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30860412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1319234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30858826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30861066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30958548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1319234.30859230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
